When truck drivers cause accidents in California, the trucking companies often aggressively defend against personal injury claims. They may dispute the liability of their drivers outright or try to argue the comparative negligence of the victims. The defense attorneys may go to great lengths in order to try to argue that the injuries that the victims suffered are not as severe as they claim, including searching through social media posts. In Takemura v. Pacific Tank Lines, San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVDS1516387, the trucking company tried to place all of the blame on the driver of the vehicle in which the plaintiff passenger was riding in an effort to avoid liability. Experienced truck accident lawyers in Los Angeles understand the types of tactics that trucking companies and insurance carriers use and may be able to more effectively counter them.
Factual background of the case
The plaintiff, Akiko Takemura, was a 28-year-old woman who was riding as a front-seat passenger in a Prius that was being driven by CJ Taso while the pair was traveling to Las Vegas. While they were traveling, the Prius ran out of gas. Taso attempted to pull the vehicle safely off the freeway when the car was struck from behind by a gas-tanker truck. Takemura suffered serious injuries, including fractured vertebrae in her back and neck. She was forced to remain in the hospital for two months after the accident.
Automatic gate accidents in Los Angeles can cause serious injuries or deaths. In these types of cases, there are several parties that might be liable. The property owners or lessors may be responsible if they negligently retain or repair the gates or if the knew or should have known about an existing defect and failed to repair it. If the automatic gate failed because of a defective part, the part’s manufacturer may be liable to pay damages. Finally, people who are injured in gate accidents may also share liability. In Park v. Oh, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC569323, the plaintiff and the property owner shared liability.
Most people have heard about the McDonald’s coffee case and might have misconceptions about it. The case, Liebeck v. McDonald’s, in which a 79-year-old woman ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee in a drive-through and then burned herself by spilling it garnered national attention. The case is still the subject of debate about whether or not the claim was frivolous. Many people view the case as the classic example of a frivolous lawsuit, but the facts show that it was not.
Employers may be liable for the negligence of their employees when their employees injure others during the course and scope of their employment. Employers hold vicarious liability for the negligent acts of their employees while they are acting in the course and scope of their jobs. In Jay H. et al. v. John Keith Bullard, Waterfront Enterprises, Inc., dba Newport Landing Restaurant and Oyster Bar, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2014-00718428-CU-PA-CJC, the limits of the employer’s vicarious liability were explored.
What are coup and contrecoup brain injuries? Head injuries can be some of the most devastating types of injuries that people might suffer in California. Traumatic events that injure the head may cause coup and contrecoup brain injuries. These types of injuries may cause lifelong disability or lead to death. If you or your loved one has suffered a coup or contrecoup brain injury because of the negligent or wrongful acts of other people or entities, you might want to seek help from an experienced brain injury lawyer in Los Angeles.
Workplace deaths from industrial accidents is on the Rise in the U.S. according to recent studies. Most Californians do not go to their jobs with the idea that they could be injured or killed at their workplaces. Unfortunately, many people suffer serious injuries or fatalities while they are working on the job each year. Recent data shows that the number of workplace fatalities across industry sectors sharply increased from 2015 to 2016. If you have lost your loved one in a workplace accident, it is important that you speak to an experienced Los Angeles personal injury attorney for help.
In California, property owners have a duty to warn patrons of unsafe conditions that exist on their properties. If there is a hazardous condition that exists that the property owners are aware of, they also must repair the condition so that visitors remain safe. In a recent case that was decided in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. SC112366, these duties that are owed were illustrated. People who have suffered serious injuries because of the negligence of property owners might want to talk to an experienced premises liability lawyer in Los Angeles.
Property owners and operators in California owe duties of care to protect people who are legally present on their properties from dangerous conditions. Property owners must either know about the existence of the hazardous condition or should know about it for liability to attach. They must take steps to correct hazards about which they know or should have known and to warn visitors to their property about their existence. In Lefebvre v. NC Valley Baseball, LLC, Stanislaus County Superior Court No. 2019247, the court considered the concepts of notice and of assumption of the risk in a case involving a man who was injured at a batting cage by a baseball.
A tragic case in San Bernardino County that involved a six-year-old girl who was struck by a car while crossing the street to catch her school bus demonstrates several things. Isabella Escamilla Sanchez, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Carina Sanchez v. County of San Bernardino, a public entity; City of Highland, a public entity; et al., San Bernardino Superior Court, case no. 1309504, shows that accepted practices are not necessarily safe. The case also demonstrates how notice can affect the outcome of litigation and the vicarious liability that employers have when their employees’ negligence result in injuries to others.