Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

“Bounce House” Accident Sends Boy Flying onto California Highway

May 11, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, a nine-year-old boy was injured when the inflatable bounce house that he was playing inside was lifted off the ground and blown onto a nearby highway. According to a local news report, the inflatable toy was blown from a residential neighborhood in Adelanto about a quarter-mile away onto Highway 395.

As the bounce house was falling back toward the ground, the young boy fell from the house onto the ground, sustaining minor injuries. The bounce house then rolled into a car. The driver of the car reported being “shook up” but was not injured. It is not clear whether any California personal injury claim will result from the events.

This was just the most recent of several accidents involving inflatable bounce houses over the past few years. The article discusses two other incidents in which bounce houses were blown away. In both cases, the children inside at the time suffered serious injuries.

The Dangers of Driving in Southern California

May 8, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Southern California has long been known for some of the worst traffic in the country. In fact, according to most studies, Los Angeles and the surrounding area ranks worst in the entire world for the amount of time spent in traffic. However, according to a recent news report, Southern California roadways are not just among the most congested; they are also among the most dangerous.

According to a local news report discussing the results of the most recent National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, about 10% of all fatal traffic accidents occur in California. What’s more, all five of the California counties with the most accidents are in Southern California: Los Angeles County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and Orange County. Los Angeles County saw approximately 800 fatal traffic accidents in 2016, which was about three times as many accidents as Riverside County, which was the second-place county with about 260 fatal accidents.

Motorists and researchers alike place most of the blame for these high numbers on speeding, which accounts for just under a third of all fatal California car accidents. Drunk driving, distracted driving, and aggressive driving also rank high among the causes of fatal traffic accidents.

Study Finds that Hit-and-Run Accidents in California Are on the Rise

May 4, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, the Foundation for Traffic Safety released the findings of a study regarding the frequency of hit-and-run collisions in the United States. The Foundation compiled crash data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) reporting systems. The study shines a light on the unpleasant fact that California hit-and-run accidents occur much more frequently than most people believe.

The Methodology and Results of the Study

The Foundation analyzed the NHTSA’s systems, containing data about all reported motor vehicle accidents occurring on public roadways and resulting in a death within 30 days of the accident.

The study revealed that in 2016 alone, there were 1,980 hit-and-run accidents across the country. These accidents resulted in over 2,000 fatalities. It was noted that this was the highest number of hit-and-run fatalities since the NHSTA began keeping records on fatalities in 1975.

Court Allows Case Against Accounting Firm After California Motorcycle Accident

May 1, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

One of the most important considerations in any California personal injury case is understanding when the claim must be filed. In a recent case, an appellate court allowed a California motorcycle accident case to proceed to trial despite the defendant’s argument that the claim was filed after the relevant statute of limitations had expired.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff hired an accounting firm to manage her finances. As part of the agreement, the firm was to purchase insurance for the plaintiff and her family. The plaintiff asked the firm to obtain uninsured/underinsured insurance with a $5 million policy limit, but the firm obtained a policy with a limit of only $1.5 million.

The plaintiff’s son was later involved in a motorcycle accident, resulting in his sustaining serious injuries. The plaintiff only then found out that her insurance policy was limited to $1.5 million. After receiving the $1.5 million payout under her insurance policy, the plaintiff sued the accounting firm, alleging that she and her son suffered damages because they could not collect the additional money under the policy that she had requested.

Plaintiff’s Theory of Liability Rejected by California Court as Too “Attenuated”

April 26, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a California car accident case discussing the element of causation. Specifically, the court was tasked with determining if a party responsible for an accident that occurred several years earlier could be held liable for a subsequent accident that was caused in part by the accident victim’s inability to avoid the accident, due to the injuries they sustained in the initial accident years before.

Not surprisingly, the court determined that the plaintiff’s theory of causation was too attenuated to hold the party that was allegedly at fault for the initial accident responsible for the later accident.

The Facts of the Case

In 2005, a man was seriously injured when a tire on the vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger blew out, causing the vehicle to collide with a telephone pole. As a result of the injuries he sustained, the man’s mobility was severely limited, and he was forced to get around by using a motorized scooter.

