Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against the city after he fell over a retaining wall located beside a recreational trail and sustained serious personal injuries. The Court of Appeal held that the city was immune from liability under the trail immunity statute, Government Code section 831.4, subd. (b)1. The statute provided that a public entity was not liable for an injury caused by a condition of any trail used for recreational purposes. In this case, they city was immune from claims that warnings or guardrails were required to protect against falls from the trail over the concrete retaining wall, or that the trail should be relocated to a safer location, because these claims concerned the location and design of the trail. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Arvizu v. City of Pasadena" on Justia Law

The Foxes filed suit against 18 defendants in February 2017, claiming that Ms. Fox, age 81, sustained personal injuries as a result of her exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, from approximately 1954-1963. Out of concern for Ms. Fox’s declining health, the Foxes moved for trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure 36(a). Ms. Fox now suffers from stage IV lung cancer, metastasized to her femur, clavicle, and spine, and from asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, severe coronary artery disease, and anemia. She receives chemotherapy treatments every three weeks and is in partial remission but the side effects have been severe. Her attorney stated: “[f]or [Ms. Fox] to effectively participate and assist in her trial, so that her interests will not be prejudiced, it is imperative that the trial be held as soon as possible.” The Foxes submitted medical records confirming Ms. Fox’s medical diagnoses. Only two of 18 defendants opposed the Foxes’ motion and did not offer substantive argument. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeal directed the superior court to schedule a trial within 120 days. On this record, the absence of more specifics about Ms. Fox’s prognosis was insufficient reason to deny the request for calendar preference. View "Fox v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Foxes filed suit against 18 defendants in February 2017, claiming that Ms. Fox, age 81, sustained personal injuries as a result of her exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products, from approximately 1954-1963. Out of concern for Ms. Fox’s declining health, the Foxes moved for trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure 36(a). Ms. Fox now suffers from stage IV lung cancer, metastasized to her femur, clavicle, and spine, and from asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, severe coronary artery disease, and anemia. She receives chemotherapy treatments every three weeks and is in partial remission but the side effects have been severe. Her attorney stated: “[f]or [Ms. Fox] to effectively participate and assist in her trial, so that her interests will not be prejudiced, it is imperative that the trial be held as soon as possible.” The Foxes submitted medical records confirming Ms. Fox’s medical diagnoses. Only two of 18 defendants opposed the Foxes’ motion and did not offer substantive argument. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeal directed the superior court to schedule a trial within 120 days. On this record, the absence of more specifics about Ms. Fox’s prognosis was insufficient reason to deny the request for calendar preference. View "Fox v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Real party filed suit against Klean, a voluntary drug abuse treatment facility, alleging that Klean was negligent for the injuries he suffered after smuggling heroin into his room and injecting it late one night. The Court of Appeal granted Klean's petition for writ of mandate after the trial court denied its motion for summary judgment. The court held that the Drug Dealer Liability Act did not preclude a user of an illegal controlled substance subject to the Act from pursuing a common law claim. Nonetheless, the court held that there was no basis in common law to impose liability on Klean, the unlocked drug treatment facility real party voluntarily entered, for failing to prevent him from consuming drugs he smuggled into the facility. The court also held that the undisputed facts established that Klean was not negligent in failing to discover real party earlier, in order to seek medical treatment for him. View "Klean W. Hollywood, LLC v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The question this appeal presented for the Court of Appeal centered on whether Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)1 precluded respondent, Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (the Board), from awarding respondent, Kyle Pike, temporary disability payments for periods of disability occurring more than five years after the date of the underlying injury that Pike suffered while working for San Diego County. The Court concluded the plain language of the statute indicated the answer to this question was, "Yes." Section 4656(c)(2) provided, "Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after January 1, 2008,[2] causing temporary disability shall not extend for more than 104 compensable weeks within a period of five years from the date of injury." (Italics added.) Accordingly, the Court annulled a Board order affirming a workers' compensation administrative law judge's order that awarded temporary disability benefits for periods of disability occurring more than five years after Pike's injury. View "County of San Diego v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

