Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Lori Ann Wiley, who, along with Charles Wallace Hanson, engaged in a verbal altercation at a Kern High School District (KHSD) high school. The incident began when a school employee blocked a handicap parking spot they intended to use. Wiley later submitted a written complaint about the incident to the school. Subsequently, KHSD police officer Michael Whiting recommended various misdemeanor charges against Wiley, leading to her being cited and a prosecutor filing a criminal complaint with three misdemeanor charges. After a mistrial, the court dismissed Wiley’s charges in the interest of justice.Wiley sued KHSD police officers Edward Komin, Michael Whiting, Luis Peña, and Steven Alvidrez, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. She brought causes of action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the Bane Act, and common law torts for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer to Wiley’s causes of action in the second amended complaint on multiple grounds without leave to amend and granted a motion to strike Wiley’s punitive damages allegations without leave to amend.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision in part and reversed it in part. The appellate court held that Wiley failed to adequately plead her claims under section 1983 for malicious/retaliatory prosecution and abuse of process, as well as her claims under the Bane Act. The court also found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that Wiley did not sufficiently allege facts to support her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. However, the court granted Wiley leave to amend her section 1983 claim but denied leave to amend her other causes of action. The court affirmed the trial court’s order granting the motion to strike without leave to amend. View "Wiley v. Kern High School District" on Justia Law

Eric Woolard and Breonna Hall, residents of Greenhouse Condominiums, were involved in a physical altercation with their neighbors, Eric Smith and Stacy Thorne, in December 2019. Smith and Thorne sued Woolard, Hall, and Regent Real Estate Services, Inc. (Regent), the management company, for negligence and other claims. Woolard and Hall filed a cross-complaint against Regent and Greenhouse Community Association (Greenhouse), alleging negligence and other claims, asserting that Regent and Greenhouse failed to address ongoing harassment by neighbors, which led to the altercation.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of Regent and Greenhouse, finding no duty of care owed by them to intervene in the neighbor dispute or prevent the altercation. Woolard and Hall's motions to disqualify the trial judge were denied, and they did not seek writ review of these rulings.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Regent and Greenhouse had no duty to intervene in the neighbor dispute or prevent the altercation. The court found that Woolard and Hall failed to establish a legal duty of care breached by Regent and Greenhouse. Additionally, the court noted that claims of housing discrimination were not supported by evidence and were not properly raised as a separate cause of action. The court also held that the disqualification motions were not reviewable on appeal. The judgment in favor of Regent and Greenhouse was affirmed, and they were entitled to their costs on appeal. View "Woolard v. Regent Real Estate Services" on Justia Law

In 2015, the plaintiff was injured when his vehicle was rear-ended by a truck driven by the defendant, who was employed by KLS Transportation, Inc. The plaintiff sought medical treatment for his injuries, which included multiple surgeries and ongoing pain management. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant and KLS, and a jury awarded him $3,299,455 in damages for past and future economic and noneconomic losses.The Superior Court of Sacramento County entered a judgment on the jury's verdict. The defendants filed motions for a new trial, partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and to tax costs, all of which were denied by the trial court. The court entered an updated judgment, including costs and prejudgment interest, totaling $1,645,685.88. The defendants appealed the judgment and the updated judgment.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court had erred in its interpretation of the Hospital Lien Act (HLA) and the proper measure of past medical damages. The appellate court concluded that the HLA only applies to emergency services and ongoing services provided while the patient remains in the hospital or an affiliated facility. The court vacated the award for past medical expenses and remanded for a new trial on this issue. The court also found that the award for future medical expenses was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded for a new trial on this issue as well.The appellate court affirmed the judgment in all other respects but vacated the award for costs and prejudgment interest. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs on appeal. View "Yaffee v. Skeen" on Justia Law

