Oakland Personal Injury Attorney Blog

California Court Says Passenger May Be Liable to Victims for Her Exhortations to Driver in Fatal Crash

July 31, 2015 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

Back seat (or passenger seat) driving usually holds little risk other than potential annoyance to the driver. However, an important new California Court of Appeal case recently concluded that a woman was potentially liable for the instructions and encouragement she gave the driver of her vehicle, which led the driver to speed so fast he lost control of his SUV and crashed into a family and their SUV.

The crash that triggered the lawsuit involved 18-year-old Brandon Coleman, a newly licensed driver who was transporting companions Hayley Meyer and Levi Calhoun to a Riverside County Rite Aid drug store to purchase soft drinks on Thanksgiving night in 2009. On the way, Meyer told Coleman to turn down a 25-mile-per-hour residential street because the street had several dips that could cause a car to become airborne if taken at a high rate of speed.

California Court Rules that Medical Bills, Expert Testimony Enough to Prove Damages in Multi-Million Dollar Auto Accident Case

July 15, 2015 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

An uninsured bicyclist, who was severely injured by a vehicle involved in a two-car accident, was allowed to retain most of the $3.75 million judgment a jury awarded him against one of the drivers. The California Court of Appeal decided that uninsured accident victims, like the bicyclist, could prove their damages by offering up their medical bills alongside medical expert testimony stating that those charges were fair and reasonable.

The accident in question involved drivers Nathan Heacox and Faith Ciolek, who were traveling in opposite directions on Talbert Avenue in Orange County when their vehicles collided in the intersection of Talbert and Bushard Street. The crash knocked Heacox’s vehicle onto the sidewalk, where it struck bicyclist Omar Bermudez. Bermudez, who suffered serious injuries including multiple fractures, sued both drivers. Although a jury decided that Heacox was speeding, it concluded that only Ciolek was “a substantial factor in causing harm” to the bicyclist.

Supervisors, Stress, and Your California Disability Discrimination Case

June 30, 2015 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

Many dramas and comedies, on both the small and big screens, have focused on the ups and downs of workplace life. In some situations, though, the conditions at a place of employment can go beyond just normal irritations and inconveniences. One employee, who suffered a stress condition because of her supervisors, sued her employer for discrimination when it terminated her instead of transferring her to a new department. The California Court of Appeal recently ruled that the employee did not have a valid Fair Employment and Housing Act case because her disorder did not amount to a recognized disability under the law.

In 2007, Michaelin Higgins-Williams started a job with Sutter Medical Foundation. In June 2010, Higgins-Williams’ doctor diagnosed her with adjustment disorder after the employee reported experiencing stress stemming from her interaction with Debbie Prince, her immediate supervisor, Norma Perry, a regional manager over both Prince and Higgins-Williams, and Sutter’s human resources department. As a result of that diagnosis, Sutter gave the employee five weeks of leave under the California Family Rights Act and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

California Court Rules Insurer Can’t Dodge Coverage Simply Because Injured Passenger Was Driver’s College Roommate

June 15, 2015 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

Auto accident cases, in most situations, involve dealing with insurance companies. While insurers try to carve out coverage exclusions when they can, California law limits the exclusions an auto insurer may include in its policies. In a case originating with an auto accident in Orange County, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the at-fault driver’s insurer could not evade paying the judgment recovered by the driver’s passenger, even though the two were residents of the same household. The law only permitted insurers to carve out exclusions for cohabitating persons if they were relatives, and the driver and passenger in this case were unrelated college roommates.

The case began, as many personal injury matters do, with an unfortunate accident. Hung Chu crashed his 1995 Honda Accord when he turned left in front of a vehicle driven by Krystal Nguyen Hoang in Garden Grove. Riding alongside Chu was his roommate, Tu Pham. Pham, who was injured in the accident, sued Chu, recovering a judgment in the amount of $333,300.

Be Wary of the Release Agreements You Sign as Part of Your California Personal Injury Case

May 29, 2015 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

Suffering serious injuries in an auto accident caused by someone else can leave you with many major decisions to weigh. If you decide to settle, the other side will likely demand that you sign a release document as part of the settlement. Achieving a clear understanding of the precise boundaries of that release is imperative, since a broad release may potentially impair your ability to recover from others responsible for your injuries. Such was the case for a motorcyclist who recently lost his appeal before the California Court of Appeal.

The motorcyclist, Ronald Lee Cline, was severely injured in a collision with a car driven by Colby Homuth. Homuth, who had only a provisional driver’s license, was executing a turn onto a road in Calaveras County when Cline’s motorcycle crashed into the rear of his car. The accident report stated that Homuth was to blame for the accident.

