Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

A passenger was seriously injured after the driver of a remotely rented vehicle, accessed via a membership-based car-sharing service, crashed while under the influence of alcohol. The driver, a university student and approved member of the rental service, reserved the vehicle through a mobile app late at night after consuming alcohol at a party. The process for renting and accessing the car involved no face-to-face interaction with company staff, and the company had no prior knowledge of the driver’s intoxication or any history of impaired driving. Following the crash, the driver was convicted of felony DUI causing injury.The injured passenger sued the car-sharing company and its affiliated vehicle owner in the Superior Court of Yolo County, alleging negligent entrustment for providing the car to an unfit driver, negligent maintenance for failing to include technology to detect driver impairment, and vicarious liability based on vehicle ownership. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The trial court ruled for the defendants, holding that the company owed no duty to inquire about a renter’s impairment at the time of a remote rental, had no duty to install alcohol-detection devices, and was shielded from vicarious liability by federal law (the Graves Amendment).On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that remote rental car companies are exempt from statutory requirements to inspect for signs of impairment at the time of rental, per Civil Code section 1939.37, and that courts should not impose additional investigatory duties absent legislative action. The court also held that the Graves Amendment preempts state law claims of vicarious liability based solely on vehicle ownership. Judgment for the defendants was therefore affirmed. View "Tavares v. Zipcar, Inc." on Justia Law

An 11-year-old student, Therese, died by suicide at her father's home during her school’s winter break. Her parents brought claims against the school district, alleging negligent hiring, supervision, and training of staff, failure to protect Therese from bullying, and inadequate response to her expressions of suicidal ideation. They argued the district failed to fulfill its duty to supervise students and to inform them of Therese’s condition. The parents also pursued a survival claim for Therese’s pre-death suffering, alleging harm occurred on campus due to the district’s negligence.The Superior Court of Solano County denied the school district’s motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact as to whether the district exercised reasonable care and whether Therese suffered injury on campus due to the district’s negligence. The court relied on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District, determining that statutory immunity under Education Code section 44808 did not apply because there were factual questions about on-campus harm and failure to exercise reasonable care.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case on a petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court held that under section 44808, the district is immune from liability for harms resulting from Therese’s off-campus suicide, as she was not under the district’s supervision at the time. However, the court determined that this immunity does not extend to the survival claim, which concerns alleged on-campus harm while Therese was under the district’s supervision. The appellate court ordered the trial court to grant summary adjudication in favor of the district on the wrongful death and related claims but allowed the survival claim to proceed. View "Vallejo City Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

On a rainy night in March 2020, the plaintiff was catastrophically injured while sleeping in a truck driven by his co-worker, both of whom were transporting plasticware from New Jersey to California. The truck, owned and operated by Alliance, a federally licensed motor carrier, crashed on a highway near Oklahoma City. The transportation had been arranged by XPO Logistics, LLC, a federally licensed property broker, which was hired by Sabert Corporation to facilitate shipping but did not own trucks or employ drivers. XPO contracted with Alliance to perform the transport, and Alliance assigned the plaintiff and his co-worker to drive the shipment.After the accident, the plaintiff sued XPO in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging negligence based on claims that XPO exercised control over the transport and owed a nondelegable duty to maintain a safe workplace. XPO moved for summary judgment, arguing it was solely a broker and not responsible for the carrier’s employee safety. The trial court granted summary judgment for XPO, finding the evidence undisputed that XPO acted as a broker, not a carrier, and did not control Alliance’s transport operations. The trial court also excluded plaintiff’s expert declaration, which had applied the wrong legal standard.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the judgment. The court held that under California law, a broker who hires an independent contractor carrier generally owes no duty of care to the carrier’s employees for workplace injuries, unless the broker has a nondelegable duty or retains and exercises control over the work. The court found no triable issues of fact supporting either exception, and further clarified that the federal Essex Insurance Company v. Barrett Moving & Storage, Inc. test for broker liability for cargo damage is irrelevant to personal injury claims under California law. The judgment for XPO was affirmed. View "Hu v. XPO Logistics, LLC" on Justia Law