An owner of a parking lot, who leases that space out to a mobile food vendor, was not, as a matter of policy, liable for all harm that occurs during the hours of operation of that vendor regardless of intervening acts by third parties. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant in an action alleging negligence and premises liability after plaintiff was struck and then dragged by a vehicle exiting defendant's parking lot. The court held that defendant did not owe a duty to plaintiff where the conduct of the driver was not foreseeable or derivative of defendant's conduct in designing, leasing or operating the parking lot. In this case, neither plaintiff nor his wife anticipated or expected the driver of the vehicle to suddenly reverse his car out of the crowded parking lot and into the street at high speed while still in the midst of dealing with the first accident. View "Sakai v. Massco Investments, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their landlord for alleged negligence after a fire in an upstairs apartment caused injuries to several tenants. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the landlord, holding that defendant met his initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence that plaintiffs would not be able to establish the element of causation. The court also held that plaintiffs' reference to the discrepancy in the declaration of an expert fire investigator without evidence to establish the significance thereof on the issue of causation, was insufficient to create a triable issue of material fact; plaintiffs never properly alleged a cause of action based on a failure to warn theory; potential inferences that arguably arose under the evidence offered by defendant were not sufficient to create a triable issue of fact; and plaintiffs' 11th-hour spoliation claim was properly disregarded by the trial court under the circumstances. View "Leyva v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their landlord for alleged negligence after a fire in an upstairs apartment caused injuries to several tenants. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the landlord, holding that defendant met his initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence that plaintiffs would not be able to establish the element of causation. The court also held that plaintiffs' reference to the discrepancy in the declaration of an expert fire investigator without evidence to establish the significance thereof on the issue of causation, was insufficient to create a triable issue of material fact; plaintiffs never properly alleged a cause of action based on a failure to warn theory; potential inferences that arguably arose under the evidence offered by defendant were not sufficient to create a triable issue of fact; and plaintiffs' 11th-hour spoliation claim was properly disregarded by the trial court under the circumstances. View "Leyva v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, survivors of the decedent who fell to his death while washing windows, filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that decedent was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by statute, to which decedent could attach a descent apparatus. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for TCI. The court explained that Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, and its progeny held that when a property owner hires an independent contractor, the property owner is not liable for injuries sustained by the contractor's employees unless the defendant's affirmative conduct contributed to the injuries. The court held, in this case, that the undisputed evidence was that TCI did not direct how the window washing should be done nor otherwise interfere with the means or methods of accomplishing the work. Therefore, TCI was not vicariously liable to plaintiffs for the negligence of the contractor or its employees. View "Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc." on Justia Law

Johnson worked successively as a firefighter for South San Francisco (CSSF) and Pacifica. He developed nasopharyngeal cancer. Labor Code section 3212.11 establishes a presumption that cancer manifesting during and for a specified period following employment in certain public safety positions, including firefighters, arose out of and in the course of that employment. Section 5500.5(a) limits employer liability for a cumulative injury to the employer who employed the applicant during the one year preceding the earliest of the date of injury or the last date of injurious exposure to the hazards that caused the injury, so either CSSF or Pacifica would be potentially responsible for compensation for the entire injury. CSSF settled Johnson's workers’ compensation claim and sought contribution from Pacifica. An arbitrator denied the petition, ruling that evidence of the latency period for Johnson's cancer showed the injurious exposure occurred during Johnson’s earlier employment with CSSF. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board adopted the order. CSSF argued the Board erroneously utilized a more lenient preponderance evidentiary standard in applying section 5500.5(a), rather than the more stringent cancer presumption rebuttal standard of section 3212.1. The court of appeal affirmed; the evidence supports the award. Worker protection policies embodied in section 3212.1 are not implicated in the allocation of liability between employers. View "City of South San Francisco v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" on Justia Law