A bicyclist was struck by a vehicle while crossing a marked, non-signalized crosswalk on an onramp from Jeffrey Road in Irvine, leading to the I-405 freeway northbound. The bicyclist’s parents sued the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Irvine, claiming the crosswalk was dangerous due to the lack of a signal, inadequate signage, and a high speed limit. They alleged these factors contributed to their daughter's death and that the public entities failed to warn of the dangerous condition.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of Caltrans and the City. The court found no triable issue of material fact regarding design immunity, which shields public entities from liability for creating a dangerous condition if the design was approved by a discretionary authority. The court also ruled that the lack of a traffic control signal did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to show the alleged dangerous condition was a concealed trap or that there was a failure to warn.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that Caltrans had established design immunity and that the plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of material fact. The appellate court also found that Caltrans had no notice of the alleged dangerous condition, as there were no similar accidents in the area in the decade prior. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Caltrans had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, which is necessary for a failure-to-warn claim. View "Kabat v. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, David Yaffee, was awarded $3,299,455 in damages by a jury for past and future economic earnings and noneconomic loss due to injuries sustained when his vehicle was rear-ended by a truck driven by Joseph Skeen, who was employed by KLS Transportation, Inc. The accident occurred in 2015, and Yaffee experienced significant medical issues, including back pain and leg tingling, leading to multiple medical treatments and surgeries.The Superior Court of Sacramento County entered a judgment on the jury's verdict, which included awards for past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, and noneconomic damages. Defendants, including National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, challenged the awards on several grounds, including the reasonableness of past medical expenses, the speculative nature of future medical expenses, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting lost earnings.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court had erred in its interpretation of the Hospital Lien Act (HLA) regarding the measure of past medical damages, leading to the improper admission of evidence on the reasonable value of services. The court concluded that the HLA only applies to services provided while the patient remains in the hospital or affiliated facility following emergency services. Consequently, the award for past medical expenses was reversed.The court also found that the award for future medical expenses was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the speculative nature of the need for a dorsal root ganglion stimulator. The court reversed the award for future medical expenses and remanded for a new trial on this issue.The awards for past and future lost earnings were upheld, as the court found sufficient evidence supporting the jury's findings. The award for future noneconomic damages was also upheld, as the evidence established a reasonable certainty of future pain and suffering.The court vacated the award for costs and prejudgment interest, as these were based on the reversed portions of the judgment. The case was remanded for a new trial on the issues of past and future medical expenses. View "Yaffee v. Skeen" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, David Yaffee, was injured in a car accident in 2015 when his vehicle was rear-ended by a truck driven by Joseph Skeen, who was employed by KLS Transportation, Inc. Yaffee experienced significant pain and medical issues following the accident, leading to multiple medical treatments, including surgeries and ongoing pain management. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against Skeen and KLS, with National Liability & Fire Insurance Company appearing on behalf of KLS.The Superior Court of Sacramento County oversaw the trial, where a jury awarded Yaffee $3,299,455 in damages for past and future economic earnings and noneconomic loss. The defendants challenged several aspects of the award, including past and future medical damages, lost earnings, future noneconomic damages, and the award for costs and prejudgment interest. The trial court denied the defendants' motions for a new trial and partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court had erred in its interpretation of the Hospital Lien Act (HLA) regarding the proper measure of past medical damages. The appellate court concluded that the HLA only applies to emergency and ongoing services provided while the patient remains in the hospital or an affiliated facility, not to all future services related to the injury. Consequently, the award for past medical damages was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial on this issue.The appellate court also found that the award for future medical damages was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the need for a dorsal root ganglion stimulator. This award was also reversed and remanded for a new trial. However, the court upheld the jury's awards for past and future lost earnings and future noneconomic damages, finding sufficient evidence to support these awards. The award for costs and prejudgment interest was vacated due to the partial reversal of the judgment. View "Yaffee v. Skeen" on Justia Law

