Articles Posted in General Legal

by

In 2005, several people were injured and killed when a documented gang member stole a tow truck from a commercial vehicle repair shop in Los Angeles County, and, while driving it away, lost control and drove up onto a sidewalk. The injured parties brought a lawsuit against the repair shop alleging that it was negligent for leaving the keys in the tow truck ignition, in an area known for high gang and vehicle theft activity. Apparently the thief simply had to start the vehicle and drive out an open gate.

The defendant repair shop brought a motion for summary judgment, to dismiss the case in its entirety, arguing that it owed no duty to the injured people, and that if it did, any negligence committed was not the cause of the injuries: a criminal intervener was. The court agreed and dismissed the case.

On appeal, the Second District noted that absent special circumstances, California courts have consistently have refused to impose a duty on owners or bailees of automobiles or ordinary pickup trucks who leave the key in the ignition of an unattended vehicle to prevent harm to third parties caused by a thief. The court went on to note several cases where “special circumstances” were found, highlighting cases were heavy equipment machinery was stolen and caused injury.

Continue reading

by

A former lawyer for Toyota Motor Sales, USA, has alleged that the car company intentionally withheld evidence of its vehicles’ structural shortcomings in hundreds of injury and death cases arising from rollovers. Toyota counters that the former employ has an ax to grind, since he was fired for alleged misconduct on the job.

The information arises from a lawsuit filed by the former employee, attorney Dimitrios Biller, who claims that his complaints about the withholding of evidence cost him his job. The lawsuit must contain some damaging information as Toyota has brought a motion to seal the complaint, claim it contains confidential information.

Biller worked for Toyota from 2003 to 2007, and helped the car company defend rollover lawsuits that blamed the company for design defects involving instability and weak roofs. Most of the cases involve serious personal injuries or death. His complaint claims that Toyota refused to produce emails and other electronic data, which is required by the rules of discovery. Biller complained to his superiors, and alleges those complaints led to a “forced” resignation.

Continue reading

by

Those who follow California law are familiar with the “Civil Justice Association of California,” an organization that seeks to curb access to the courts or to justice in the name of curtailing those scurrilous lawyers. You may have been exposed to some their handy work.

One of the leaders of CJAC is its general counsel, Fred Heistand, a tort reformer who has made a career of railing against plaintiff injury lawyers, and the evils of consumer class-action lawsuits, calling them “shakedown lawsuits” and “the weapon of choice for … vexatious litigants.”

Funny thing happened. When Heistand’s car was towed from a Sacramento no-parking zone, he got very upset. Apparently there were no signs that said that that illegally parked cars could be towed. So what did the anti-class-action crusader do? He filed a class action lawsuit, seeking damages from the city, the police chief, police officers, and the two truck company itself.

Continue reading

by

A Good Samaritan who accidentally injures a person while trying to provide voluntary aid will not be protected from lawsuits by the injured party. Last week, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 83, which is intended to encourage Good Samaritans to provide aid and rescue in emergency situations.

“Now Good Samaritans have no reason to hesitate to responsibly help someone in an emergency out of fear that they might be sued,” Assemblyman Mike Feuer said. “This legislation encourages Californians to look out for each other at a time when public resources are all too scarce.”

The new law reverses a recent California Supreme Court decisions (Van Horn v. Watson) which held that the state’s existing Good Samaritan law only provided partial protection from lawsuits for negligence when a volunteer provides assistance to a person in peril. The cases found that a Good Samaritan who injures someone while providing non-medical care could be held liable for damages.

Continue reading

by

While deaths in the workplace have declined over the last 20 years, the number of Hispanic workers who are killed on the job has increased. According to federal statistics, deaths of Hispanic workers increased from 533 in 1992 to 937 in 2007, an increase of 76%.

“I am particularly concerned about our Hispanic workforce, as Latinos often work low-wage jobs and are more susceptible to injuries in the workplace than other workers,” U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told USA TODAY. “There can be no excuses for negligence in protecting workers, not even a language barrier.”

According to records, Hispanic workers have fallen off roofs and scaffolding, been crushed under machinery and run over by trucks, according to workers’ rights advocates. One reason for the increase is the number of Hispanics in the workforce. In the last decade, Hispanics have increased their percentage in the workforce from 10% to 14%. Another is that many Hispanic workers are without legal documentation to be in the U.S. and are less likely to join a union, which helps protect workers.