After moving out of their condominium due to mold, Brenda Lee Allen and her family stayed at the Ontario Airport Inn Hotel, owned by Anil Bhula Patel. After more than 30 days, Allen’s funds ran out, and she requested extra time to pay rent, which was refused by the hotel manager, Luis Mejia. On April 19, 2020, while Allen and her family were moving out, an altercation occurred involving Allen, Mejia, and Patel. Allen alleged that Patel forcibly entered her room, threw her belongings into the hallway, struck her, and pushed her against the wall, causing her to suffer posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other serious health issues.Allen filed suit against Patel and his company, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for battery, assault, and related claims. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County bifurcated the trial to separate liability and compensatory damages from punitive damages. The jury awarded Allen over $1 million in compensatory damages for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Before the punitive damages phase, two jurors were unavailable, leading the trial court to declare a mistrial on that issue. Patel subsequently moved for a new trial, arguing attorney misconduct and other trial irregularities.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court conducted an independent review and found substantial evidence of misconduct by Allen’s attorney, including knowingly misleading statements about medical causation, introduction of prejudicial and inflammatory evidence, improper closing arguments violating the golden rule and reptile theory, and attacks on defense counsel’s character. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order granting a new trial on liability and compensatory damages, finding no abuse of discretion and concluding that the issue of punitive damages was moot. View "Allen v. Patel" on Justia Law

In 2017, the plaintiff was involved in a low-speed collision when the defendant, driving a car, struck the plaintiff riding a motorcycle. The plaintiff did not fall or receive immediate medical attention and reported pain only in his hip, leg, and foot the following day. He later claimed the accident caused severe and lasting neck and groin injuries. The defense contested the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries, noting his continued participation in physical activities after the accident. As trial approached, the plaintiff, who had previously designated numerous expert witnesses, visited a new doctor—Dr. Gravori—just days before trial. Dr. Gravori recommended spine surgery, introducing a new theory of injury not previously disclosed.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County allowed Dr. Gravori to testify as an expert, provided he was immediately made available for a deposition at the plaintiff’s expense. The defense objected, arguing the late disclosure of this expert was prejudicial and violated procedural rules. The deposition took place during jury selection, and the court maintained its ruling, permitting Gravori’s testimony. The jury ultimately awarded the plaintiff substantial damages, including future medical expenses and pain and suffering.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the late expert witness. The appellate court found that the plaintiff offered no reasonable justification for the delayed designation of Dr. Gravori and failed to follow statutory requirements for augmenting the expert witness list. The court held that this was an abuse of discretion and that the error was prejudicial, likely affecting the outcome. Accordingly, the judgment and costs order were vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial. Costs were awarded to the appellants. View "Fancourt v. Zargaryan" on Justia Law

Ana Faiaipau, an elderly woman recovering from heart surgery, was transferred to a long-term acute care hospital operated by Kindred Healthcare. During her stay, Ana allegedly suffered neglect, including lack of dialysis, malnutrition, inadequate hygiene care, and failure to properly monitor her ventilator. The ventilator became disconnected, leading to a severe anoxic brain injury and Ana’s subsequent death. Ana’s daughters, Jennifer and Faamalieloto, acting both individually and as successors in interest, filed suit against Kindred for negligence, elder neglect, fraud, violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and wrongful death.The Alameda County Superior Court reviewed Kindred’s motion to compel arbitration based on agreements signed by Jennifer as Ana’s legal representative. The court granted arbitration for survivor claims brought on behalf of Ana, including negligence, elder neglect, fraud, and UCL claims, but denied arbitration for Jennifer and Faamalieloto’s individual claims for wrongful death, fraud, and violation of the UCL. The court also stayed litigation of the individual claims pending arbitration.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the appeal. Citing the California Supreme Court’s decision in Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc., the appellate court held that the wrongful death claim—premised on failure to monitor and reconnect Ana’s ventilator—constituted professional negligence and must be arbitrated under the arbitration agreement. However, the court affirmed the denial of arbitration for Jennifer and Faamalieloto’s individual fraud and UCL claims, finding Kindred had not shown that the agreement bound them in their individual capacities. The order was modified to compel arbitration of the wrongful death claim and affirmed as modified. View "Faiaipau v. THC-Orange County, LLC" on Justia Law

A former student alleged that the director of his school’s childcare program sexually abused him during the 2001-2002 school year, both on campus and at her residence. The childcare program was operated by West End YMCA on the school’s campus, and the director was employed by West End YMCA, not by the school district. The student, as plaintiff, brought suit against several parties, including the school district, asserting multiple causes of action related to negligence and abuse.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County reviewed the district’s motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication on four causes of action asserted against it. The court granted summary adjudication in favor of the district on two causes—negligent hiring/retention and failure to perform mandatory duties—but denied it as to the first (negligent supervision of students) and fourth (negligent supervision/failure to warn, with respect to Johnson) causes of action. The school district sought writ relief from the partial denial, specifically contesting the denial as to the fourth cause of action.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court focused solely on the fourth cause of action, which alleged negligent supervision of the program director. Applying the standard from C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist., the Court of Appeal held that liability for negligent supervision requires actual or constructive knowledge by the district’s supervisory employees of the individual’s dangerous propensities. The record contained no evidence that any district employee had actual or constructive knowledge of the director’s inappropriate conduct. Accordingly, the appellate court granted the writ of mandate and directed the superior court to enter summary adjudication in favor of the district on the third, fourth, and seventh causes of action, awarding costs to the district. View "Rancho Cucamonga Central School Dist. v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

