Personal Injury Law Frequently Asked Questions
WHAT IS THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE IN CALIFORNIA?
By Richard Alexander
PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHEN IS A PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER?
A. A plaintiff who was injured as as result of some negligent conduct
on the part of a defendant is entitled to recover compensation for such
injury from that defendant.A plaintiff is entitled to a verdict if jury
finds1. That a defendant was negligent, and2. That such negligence was
a cause of injury to the plaintiff.
PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE?
Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person
would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent
person would do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.It
is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.Ordinary or reasonable
care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use in order
to avoid injury to themselves or others under circumstances similar to
those shown by the evidence. The person whose conduct we set up as a standard
is not the extraordinarily cautious individual, nor the exceptionally
skillful one, but a person of reasonable and ordinary prudence.One test
that is helpful in determining whether or not a person was negligent is
to ask and answer the question whether or not, if a person of ordinary
prudence had been in the same situation and possessed of the same knowledge,
he or she would have foreseen or anticipated that someone might have been
injured by or as a result of his or her action or inaction. If the answer
to that question is "yes", and if the action or inaction reasonably
could have been avoided, then not to avoid it would be negligence.
PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. HOW CAUTIOUS MUST SOMEONE BE?
A. The amount of caution required of a person in the exercise of ordinary
care depends upon the conditions that are apparent or that should be apparent
to a reasonably prudent person under circumstances similar to those shown
by the evidence.
PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. CAN I ASSUME OTHER PEOPLE WILL BE CAREFUL AND FOLLOW THE LAW?
A. Every person who, himself, is exercising ordinary care, has a right
to assume that every other person will perform his duty and obey the law,
and in the absence of reasonable cause for thinking otherwise, it is not
negligence for such a person to fail to anticipate an accident which can
occur only as a result of a violation of law or duty by another person.
PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHAT ROLE DOES A LOCAL CUSTOM PLAY IN DETERMINING IF SOMEONE IS CAREFUL?
A. Evidence as to whether or not a person conformed to a custom that
had grown up in a given locality or business is relevant and ought to
be considered, but is not necessarily controlling on the question whether
or not he exercised ordinary care.
PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. IS A CHILD HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD AS AN ADULT?
A. A minor is not held to the same standard of conduct as an adult.
He/she is only required to exercise the degree of care which ordinarily
is exercised by minors of like maturity, intelligence and capacity under
similar circumstances. It is for the jury to determine whether the conduct
of plaintiff was such as might reasonably have been expected of a minor
of her maturity, intelligence and capacity, acting under similar circumstances.
PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A PERSON MUST WORK IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION?
A. When a person's lawful employment requires that he work in a dangerous
location or a place that involves unusual possibilities of injury, or
requires that in the line of his duty he/she take risks which ordinarily
a reasonably prudent person would avoid, the necessities of such a situation,
insofar as they limit the caution that he/she can take for his/her own
safety, lessen the amount of caution required of him by law in the exercise
of ordinary care.
PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. IF AN INJURED PERSON IS AT FAULT, CAN HE/SHE STILL COLLECT?
A. Contributory negligence is negligence on the part of a plaintiff
which, combining with the negligence of a defendant, contributes as a
cause in bringing about the injury.Contributory negligence, if any, on
the part of the plaintiff does not bar a recovery by the plaintiff against
the defendant but the total amount of damages to which the plaintiff would
otherwise be entitled shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of
negligence attributable to the plaintiff.
PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHAT IS A LEGAL CAUSE?
A. The law defines cause in its own particular way. A cause of injury,
damage, loss or harm is something that is a substantial factor in bringing
about an injury, damage, loss or harm.
PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHAT IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE CAUSE OF AN INJURY?
A. There may be more than one cause of an injury. When the negligent
conduct of two or more persons or negligent acts and a defective produce
contributes concurrently as causes of an injury, the conduct of each is
a cause of the injury regardless of the extent to which each contributes
to the injury. A cause is concurrent if it was operative at the moment
of injury and acted with another cause to produce the injury. It is not
a defense that the wrongful act of a person not joined as a party was
also a cause of the injury.
