Personal Injury & Product Liability Blog

Hall v. Aurora Loan Services LLC (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1134, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 739

A real estate agent who fractured her leg when a stairway ladder broke while she was showing a house to prospective buyers, filed suit for personal injuries against the loan services company which owned the property, as well as the listing agents. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had been negligent in failing to disclose to visitors the concealed dangerous condition, because a licensed contractor who had inspected the house a few months earlier had written a report stating “remove and replace attic stair.”

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they had no notice or knowledge of a defect in the stairway, in that the report did not express any safety concerns about the stairway ladder.  The contractor himself had testified the ladder did not appear to be dangerous, and that if there had been a problem other than with its appearance he would have noted it in his report. The trial court granted summary judgment but the court of appeal reversed, holding that triable issues of fact remained as to whether the defendants should have known the ladder was a concealed danger: Read the rest »

Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2013)  216 Cal. App. 4th 875, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 124

The heirs of an 83-year old woman who died of blood poisoning several months after two amputation surgeries due to gangrene, filed a complaint for elder abuse against a medical group and physicians who had been caring for her on an outpatient basis for several years prior to her hospitalization. The plaintiffs alleged that the decedent had suffered from impaired vascular flow which the defendants had charted but ignored for years, and that they should have referred her to a specialist in vascular care.

The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to provide facts showing that care had been rendered in a reckless sense as is required under the Elder Abuse Act. However, the court of appeal reversed, finding the question of recklessness was for a jury to decide, and rejecting the defendants’ contention that outpatient care does not fall within the scope of the Act: Read the rest »

By Janine Sperandeo | July 22, 2014

The foundation of the rule of law is dependent upon lawyers treating judicial officers and each other with respect, dignity and courtesy. The need for civility and dignity is critically important, especially today, with the legal profession and the judicial branch of government under cynical attack from various quarters.
. . .
It is a privilege to appear as counsel before the court representing a client in the pursuit of justice. Counsel are considered officers of the court. The handshake at the end of the trial is not the only time when professionalism and civility are expected. It is demanded of lawyers, at all times and at all stages of a case, no matter what the stakes involved.
-People v. Whitus, 209 Cal. App. 4thSupp. 1, 4, 13 (2012).

On April 23, 2014, the California Supreme Court promulgated a new Rule of Court, adding to the traditional oath codified in Business and Professions Code Section 6067 and requiring all attorneys upon admission to the Bar to “strive to conduct [themselves] at all times with dignity, courtesy, and integrity.”  Rule 9.4, entitled Oath Required When Admitted to Practice Law, took effect on May 23, 2014 and was administered for the first time in June to the group of new lawyers who passed the February 2014 bar exam.  But what does the new oath really mean to the practice of law?  Will we notice an uptick in counsel unilaterally reaching out, offering 30 day extensions for filing that opposition?  Will there be groups of lawyers rushing to make lunch dates with opposing counsel in the effort towards camaraderie?  Do we have to be nice to each other now?? Read the rest »

Rybicki v. Carlson, (Second District, May 22, 2013) 216 Cal. App.4^th 758, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 660

A bicyclist who was injured when he was stuck by a drunk driving on the wrong side of the road, filed an action for personal injuries against the driver and her four female passengers. The plaintiff alleged that the five friends, who were all under 21, had collectively solicited adults to purchase alcoholic beverages for them, which they brought to a male friend’s home to consume, along with other alcoholic beverages provided at the residence. The plaintiff further alleged conspiracy and aiding and abetting theories, contending that some of the alcohol had been furnished in violation of Civil Code § 1714(d), which provides that an adult who furnishes alcoholic beverages to a minor at his or her residence may be liable for resulting injuries. Read the rest »

Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 347

Two men who were injured when the taxicab in which they were passengers was struck by another vehicle, filed suits for personal injuries against the other driver. Prior to trial the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude any evidence their medical bills were paid by a collateral source. The court allowed the jury to hear evidence of the full amounts billed, but no evidence of lesser amounts accepted as full payment pursuant to prior agreements. Read the rest »

Pedeferri v. Seidner Enterprises (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 359, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 673

A highway patrolman who was paralyzed when he was struck by a vehicle while standing on the side of a freeway, filed suit against the driver of the vehicle as well as a motorsports dealership whose employees had loaded two dirt bikes into the vehicle 90 minutes earlier. The plaintiff alleged that the driver had lost control of his vehicle due in part to being distracted by movement of the dirt bikes, one of which had just been purchased from the dealership. The plaintiff further alleged that the dealership’s employees had contributed to the accident by negligently loading and securing the bikes in the back of the truck. Read the rest »

July 4, 2014 – Mark P. Robinson, Jr. – founding RCRSD Inc. partner and national president of The American Board of Trial Advocates – is pleased to announce the launch of www.SaveOurJuries.org, a website to help visitors understand and appreciate the 7th amendment right to trial by jury – and why it’s in jeopardy. Read the rest »

June 30, 2014 – General Motors claims they are prepared to offer compensation, including at least $1 million in compensation for each victim who died in accidents caused by defective ignition switches, under the terms of a victim compensation fund announced today.  Kenneth Feinberg, a lawyer hired by GM to help administer payouts related to the defect, said that for those who were killed or suffered catastrophic injury, the size of the settlement would be based on age, earning potential, medical expenses and family obligations.  He provided a hypothetical scenario in which the family of a 25-year-old married woman with two children who was earning $46,400 a year at the time of her accident would receive $4 million.  According to Feinberg, those who suffered catastrophic injuries could receive considerably more.  Claimants and their lawyers will still be required to prove legally and factually that their injuries were caused by an ignition switch defect.  Read the rest »

Hernandez v. Amcord (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 659, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 90

A man who was diagnosed with mesothelioma brought a products liability action against the manufacturer of a plastic cement which contained asbestos. The plaintiff alleged that while working as a carpenter and in the construction industry his exposure to asbestos in the product was a substantial factor contributing to his risk of developing cancer.  At trial the plaintiffs sought to introduce evidence of the defendant’s government lobbying activities, and that the defendant had successfully lobbied for an exemption to a ban on asbestos spray construction products. Read the rest »

June 19, 2014 – Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, has announced that the confidential health information of more than 20,000 patients was disclosed and released to unauthorized third parties. The breach reportedly occurred on June 6, 2014, when an employee from Rady Children’s Hospital emailed a spreadsheet containing patient names, dates of birth, diagnoses, admit/discharge dates, medical record numbers, and insurance carrier and claim information for 14,121 underage patients to a handful of job applicants. The applicants subsequently forwarded the document to two other unauthorized individuals. Read the rest »