An employee of an independent home inspection company was injured while inspecting a private residence, slipping and falling on outdoor steps made of wooden railroad ties. The inspector was hired by his employer to conduct a safety inspection at the home for the homeowner's insurance company. The homeowner did not direct his work, provide tools, or control how he performed the inspection. The inspector admitted the steps were visible and that he was not watching where he stepped, and he received workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries. He and his wife sued the homeowner for negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium, alleging the steps were hazardous.The Superior Court of Ventura County granted summary judgment for the homeowner, relying on the Privette doctrine, which generally prevents employees of independent contractors from suing the person who hired the contractor for work-related injuries. The plaintiffs argued that the homeowner was not a “hirer” under Privette and that there was a factual dispute about whether the “concealed hazard” exception from Kinsman v. Unocal Corporation applied. They pointed to evidence that the steps were sometimes slippery and that the homeowner had mentioned this to her gardener years earlier.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the judgment. The court held that the Privette doctrine applied because the homeowner, by allowing the inspection and paying for insurance, was effectively a hirer. The court further found that the concealed hazard exception did not apply, as there was no evidence the condition was concealed or that the inspector could not have discovered it with reasonable care. The court affirmed summary judgment for the homeowner, and the derivative loss of consortium claim failed as well. View "Andrews v. Wagner" on Justia Law

Two young children, ages four and two, were severely injured after falling from a second-floor bedroom window in an apartment building in Lodi, California, where they lived with their mother. The accident occurred shortly after the property owner replaced the apartment’s windows during a renovation that did not include installing fall prevention devices on the upper-floor windows. The children’s guardian ad litem sued the property owner and its manager, alleging negligence based on both general negligence and negligence per se, claiming that the absence of fall prevention devices violated the California Building Standards Code and proximately caused the injuries.The case was heard in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Prior to trial, the defendants sought to defeat the negligence per se claim, arguing the building was exempt from current code requirements because it complied with the code at the time of its original construction in 1980. The trial court denied their motion, allowing both negligence theories to proceed to trial. After plaintiffs presented their case, the court granted a nonsuit for the entire complaint, ruling there was no duty owed under general negligence given lack of foreseeability, and that the window replacement qualified for a code exemption, negating negligence per se.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the matter de novo. The appellate court affirmed the nonsuit on the general negligence claim, finding the harm was not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty. However, it reversed the nonsuit as to negligence per se, holding that replacing the window did not qualify for the “original materials” exemption in the Building Code, and thus the defendants were required to comply with current safety standards. The case was remanded for retrial on the negligence per se claim. View "Jimenez v. Hayes Apartment Homes" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an experienced bus rider, was injured when she fell while standing on a public bus operated by a transit district. She had stood up and moved toward the rear door in anticipation of her stop, holding a bag in one hand and a phone in the other. Security camera footage showed she was not holding onto a railing at the time the bus made a routine turn, lost her balance, and fell. The driver was not alleged to have made any unusual maneuver, nor did other passengers appear affected. The plaintiff claimed the driver operated the bus negligently and failed to warn her to hold on or sit down.After the incident, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Kern County, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence against both the driver and the transit district (the latter on a vicarious liability theory). The defendants moved for summary judgment, relying heavily on the bus’s video recording to argue that the bus’s movement was ordinary and that the plaintiff’s own actions were the proximate cause of her injury. The plaintiff argued that factual disputes remained, that the heightened duty of care for common carriers was not met, and that expert opinion and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur created triable issues for the jury. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding there was no evidence of negligence by the driver and that the plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of her injury.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that, while common carriers owe a heightened duty of care, that duty does not make them insurers of passenger safety for ordinary vehicle movements. The court further held that evidence, including the video, established the driver did not breach the applicable duty, and the plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of her injury. The court also ruled that neither comparative negligence nor res ipsa loquitur doctrines applied under these facts. Judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Agustin v. Golden Empire Transit Dist." on Justia Law