Oakland Personal Injury Attorney Blog

California Appellate Court Wrong for Allowing Prejudicial Evidence of Crash Victim’s Marijuana Use

September 30, 2014 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

People on trial for civil wrongs like negligence are entitled to present a vigorous defense. This often includes attempting to shift some or all of the blame for to the injured person. However, the law, while allowing the accused to present a defense, prohibits using evidence that is more likely to instill a bias in the jurors than it is to prove or disprove the issues before the jury. One recent example is a California Court of Appeal case where the court threw out a jury verdict because the trial court allowed the defense to present evidence of the deceased victim’s marijuana use, even though there was no connection between the drug use and the accident that took the victim’s life.

The fateful incident giving rise to the case occurred when Randy Hernandez was driving on the freeway in the pre-dawn hours of Feb. 28, 2010. Hernandez’s vehicle collided with one driven by Eric Lauderdale, leaving both vehicles disabled in the left lane. The men were standing near their vehicles when a sheriff’s deputy, who did not see the crashed vehicles, slammed into Lauderdale’s vehicle. The secondary accident sent Lauderdale over the five-foot-tall concrete barrier, but he suffered only a foot injury. Hernandez was killed.

Hernandez’s daughter sued Los Angeles County for negligence. At trial, the county introduced evidence that Hernandez had smoked marijuana and was possibly still under the influence when the accidents occurred. The county also claimed that Hernandez was responsible for the accident with Lauderdale. The jury deliberated and came back with a verdict finding the county 51% at fault, Lauderdale 35%, and Hernandez 14%.

Franchise Agreement Prevents Server From Suing Pizza Chain for Sexual Harassment She Encountered at Work

September 15, 2014 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

In a ruling that appears to represent a setback for workers, the California Supreme Court recently decided that the sexual harassment a restaurant server suffered on the job only allowed her to sue the franchisee that owned the location where she worked, not the restaurant chain as a whole. Since the chain did not manage or control its franchisees, it could not be liable for their misconduct.

The suit arose from Taylor Patterson’s employment at a Thousand Oaks Domino’s Pizza restaurant. According to the teen, during her brief time as a server at the business, she suffered multiple instances of sexual harassment, both of the physical and verbal varieties, by her manager. The server sued Domino’s for multiple violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, including sexual harassment, failure to take the appropriate measures to prevent harassment, and retaliation against her for reporting harassment.

The crux of Patterson’s case centered less on whether the server suffered sexual harassment, but more on the legal relationship between her and Domino’s. Patterson claimed that both she and her manager were employees of Domino’s, and the pizza chain was liable for the manager’s actions, while Domino’s argued that that its contractual arrangement with its franchisees made clear that its franchisees were independent entities and that neither the server nor the manager were its employees.

San Francisco Employer Fails to Show that Eliminating All Male Employees Was Only Way to Protect Female Inmates

August 29, 2014 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court’s decision to throw out a lawsuit launched by several sheriff’s deputies in San Francisco, who claimed that a policy prohibiting male deputies from overseeing female prisoners was discriminatory and violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The appeals court rejected the ruling because the evidence was insufficient to show that being female was a bona fide occupational qualification for supervising female inmates.

The City and County of San Francisco enacted a new policy barring men from overseeing female inmates. The employer claimed that it created the policy to maintain the safety and privacy of female inmates, as well as the security of the institution. After the employer implemented the policy, several deputies sued, claiming the policy violated Title VII and FEHA. Generally, discrimination based on sex is illegal unless the employer establishes that the restriction is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), meaning that it is reasonably necessary within the context of the employer’s business to restrict employment based upon an employee’s sex.

The trial court concluded that protecting the female inmates’ safety and privacy was a valid concern and that the government sufficiently made its case that a sex-based restriction was reasonably necessary to achieve that goal. The appeals court disagreed and reversed. While it agreed that protecting the safety and privacy of inmates was a valid ground for the policy, the employer did not have enough to prove that its means (eliminating all male guards) was necessary to achieve its stated end.

