Wrongful Death

California Court Upholds Judgment in Favor of City of Pasadena Because Plaintiff Failed to Provide Full Record on Appeal Regarding His Wrongful Death Claim

May 8, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal recently affirmed a judgment in favor of the City of Pasadena, after the trial court held that the plaintiff had not set forth evidence supporting his negligence claim, nor had he shown that he suffered damages, emotional distress, physical injuries, or property damage due to the underlying incident. In the underlying case, the plaintiff had proceeded in pro per, meaning that he was not represented by legal counsel.

At issue before the appellate court was whether the appellant had presented an adequate record for review of his wrongful death action. The court of appeals stated that the burden is on the party that appeals the lower court judgment. They must demonstrate an error, and in doing so, they must supply an adequate record for the reviewing court to assess the lower court’s actions.

The plaintiff in this case filed a wrongful death action, alleging that the City of Pasadena’s fire department paramedics negligently transported his son to an emergency room after his son suffered gunshot wounds by a third party. The trial court eventually granted summary judgment in favor of the City after the City’s requests for admissions showed that the plaintiff admitted he did not have evidence supporting his allegation of negligence. Additionally, the requests for admissions showed that he had not suffered compensatory damages, emotional distress, physical injuries, or property damage due to the incident. Judgment had been entered for the City.

California Court Holds Bar Owner & Manager Not Legally Responsible for Intoxicated Patron/Employee’s Fatal Car Accident

March 6, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an unpublished opinion, a California Court of Appeal held that the owner and manager of a bar was not responsible for the death of a woman who had been served alcohol and allowed to drive home while intoxicated. In reaching this conclusion, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to sustain the defendants’ demurrer to the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. Specifically, the court rejected the argument that there was an applicable exception to the general rule that serving alcohol does not render a person liable for any resulting injuries.

The decedent in this case was a 27-year-old wife and mother who lost control of her car while driving while intoxicated. The plaintiffs in this case were the son, husband, and parents of the decedent. They brought a lawsuit against the owner and manager of the bar where the woman had been drinking before driving, alleging that they had been negligent in serving her alcohol and allowing her to then drive.

California Court Finds Landlord Did Not Owe Duty of Care in Lawsuit Following Drowning Accident

August 25, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a personal injury lawsuit following a devastating drowning accident of two toddlers, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant landowner. The issues before the court in this appeal included standing, or the ability of the plaintiff to pursue legal claims against the landowner and renter of the property, as well as whether the plaintiff had demonstrated that the landlord owed a duty of care.

Jason Bradford brought a lawsuit against Terrence Mann, individually and as a trustee of the Terrence W. Mann Trust, for negligence and wrongful death after the death of his two children in a swimming pool on Mr. Mann’s rental property. The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Mann, finding that Mr. Bradford could not establish causation for his negligence claim and could not prove neglect by Mr. Mann for the wrongful death claim, nor did he have standing to pursue his wrongful death claim.

Mr. Bradford contended Mr. Mann owed him a duty of care regarding his toddler children, and triable issues remained as to whether Mr. Mann’s conduct as a landlord breached that duty.

California Court of Appeals Holds that Evidence Sustains Jury’s Verdict that Railroad Company was Not Negligent

May 2, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeals analyzed whether the evidence supported a lower court’s determination that a railroad company was not negligent in regard to the fatalities of two minors who drove their vehicle onto railroad tracks on the morning after Halloween.

In the dark, early morning hours after Halloween in 2007, a Union Pacific Railroad freight train about a mile long and holding three locomotives and 86 cars fatally collided with a sport utility vehicle driven onto the railroad tracks by Renee Ammari and Tanya Sayegh before the accident.

Conductor Glen Lee Holmes and Carl Zipperman, the engineer, operated the train and sat next to each other in the first locomotive cab. The SUV was stuck, and Ms. Ammari and Ms. Sayegh died when the train struck their vehicle. Their parents sued defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Glen Lee Holmes for negligence.

California Court of Appeal Holds that Personal Representative in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Stands in Position of Heirs

February 4, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent appeal, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether a personal representative in a wrongful death lawsuit represents the heirs in the proceeding. While a personal representative may have interests that align with the interests of a particular heir, the rule is that their duty is to stand in the position of the decedent’s heirs.

Marjorie Fitzpatrick had three children, one of whom was plaintiff Valerie Monschke. Ms. Monschke enrolled Ms. Fitzpatrick into one of defendant Timber Ridge Assisted Living, LLC’s (Timber Ridge) facilities, due to her mother’s dementia. Ms. Monschke, acting as power of attorney for her mother, signed a residency agreement allowing Timber Ridge to provide services for her mother. This agreement contained an arbitration clause requiring that all claims and disputes be resolved by submission to arbitration.

In her complaint, Ms. Monschke alleged that her mother was allowed to exit an exterior door of the defendant’s facility without supervision. She suffered a fall and was left outside for 30 to 45 minutes. She suffered injuries, including a displaced wrist, subarachnoid hemorrhage, downward displaced fracture of the tip of her nasal bone, and bruising. She died of her injuries two weeks later.