Here are just a few of our personal injury and wrongful death cases.
Contact us for more information. Or
see our complete list.
$4,000,000. Lead attorney for Donald Coca, a passenger
in a car stopped for a Vehicle Code violation, whose face was destroyed
by a shotgun which had been placed on his shoulder by a San Jose Police
Officer who was riding along with the California Highway Patrol. Cash
settlement of $4,000,000 believed to be the highest dollar award in the
history of the California Highway Patrol and the City of San Jose.
$5,000,000. Toyota Camry rollover caused a C-7 quadriplegia.
Defendant alleged plaintiff's comparative fault in  failing
to secure the manual lap belt in this 1989 seatbelt system which employed
an automatic shoulder restraint. Lap belt use is low with this system
because of a false sense of security created when the upper torso belt
is in place, which is why the this type of seatbelt system is no longer
used. Under Oregon law a finding of 51% comparative fault on the plaintiff
is a complete defense and reduces any verdict to zero. Holden v. Holman
Distribution, Multnomah County, Oregon.
$7,500,000. Represented five families in wrongful death
actions against PG&E arising from a defectively designed scaffolding
system in a 500' vertical shaft which failed at PG&E's Helm's Creek
Hydroelectric Facility in Fresno resulting in structured settlements providing
in excess of $25 million in benefits to the surviving families over their
lifetimes.
$1,680,000 recovery for Dr. Paul Chin who was rear-ended
in his 1969 BMW 1600 by a convicted felon who was intoxicated and traveling
at 90 miles per hour. The BMW exploded into a fireball and caused third
degree burns to 65% of Dr. Chin's body. Following the collision, the BMW
wreckage mysteriously disappeared near the time BMW's investigators photographed
the scene and the bullet vehicle. An identical vehicle was lost in a nearly
identical case arising in New York which was defensed by BMW . Crash testing
of two full size BMW's proved the fuel system failed at low speeds in
rear end collisions. This settlement was the first known occasion of a
settlement by BMW in a case alleging a design defect.
$1,000,000. Plaintiff, a 51 year old computer executive,
suffered a skull fracture and brain injury when he fainted and fell to
the deck
of a WWII military cargo ship while it was in port preparing for a Saturday
cruise. Passengers freely climbed onto hatch covers which were used for
seating. This tragically serious injury case settled because even though
there were no reports of previous injuries from similar falls, a sister
ship berthed in Baltimore, Maryland did not allow passengers on its cargo
hatches during cruises because of the risk of falls. Following surgery
and two weeks of intensive care at San Francisco General, plaintiff received
a month's rehabilitation at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and eventually
returned to work with his former employer. San Francisco Superior Court
number 301570.
Confidential. Ingvardsen v. Lucky Stores, Santa Clara
County No. 705350. June Ingvardsen, a 56 year old, Los Altos mother of
three boys and paralegal assistant of 18 years, consumed one bottle of
the contaminated L-tryptophan, an essential amino acid and food supplement.
She began experiencing symptoms and was diagnosed with EMS. EMS is a painful
and progressive, multi-system disease which causes permanent scarring
and fibrosis to nerve and muscle tissues, continuing inflammation, and
provokes a permanent change in the body's immune system. Showa Denko was
sued by Lucky Stores and joined as a cross-defendant. Showa Denko's plan
to delay Ms. Ingvardsen's case by consolidating all California L-tryptophan
cases in Los Angeles was successfully opposed and discovery was actively
pursued to bring the case to trial. The case settled immediately prior
to trial in a day long settlement conference before the Hon. David Leahy.
Pursuant to the demand of Lucky Stores and Showa Denko K.K. the settlement
sum is confidential and neither counsel or plaintiffs are allowed to comment
on the adequacy of the recovery.
Another confidential recovery in Wyatt v. Longs Drugs
for EMS injuries caused by L-tryptophan.
More >>
Don't forget to also visit:
|