Pure Comparative Negligence and Its Implications in California Personal Injury Lawsuits

April 23, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Any time an individual files a California personal injury lawsuit, they must be able to provide evidence of each element of their claim. In a traditional negligence case, this means establishing that the defendant violated a duty of care that was owed to the plaintiff. While the outcome of a case can vary greatly depending on the jurisdiction, generally, states follow one of four basic theories regarding fault:

Pure Contributory Negligence – a plaintiff cannot recover damages if they are found to be even the slightest bit at fault.
Pure Comparative Negligence – a plaintiff can recover damages if they are partially at fault (even 99% at fault).

According to Recent California Appellate Opinion, Landlord Has No Legal Duty to Provide Defibrillator Device

April 19, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a California personal injury case involving the question of whether a landlord of a building that rents space to a health club has a duty to ensure that the club has a defibrillator device on hand. Ultimately, the court concluded that while the operator of a health club is legally obligated to provide the defibrillator devices under a state statute, that duty does not extend to the landlord.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the surviving loved ones of a man who died of a heart attack while working out at a boxing gym. The defendant was the owner of the building where the gym was located. Following the death of their loved one, the plaintiffs filed a case against the defendant landlord. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was negligent in failing to ensure that the boxing gym installed defibrillator devices, as is required under Health and Safety Code section 104113.

Specifically, section 104113 requires that all “health studios” maintain defibrillator devices on hand. The statute defines a health studio as “a facility permitting the use of its facilities and equipment or access to its facilities and equipment, to individuals or groups for physical exercise, body building, reducing, figure development, fitness training, or any other similar purpose, on a membership basis.”

California Supreme Court Finds Colleges Have Duty to Protect Students from Foreseeable Harm

April 16, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case, the California Supreme Court determined that colleges have a duty to protect students from foreseeable harm. In that case, the court considered a California personal injury claim against the University of California at Los Angeles, after a girl was stabbed by another student during a class.

The Facts of the Case

The student had been experiencing auditory hallucinations, which were first brought to the attention of a professor, the department chair, and the dean of students. He complained that other students were insulting him and told the dean of students that if the university failed to discipline the other students, the matter would likely “escalate into a more serious situation,” and he would act in a way that would “incur undesirable consequences.” He then complained to other professors and a teaching assistant (TA). The TA noted that the student was frequently talking to himself and displayed what she believed were signs of schizophrenia. The student was urged to use the school’s counseling services. The assistant dean of students also contacted the university’s response team, which advises campus members who are concerned about the well-being of a student.

The student later told his resident director that he was advised to hurt other residents and that he had thought about it, but he had decided not to hurt anyone. Campus police came and searched his room but did not find a weapon, and they brought him to the emergency room for a psychiatric evaluation. He was diagnosed with possible schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. The student agreed to begin treatment at the school’s counseling service and to take an antipsychotic medication.

Three Killed in Southern California DUI Accident

April 12, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Late last month, a car accident in Huntington Beach killed three and injured several others. According to a local news source covering the tragic accident, the collision occurred at around 1 a.m. on the Pacific Coast Highway.

Evidently, the victims’ vehicle had come to a complete stop at a red light when a car crashed into it from behind. Police told reporters that it did not appear that the at-fault motorist attempted to slow down at all. The victims’ car exploded upon impact, and three of those inside died in the blaze. The fourth passenger was taken to the hospital with serious injuries. The driver of the other vehicle was not seriously injured but was taken to the Huntington Beach jail, where she was charged with several DUI-related offenses.

California DUI Accidents

Despite decades of campaigns attempting to inform the public about the dangers of drinking and driving, there are still on average over 1,000 alcohol-related fatalities per year in California alone. This represents approximately one-third of the total number of traffic fatalities in the state.

California Court Discusses Design Immunity in Recent Personal Injury Case Filed Against Caltrans

April 9, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a California car accident case discussing the potential liability of Caltrans in a design defect lawsuit brought by motorists injured in an accident that they claim was caused in part by Caltrans’ decision not to include rumble strips along the shoulder of the highway. The case required the court to determine if the Caltrans official responsible for approving the design exercised discretion when determining not to include the rumble strips.

Official Immunity

When someone is injured in a car accident, and they believe the accident to have been caused by a dangerous condition of the roadway, they may pursue a claim against the government. The government, however, is afforded immunity from many of these cases. One type of immunity is design immunity.

Design immunity prevents a government from being held liable for the discretionary decisions made by government officials when carrying out their duties. In order for this immunity to attach, the government agency or official must be able to establish that their actions involved the exercise of discretion. If the government’s actions were ministerial, immunity will not attach.