A woman was involved in a head-on car collision in Petaluma, California. Fire department paramedics responded to the scene and repeatedly offered her medical assistance, which she declined, stating she was not injured. Despite being warned of potential serious injuries that might not yet be symptomatic, she refused transport to a hospital. Hours later, she suffered a debilitating stroke due to a hypertensive crisis triggered by the collision. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City of Petaluma and the paramedics, alleging gross negligence for failing to properly assess her medical condition and transport her to a hospital.The Sonoma County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the paramedics did not assume a duty of care to provide the medical assistance claimed by the plaintiff. The court found that the paramedics did not initiate medical care but merely offered it, which the plaintiff refused. Therefore, the paramedics did not owe a duty to perform a full medical assessment.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the paramedics did not assume a duty to provide medical assistance under the negligent undertaking doctrine. The court emphasized that the paramedics' duty was limited by the plaintiff's repeated refusals of medical assistance and transport to a hospital. The court concluded that the paramedics' actions did not increase the risk of harm to the plaintiff and that they left her in the same condition as when they arrived. Thus, the paramedics did not owe a duty to provide the medical care the plaintiff claimed was necessary. View "Murphy v. City of Petaluma" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Antonio Juarez, Jose Hinojosa, Jose Espinosa, and Maria Morfin filed a lawsuit against the San Bernardino City Unified School District following an incident involving Officer Alejandro Brown, a District employee. In February 2018, Juarez found a cell phone and later, Officer Brown, tracking his phone, confronted the plaintiffs, identifying himself as a District police officer. Brown, armed and displaying his badge, demanded compliance, struck Juarez with his firearm, and threatened the others. Brown later pled guilty to assault and battery and threatening the plaintiffs under color of law.The Superior Court of Riverside County sustained the District’s demurrer to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court found the complaint insufficient to establish that Officer Brown was acting within the scope of his employment with the District and dismissed the claims of negligence, battery, assault, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, false arrest and imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Bane Act.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed and remanded the case. The appellate court held that the scope of employment is a factual issue that cannot be resolved as a matter of law on demurrer. The court found that Officer Brown’s off-duty misconduct, while investigating a suspected theft and wielding his authority as a peace officer, could be regarded as an outgrowth of his employment. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer, enter a new order overruling the demurrer, and conduct further proceedings. The appellate court also rejected the District’s arguments regarding the Bane Act and found the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. View "Juarez v. San Bernardino City Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Grace Gonzalez slipped and fell on oranges in the common walkway of the Ontario Mills Shopping Center, owned by Ontario Mills Limited Partnership (OMLP) and maintained by Interstate Cleaning Corporation (ICC). Gonzalez filed a lawsuit against OMLP and ICC, alleging premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that there was no triable issue of material fact because the defendants conducted active and frequent inspections of the floors, including the area where Gonzalez fell, and had no actual or constructive knowledge of the spilled oranges.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County reviewed the case and found that the defendants had no actual knowledge of the oranges before the fall. The court also found that the evidence of ICC’s training and inspection practices demonstrated that the area where Gonzalez fell had been inspected eight to nine minutes before the incident. The court ruled that this evidence showed the defendants lacked constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition in time to remedy it, and therefore, granted summary judgment for the defendants.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the undisputed evidence showed the defendants actively inspected the floor, and the eight- to nine-minute interval between the last inspection and Gonzalez’s fall was insufficient to demonstrate constructive knowledge. The court concluded that the defendants could not be held liable for Gonzalez’s injuries as they had exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises. View "Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Corp." on Justia Law

In September 2017, Attorney Karolyn Kovtun held a meeting with Jennifer Shenefield and her client Mark Shenefield, despite a criminal protective order prohibiting Mark from contacting Jennifer. During the meeting, Mark and Kovtun verbally and emotionally abused Jennifer, and Kovtun threatened to remove their daughter from Jennifer’s custody if she did not sign a custody agreement. Jennifer signed the agreement under duress and contacted the police. Kovtun continued to represent Mark, who was later convicted of violating the protective order. Kovtun then sued Jennifer for recording the meeting without consent, prompting Jennifer to file a cross-complaint against Kovtun.The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Kovtun’s two anti-SLAPP motions and sustained her demurrer to two of Jennifer’s six causes of action. After a bench trial, the court found Kovtun liable for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, awarding Jennifer $50,000 in damages. Kovtun appealed, arguing that Jennifer’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the litigation privilege.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, California, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Kovtun waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to timely and properly plead it. Additionally, the court determined that the litigation privilege did not apply to Kovtun’s communications during the meeting, as they were not made in good faith contemplation of litigation. The court affirmed the judgment against Kovtun, upholding the $50,000 damages award to Jennifer. View "Shenefield v. Kovtun" on Justia Law