Continue reading

by

This weekend the New York Times had two good opinion pieces about reform in the medical liability system. Both contributors agree that the real problem is medical errors, not medical malpractice lawsuits, and that arbitrary caps on damages do little or nothing to address the underlying problem of too many preventable medical mistakes.

Professor Tom Baker writes that medical liability actually improves patient safety, because it has led hospitals to hire risk managers and create policies and procedures that work to improve safety. He also mentions an important fact lost on many tort reform advocates, that most victims of medical malpractice to not file lawsuits. Ultimately, he says,

… the real problem is too much malpractice, not too many malpractice lawsuits. So medical providers should be required to disclose injuries, provide quicker compensation to deserving patients and — here’s the answer for doctors worried about their premiums — shift the responsibility for buying malpractice insurance to hospitals and other large medical institutions. Evidence-based liability reform would give these institutions the incentive they need to cut back on the most wasteful aspect of American health care: preventable medical injuries.

Continue reading

by

You’ve seen the ads, “my personal injury lawyer got me ___ millions of dollars.” Or the lawyer on TV with the slicked back hair, promising to win your case “with little to no money down.” I thought this lawyer ad was pretty funny. Not because of the content, but because of the background. Watch the exploding cars flying though the air. If you’re in this type of accident, please give us a call [if you survive, that is]:

The car accident attorneys at Walton Law Firm LLP represent individuals and families who have been impacted by accidental injuries and death. Call (866) 607-1325 for a free consultation.

by

An $86 million judgment against Starbucks was reversed by a San Diego appellate court today. The judgment was based on the finding that Starbucks violated tip-sharing law by allowing shift “supervisors” to share in tip pools. The judgment ended a lengthy class action lawsuit brought by a Starbucks “barista” named Jou Chau.

In a 3-0 ruling, San Diego 4th District Court of Appeals reversed the award, holding that the trial court’s ruling…

…was improperly based on a line of decisions that concerns an employer’s authority to mandate that a tip given to an individual service employee must be shared with other employees….There is no decisional or statutory authority prohibiting an employer from allowing a service employee to keep a portion of the collective tip, in proportion to the amount of hours worked, merely because the employee also has limited supervisory duties. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and order the trial court to enter judgment in Starbucks’ favor.

Continue reading

by

The New York Times is out with a story about independent medical exams – or IMEs – in the state’s beleaguered worker’s compensation system. The article more or less confirms what injury attorneys all over the county already know: there is nothing “independent” about IMEs.

Generally speaking, an insurance company in a personal injury or workers compensation claim has a right to conduct a medical exam of the claimant to confirm the injuries are legitimate. But what usually happens is the doctor – hired by the insurance company – will issue a report that either dispute, denies, or down-plays the injury.

The Times article (which can be found here) starts with the story of plumber, injured on the job, who seeks more time under his work comp claim. The doctor conducts an exam, and appears to confirm all of the plumber’s injuries and complaints of pain. But when the doctor issued the report, it reported the plumber had no injuries. According to the doctor, he couldn’t be truthful because it would hurt is standing with the insurance company:

Continue reading

by

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris to overturn a state verdict of $79.9 million awarded to the widow of a longtime smoker by an Oregon jury. Legal analysts believe the ruling may mark a shift in the court, who most consider to be decidedly “pro business” it its rulings.

The court’s ruling ended a decade-long battle for Mayola Williams, the widow of Jess Williams, a Portland Oregon janitor and smoker who died of lung cancer. In the product liability lawsuit, the family argued that Jesse, who began smoking in the 1950s, believed that cigarettes would not harm his health because of representations made by the cigarette company. A state jury agreed, awarding Mayola over $800,000 in compensatory damages, and $79.5 million in punitive damages.

Organized business interests had hoped the high court would send a strong warning to state courts about excessive punitive awards, and clarify a constitutional limit, but that was not to be the case.

Continue reading
Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers
BBB Rating A+
Avvo Rating 10.0
Elder Justice Advocates
Consumer Attorneys California
AV Preeminent badge
Contact Information
North County Office
950 Boardwalk
#304
San Marcos, CA 92078
Toll Free: 866.607.1325 Local: 760.571.5500 Fax: 760.571.5501
San Diego Office
2169 1st Ave
San Diego, CA 92101
Toll Free: 866.607.1325

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Walton Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design