California Court of Appeals Affirms Workers’ Compensation Act Applies When Substantial Cause of Injury is Work-Related

September 25, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeals case, the court addressed whether a claim for an injury, potentially separate from a contributing work-related condition, can be brought against an employer in a civil action. Typically, work-related injuries are covered by the California Workers’ Compensation Act, and injured employees are barred from bringing an action in tort against the employer. In this case, Lario Melendrez worked for 24 years for Ameron International Corporation (Ameron), where he was exposed to asbestos. In 2011, Mr. Melendrez died of asbestos-related mesothelioma. Mr. Melendrez’s survivors filed a complaint for wrongful death against Ameron, alleging that Mr. Melendrez had been exposed to workplace asbestos and also asbestos at home, since he was permitted to take waste or scrap pipe home. In the 1970s, Mr. Melendrez would bring pipe home as frequently as possible to make flowerpots and add to his patio. Ameron left the state in 1985, and Mr. Melendrez’s employment ended. Years later, he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. The cause of this mesothelioma was determined to be his exposure to asbestos.

California Court of Appeals Reviews Summary Judgment in Favor of Doctors and Healthcare System in Professional Negligence Lawsuit

August 24, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a wrongful death lawsuit, the California Court of Appeals addressed the standard of care applicable to medical staff, including physicians and surgeons as well as nurses and hospitals in general.

Yvonne Lattimore brought a wrongful death action against the doctors and the medical system at Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System (Salinas Valley Systems) for the care and treatment of her father, Albert Lattimore. Ms. Lattimore appeals the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The issue on appeal is whether the trial court improperly granted the motion for summary judgment. Ms. Lattimore alleges she presented evidence opposing those motions and raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the treatment of her father violated the applicable standards of care.

California Supreme Court Clarifies Appropriate Standard of Causation in Workers’ Compensation Death Case as Contributing, not Substantial Factor

August 6, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Supreme Court recently clarified the standard of causation in workers’ compensation death cases. Recognizing the different causation standards in tort law and the workers’ compensation system, the court in this case determined the contributing factor standard as the appropriate link in work-related injuries.The devastating facts of this case demonstrate that Brandon Clark, 36 years old, fell 8-10 feet while working as a carpenter for his employer. As a result, he suffered neck and back injuries, as well as a concussion. Mr. Clark’s workers’ compensation doctor then prescribed medication to treat his injuries, including antidepressants and pain relievers (Elavil, Neurontin, and Vicodin). Mr. Clark’s personal doctor additionally prescribed an anti-anxiety medicine and a sleep aid (Xanas and Ambien).

Months following the accident, Mr. Clark was pronounced dead when his wife was unable to wake him. He had various drugs in his blood, and his autopsy concluded the death was accidental, the combined effect of some of the drugs he had taken. The issue was which drugs contributed to his death, to what degree, and why were certain drugs prescribed.

California Court of Appeals Rules in Unsafe Intersection Case

April 30, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent pedestrian accident case, Killings-Rodriguez v. City of Los Angeles, Cal. Ct. App. (2015), the California Court of Appeals issued a decision regarding the appeal from a summary judgment motion in a case that alleged a certain intersection was dangerously unsafe.

In the case, two girls were crossing the street when they were struck by a car, which killed one of the girls and rendered the other quadriplegic. The girls’ parents sued on their behalf, alleging that the city was liable for a dangerous condition of public property, in that the intersection had poor visibility and a lack of necessary traffic signals or signs, among other arguments.

The driver who hit the girls had stated that he did not see them as he approached the intersection, and that just prior to the collision, he had looked down to change the music that was playing. The trial court found that it was because of the driver’s negligence that the accident occurred. It also relied on the city’s expert witness and an unrelated case in finding on behalf of the city that there was no issue of material fact, and it thus entered summary judgment.

California Court of Appeals Rules in Case Alleging Premature Declaration of Death

March 13, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a very difficult to discuss fact scenario, Arroyo v. Plosay, 225 Cal. App. 4th 279 (2014), the California Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist., reached a decision regarding the disposition of a case that alleged wrongful death and medical malpractice in the treatment of a woman whom plaintiffs suspected had been wrongfully declared dead, and then somehow suffered injuries to her face.

The relevant complaint for the appeal claimed that the decedent was taken to the hospital (defendant), where she received treatment for cardiac arrest, acute myocardial infarction, and hypertension. Shortly thereafter, the decedent was pronounced dead by hospital employees. The family was then brought in to say their goodbyes before her body was taken to the morgue. When workers for the mortuary that the family had selected by came to pick up the body, they found the decedent lying facedown with a broken nose and facial lacerations and contusions. The injuries had not been present when she had been transported to the hospital, nor when the family saw the decedent after she had been declared dead. The mortuary informed the family of the injuries in the course of preparing the body for the funeral.