Injured Trucker, Passenger Can Use Doctors, Not Unpaid Bills to Establish the Value of Medical Services

August 15, 2014 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A trucker and his passenger received good news and bad news from their appeal of a trial court ruling in their personal injury lawsuit. According to the California Court of Appeal, the pair, who were injured when rear-ended by another trucker, could use the testimony of their doctors to establish the value of the medical services they received, but they could not use their unpaid medical bills, since a billed amount was not necessarily representative of the service’s true value.

The trucker, Joaquin Ochoa, was driving a semi truck without a trailer when a tractor-trailer driven by Jesus Felipe Dorado crashed into his vehicle from the rear. Ochoa was stopped in traffic on Interstate 710, and Dorado did not notice Ochoa until it was too late to stop in time. Ochoa and his passenger, Imelda Moreno, both suffered back injuries in the crash that eventually required surgery.

Ochoa and Moreno sued Dorado and his employer for the damages they suffered as a result of their injuries. At trial, the court refused to allow Ochoa and Moreno to use their unpaid medical bills as evidence of the reasonable value of the medical services they had received. The court also refused to allow the pair’s doctors to testify as to the value of the services they provided.

FEHA Protections Apply to Worker Regardless of His Immigration Status

July 31, 2014 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

The California Supreme Court issued a recent ruling that brightens the spotlight on the rights of undocumented workers to seek recovery for their employers’ violations of the state’s employment laws, including the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court’s decision stated that federal immigration law did not prevent the enforcement of a state law giving all workers, including undocumented workers, the right to sue in cases of discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination and other employment law violations.

Mr. Salas was a production-line worker for Sierra Chemical Co. in 2006 when he was injured at work. Twice, Salas hurt his back stacking crates. After the second injury, Salas filed a workers’ compensation claim. Sierra laid Salas off that December.

After Sierra declined to rehire Salas the next year, the worker sued his former employer for violating the FEHA. Salas claimed that he was disabled and that Sierra failed to accommodate his disability, and that the employer discriminated against him in retaliation for his filing the workers’ comp claim.

Law Does Not Require ‘Big Box’ Store to Keep Defibrillator on Hand in Case of Cardiac Emergencies, Supreme Court Rules

July 15, 2014 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A shopper’s sudden death from cardiac arrest inside a ‘big box” store in southern California triggered an important lawsuit analyzing the extent of businesses’ obligations to take precautionary steps to ensure the safety of their customers. Even though paramedics might require extra time to reach a shopper suffering a cardiac event inside a big box store, the law does not impose a duty on those stores to maintain a defibrillator on hand to deal with these emergencies, the California Supreme Court declared in a recent ruling.

The tragic events that produced this case centered around 49-year-old Ms. Verdugo, who was shopping at a Target store in Pico Rivera with her mother and brother. While inside the store, Verdugo had a heart attack and collapsed. A 911 call was placed, but by the time paramedics reached the woman, she was already dead.

The shopper’s family sued Target for wrongful death, complaining that the store should have maintained an automated external defibrillator for use in situations like the one that befell Verdugo. The family asserted that, given the frequency of sudden and unanticipated cardiac arrests (roughly 300,000 nationally per year) and the very large size of the Pico Rivera store, Target was negligent for not having available the equipment necessary to address Verdugo’s medical emergency. The retailer should have reasonably foreseen that a shopper might have an unexpected cardiac event and that, if such an emergency occurred, it might take paramedics several valuable minutes to reach her inside its massive store to administer care.

Employee’s Own Words Doom Job Duties Dispute in Discrimination Case

June 30, 2014 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A university affirmative action director’s discrimination and retaliation lawsuit failed and, recently, so did her appeal due to her own written and oral statements. The California Court of Appeal ruled that the university’s stated reason for termination was a legitimate one and not just a pretext for discrimination. The employee’s own words established that the job task that the employer cited in her termination was a vital element of her job, and that the failure to perform the task could have negative consequences for the university.

Conchita Serri’s lawsuit stemmed from her employment with Santa Clara University, where she served as the director of affirmative action. In 2006, a dispute arose between Serri and the university president regarding the school’s affirmative action plans. The director told the president that the university had not had a valid plan for years and that the university should hire a consultant to assist in the creation of a plan. Instead, the president removed the responsibility from Serri and reassigned the task to another employee.

