Oakland Personal Injury Attorney Blog

Tenant’s Failure to Use Existing Lighting Unravels Slip-and-Fall Injury Case

November 29, 2013 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A residential tenant failed in her effort to hold a property owner’s trustee liable for injuries she suffered for a fall in the dark. In Castellon v. US Bancorp, the court determined that the trustee was not liable because the tenant’s injuries arose not from the existence of an unsafe condition, but because the tenant chose to exit her residence at night without first turning on the light that illuminated the area where the tenant fell.

Yanira Garcia Ramirez Castellon rented a room in a detached garage on a property owned by the Luis Villalobos trust. Maria Luisa Hernandez, Villalobos’ mother, lived in the property’s main residence. Late one night, the tenant slipped and fell on the steps outside the door leading from her room. The tenant sued US Bancorp, the trust’s trustee, for negligence and premises liability, arguing that the steps were a dangerous condition. To constitute a dangerous condition under California law, a condition must pose an unreasonable risk of harm, the property owner (or in the tenant’s case, the trustee) must have known, or reasonably should have known, about it, and must have failed to either repair the problem, provide a sufficient warning or otherwise protect against the danger.

The trustee sought summary judgment, arguing that no dangerous condition existed. The trustee asserted that the tenant knew it was dark outside, and that a working light existed outside the door, but that she failed to turn the light on because she could not locate the switch. Furthermore, the trustee alleged that the tenant had access to another exit, but chose not to use it. Continue reading ›

Employee Allowed to Pursue Claim of Discrimination Based Upon Intent to Donate Organ

November 15, 2013 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A California appellate court demonstrated the considerable extensiveness of the rights of employees to be free from discrimination in the workplace with its recent decision in Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. The court concluded that the employer’s decision to fire an organ-donating employee rather than comply with a newly effective law expanding the rights of organ donors violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act, as it constituted improper discrimination against an employee based upon his association with a person with disabilities. The ruling shows the risk employers undertake when they take adverse employment actions against employees with disabilities, or even those who actions are motivated by an association with a person with disabilities.

Auto-Chlor hired Scott Rope in September 2010. At that time, the employee informed the employer that his sister suffered from kidney failure and that he would be donating a kidney to her the following February. The employee later learned of the Michelle Maykin Memorial Donation Protection Act (DPA), which offers up to 30 days paid leave for organ donors, and sought paid leave for his February absence. Despite receiving only positive performance reviews, the employer terminated the manager on Dec. 30, two days before the DPA became effective, citing poor performance.

The employee sued, citing DPA violations and violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The employer asked the trial court to throw the case out, and the judge agreed. On appeal, however, the California Court of Appeal revived part of the employee’s action regarding alleged FEHA violations. The court determined that the employee’s complaint set up a potential case of discrimination based upon the employee’s association with a person with disabilities; namely, the employee’s sister. The court acknowledged that no previous California case had clearly established the parameters of the disability-based association discrimination issue, and looked to a 2004 federal ruling, Larimer v. International Business Machines Corporation, which analyzed the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Continue reading ›

Trucker’s Improper Interstate Stop Results in Fiery Crash, $150M Wrongful Death Judgment

October 30, 2013 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A trucker’s ill-advised decision to stop along the side of Interstate 210 in southern California precipitated a gruesome crash in which two children watched their parents and a sibling burn to death four years ago. This month a Los Angeles County jury issued a judgment awarding the youngest child more than $150 million in damages as a result of the fatal accident.

Kylie Asam was travelling with parents and two brothers when her father’s SUV allegedly hit debris in the highway and the father attempted to steer the vehicle to the shoulder of the road. Unfortunately, the SUV hit Rudolph Ortiz’s truck, which was parked along the side of the road and enshrouded in darkness. Asam and one brother escaped the SUV, but the eldest brother and the parents were still inside when flames consumed the SUV, burning all three to death. The surviving brother, Blaine Asam, later committed suicide.

The girl’s negligence suit alleged that the trucker acted improperly by pulling over along the side of the freeway to sleep, even though signs along the road stated that stopping was permissible on in cases of emergencies. The trucker argued that he did experience an emergency, stopping to take medication for a severe headache. The trucker also contended that the fiery wreck was the fault of the father, for failing to control his SUV. Attorneys for the girl, however, argued that a dent in one of the SUV’s rims proved their assertion that the father only drove to the side of the road after hitting something in the traveling lane. Continue reading ›

New Statute Widens the Parameters of California’s Non-Discrimination Protections

October 15, 2013 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

In the wake of a controversial termination of a San Diego schoolteacher who was a victim of domestic violence, the California legislature has passed, and Governor Jerry Brown signed, a new law expanding the reach of the state’s anti-discrimination laws to include victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and stalking. The new prohibitions in Senate Bill 400 bar employers from terminating, discriminating against or retaliating against employees based solely upon their status as victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.

The trigger for this new law was the case of Carie Charlesworth, a second-grade teacher at Holy Trinity School in San Diego County. In January 2013, despite several restraining orders, Charlesworth’s ex-husband came to the school parking lot, leading to a school “lockdown.” After the lockdown incident, the Diocese of San Diego terminated her, citing safety concerns.

Starting on Jan. 1, 2014, employers may no longer take a similar course of action. This prohibition exists even if the employer determines that the abuser or stalker presents a genuine threat of harm to other employees or (in the case of schools) students. Continue reading ›