California Supreme Court Says Employers Can’t Recover Costs in Non-Frivolous Discrimination Suits

May 15, 2015 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

If you’ve suffered discrimination at the hands of your employer, you have a lot to worry about. It is very possible your employer wrongfully terminated you. Even if you succeeded in finding a new job, you probably went through a period of joblessness. For many people, the prospect of taking on a lawsuit under such difficult personal financial circumstances can seem beyond daunting. However, in an important new ruling from the California Supreme Court, employees can remove one hurdle and fear from the equation, since the court decided that employers cannot recover costs from non-frivolous discrimination cases filed under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, even if the employer wins on the merits.

The much-anticipated ruling arose from a disability discrimination lawsuit that a firefighter, Loring Winn Williams, launched against the Chino Valley Independent Fire District. In response to the complaint, the district asked the trial court to award it summary judgment and to order the firefighter to pay its costs. The trial court granted the district’s summary judgment motion and awarded the district costs.

California Property Owner Prevails in Premises Liability Case Based on Second-Hand Exposure to Asbestos

April 30, 2015 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

California law allows people to pursue premises liability claims if the landowner’s actions or inaction created an unreasonable risk of harm to offsite individuals. This potential for recovery from injuries does not extend to people harmed through secondary exposure to the clothes of a relative who wore asbestos-contaminated work clothes home. The California Court of Appeal concluded that allowing such second-hand asbestos exposure claims could lead to “limitless liability” for premises owners.

Frank Beckering worked as a machinist for Shell Oil Co. at its facilities in Dominguez and Wilmington in Southern California for nearly four decades, from 1954 to 1992. Beckering died 17 years after he retired. Four years later, his wife, Wanda Beckering, sued the employer. The wife launched a premises liability case, even though she never visited either of the Shell sites where her husband worked. According to the wife, Shell was still liable to her, since her act of laundering her husband’s work clothes for decades caused her to develop mesothelioma.

California Maintenance Worker with Bowel Disease Allowed to Sue for Disability Discrimination After Managed ‘Chilled’ Accommodation

April 15, 2015 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

When it comes to providing reasonable accommodations that comply with the Fair Employment and Housing Act, a recent federal case from Southern California illustrates that informal accommodations may not be enough. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived a maintenance worker’s disability discrimination case, concluding that the receipt of permission to arrive late to work as needed from his immediate supervisor may not have constituted a valid accommodation, given that higher managers took actions that “chilled” the employee’s freedom to avail himself of the accommodation.

The 9th Circuit’s ruling was good news for Anthony Nigro, who worked for Sears Roebuck & Co. as a maintenance technician in Carlsbad. The employee had ulcerative colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease that caused him to lose sleep at night. Because of this condition, Nigro’s immediate supervisor, Jason Foss, allowed him to arrive at work at 9:00 a.m. as needed, instead of the usual 6:00 a.m. The general manager of the Carlsbad store, Larry Foerster, disapproved of the accommodation for Nigro and demanded that the employee arrive at work at 6:00 a.m. every day.

Policy Language Stops California Widow’s Claim Against Insurer in Fatal Drunk Driving Crash

March 31, 2015 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

In many auto accident injury cases, insurance companies are central figures in the process. In a recent California Court of Appeal case involving a drunk driver, the drunk driver’s employer and a fatally injured motorcyclist, the court decided that the motorcyclist’s wife was not entitled to recover payment under her and her husband’s auto insurance policy, because the insurers for the drunk driver and the employer each had already paid the wife, and the sum of those payments exceeded the limit of the couple’s policy.

The tragic events that ended Greg Elliott’s life began when Lesa Shaffer, a worker at Peterson’s Corner, a restaurant and bar, decided to drive home at the end of her shift despite being drunk. Shaffer’s truck crossed the center line of Route 49 in Nevada County and collided with Elliott’s motorcycle, killing the man.

California Employers Not Required to Eliminate Essential Job Duties to Accommodate Employees With Disabilities

March 13, 2015 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

As an employer, understanding exactly what the Fair Employment and Housing Act requires of you when faced with an employee with a disability is extremely important. Failing to go far enough in reasonably accommodating an employee can risk triggering potentially expensive and time-consuming litigation. Two recent California Court of Appeal cases, published within five days of each other, help give some instruction regarding the reasonable accommodation of employees with restrictions. Of the things the law requires employers to do in making reasonable accommodations, both cases make clear that ignoring or dropping essential functions of a job is not among them.

The first of this pair of cases came from Imperial County, where Joseph Garcia worked for the state Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation as a painter. Five years into the job, Garcia developed head and neck pains, along with vertigo. His doctor advised that he remain at ground level and avoid climbing ladders, roofs, and scaffolding. The department eventually demoted him from painter to laboratory assistant. When Garcia did not show up for his new assignment, the state terminated him.