The university eventually terminated Serri for her failure to prepare the plans, her failure to notify the administration about the lack of plans, and her misrepresentations about the plans. The director sued, alleging that the school’s actions were motivated by gender bias and retaliation. At trial, the university moved for summary judgment, arguing that it fired Serri for a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason: namely, her failure to do her job competently with regard to completing affirmative action plans.

Trucker Potentially Liable for Teen Driver’s Injuries Due to Illegal Parking Stop

June 13, 2014 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

Two teens injured in a vehicle accident with a truck along a southern California highway received a renewed opportunity to recover for the injuries they suffered when the California Court of Appeal decided that the trial court wrongfully placed the fault for the accident on the teen driver’s inattentiveness. The appeals court ruled that, since the trucker violated the Vehicle Code, that infraction raised the conclusion that the trucker was negligent per se and his negligence led to the crash.

The facts at the teens’ trial against the trucker showed that the trucker, David Hernandez, was driving his truck and flatbed trailer northbound along the Pacific Coast Highway when he pulled off for a rest break. Hernandez chose not to park along the right side of the northbound lane because it was too narrow a space and because the area was marked with “No Parking” signs. Instead, the trucker pulled into a parking area alongside the southbound lane. Hernandez positioned his truck so that it faced north toward oncoming southbound traffic.

To reenter the highway, Hernandez had to cross both the southbound and northbound lanes. While executing his reentry, a southbound vehicle driven by 18-year-old Joshua David struck Hernandez’s trailer. The accident injured both David and his 18-year-old passenger, Natalie Pierson.

Northern California Mom Launches Class Action Against Employer for Refusing to Extend Reasonable Accomodation of Her Pregnancy

May 30, 2014 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A retail store employee has the mixed blessing and curse of excitedly anticipating the birth of her second child, while simultaneously fearing the loss of her job due her employer’s policies. Rather than allow the employee to continue working with a “light duty” restriction, the employer forced her onto maternity leave, scheduled to run out more than a month before the baby is due. As a result of the employer’s refusal to provide the employee with a reasonable accommodation of her pregnancy-related disability, the employee has sued her employer for violating the Fair Employment and Housing Act in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Kimberley Caselman was a Pier 1 sales associate in San Jose who was two months pregnant in November 2013. At that time, the employee disclosed her pregnancy, and informed her employer that her doctor recommended that she refrain from climbing ladders or lifting objects heavier than 15 pounds. Pier 1 placed her on “light duty” work for eight weeks.

At the end of that period, Caselman asked to continue working under the “light duty” limitation. The employer refused, instead forcing the employer to go on unpaid medical leave, starting in January and ending on May 20. The employee stated in her complaint that, if she cannot return to work on May 20, she expects Pier 1 will fire her, or else keep her on unpaid leave (which would leave her without the post-leave job protection afforded under California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave law).
Continue reading ›

Pre-approved Agreement Caps Driver’s Liability at $100K

May 15, 2014 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A driver found liable to the tune of $366,000 managed to escape the bulk of that financial hit thanks to an arbitration agreement that both drivers approved prior to beginning binding arbitration. Both drivers had agreed, in the event of an arbitration award exceeding $100,000, that the injured driver would accept a $100,000 payment as total satisfaction of the obligation. When the defendant driver made that $100,000 payment, he completely satisfied the judgment, regardless of the amount of damages the arbitrator awarded, the California Court of Appeal ruled.

The court decision resolved the case of John Hess and Elsie Horath, who were involved in an auto accident where Hess’s vehicle struck Horath’s in the rear. Horath sued Hess for her injuries, and the two sides agreed to binding arbitration. As part of that agreement, Hess agreed to pay the woman the greater of either the arbitrator’s award or $44,000, while Horath agreed to accept the lesser of either the arbitrator’s award or $100,000.

The arbitrator found Hess liable and assessed Horath’s damages at just less than $330,000. The arbitrator also awarded Horath costs amounting to $36,882. Several months later, Hess asked the trial court to limit the judgment to the agreed-upon cap amount of $100,000. The trial court refused because the law gives parties only 100 days to correct an arbitrator’s award and Hess made his request nearly five months after the arbitrator issued the award.