A tragic accident in an Alabama airport has claimed the life of a 10-year-old boy and badly injured his mother and two of his brothers. According to the Associated Press/Yahoo News, the accident happened Friday when a 300-pound arrival-departure panel fell away from the wall and landed on top of five members of the Bresette family, including 5th grader Luke who apparently died at the scene.

Two patrons were badly crushed by a BMW just outside a strip bar and had to have their legs amputated after being taken to the hospital. According to ABC News, three men were involved in an altercation inside Sam's Hofbrau in Los Angeles before the fight spilled into the parking lot. Once in the lot, 40-year-old Terrence Meeks, got into his BMW and crashed it into the two victims, pinning them against a Mini-Cooper.

KTLA news is reporting a horrible accident at a La Canada Sport Chalet store occurred Friday morning at about 10:00 a.m. Apparently, two store employees went into a utility room to check on reports of a gas smell emanating from the room. The employees, one a 27-year-old woman and the other a 30-year-old man, were able to shut off the gas leak but upon leaving the room the gas flashed and the room exploded. The victims suffered second and third degree burns over 50 to 80% of their bodies. It

The Sun has reported that the suspect in a fatal shooting outside of a Colton bar has been arrested near the Mexican border. The shooting occurred just after 1:00 a.m. on Friday (January 25th) just outside the Linko's Cocktail Bar. The suspect, 25-year-old Larry Flaco Morales, has been booked on suspicion of murder. The Sun report indicates the killing may have occurred after a fight at the bar.

In a recent decision by the California Supreme Court (Nalwa vs. Cedar Fair (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 1148), it was held that an amusement park has no duty to ensure a rider's safety when that patron assumes the risk of riding a bumper car, even where the plaintiff sustained a broken wrist from a "head-on" collision. The Court's decision was based on a long line of cases arising from sporting activities and in which it has been held the participant has "assumed the risk" inherent in the activity.

ABC news has reported their long-time news veteran Barbara Walters has been hospitalized after falling at an inauguration party in Washington on Saturday night. Walters, 83-years-old, apparently tripped and fell on a step at the home of Britain's ambassador to the United States. She was taken to the hospital with a head injury, and the timing of her discharge has yet to be determined.

According to recent news reports, actor Larry Miller is expected to make a full recovery after suffering a traumatic brain injury after a fall last spring. Yahoo News/TV Guide and another news source (Eonline) have reported that Miller (who has appeared on Curb Your Enthusiasm, Seinfeld, Mad About You and Boston Legal) slipped and hit his head on a sidewalk just outside a Los Angeles bar on April 3, 2012.

According to KTLA news, a city councilman in Orange County is calling for teachers to be armed in response to the Sandy Hook shooting in Connecticut.  The San Juan Capistrano City Councilman, Derek Reeve,  has reportedly said that "efforts must be taken to empower teachers, staff and parents to protect our children.”  The comments, which also included a recommendation for teacher training and to permit parents to carry guns on school campuses, were suggested as options to protect children in situations like the one in Connecticut.

Arming Teachers and Allowing Weapons on School Campuses Could Subject School Districts to Civil Liability

In general, criminal acts committed by third parties are not the responsibility of the property owners or operators where the incident occurs  However, where the property owner and the victim have a "special relationship" (as exists between a teacher and student) there may be a duty of protection, where the danger to the victim is reasonably foreseeable.  In light of tragedies like Sandy Hook, it might seem the obligation of school districts around the country would be to arm teachers and parents in order to better protect the children on campus.  But the analysis cannot end there.

The duty of protection requires "reasonable" efforts be made, not efforts that could clearly cause more harm than good.  One can easily imagine a school teacher, with only limited firearms training, making the wrong decision to fire on someone who appears to pose a threat, injuring or killing someone unnecessarily.  Do we really want to force school teachers to make life-or-death decisions that trained law enforcement officers would have a hard time making?  

Aside from the potential for a teacher to negligently discharge a weapon, liability would almost certainly be imposed on a school district if a teacher carelessly let their weapon fall into the hands of child who was then injured or killed.   So many scenarios could easily give rise to liability, and the public entity operating a school would have to suffer the civil liability.  In fact, guns in and around schools are perceived as such a threat in general that California enacted the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995, criminalizing the possession of a firearm in a school zone.  Do we seriously want more guns around school-aged children?

If all of these potential teacher-related problems were not enough, the councilman's suggestion also included allowing parents onto school campuses with a firearm.  In that scenario, we would then have some untrained, perhaps unstable, person wandering onto a school campus with a loaded gun.  That would carry with it its own set of potential liabilities and problems.  Even if the teachers and the parents were armed, in reality, what chance would any of these teachers or parents have against a homicidal maniac with an assault weapon?  Not much.  

From a purely legal perspective, the liabilities associated with arming teachers and parents on school grounds would far outweigh any probable benefit.  The likelihood of an accidental injury or death would be increased exponentially if we arm so many people on our school campuses.  There has to be better, less risky steps we can take to protect our children.

SOURCE:  O.C. Councilman Wants Teachers To Be Armed, KTLA News, December 20, 2012

 

In a recent decision, a California appellate court held that an architect could not be held liable for a trip and fall accident after a projected was "completed and accepted" by the property owner, so long as certain other conditions are met.  The rule reiterated by this decision is that a contractor on a construction project cannot be responsible for a dangerous condition they create, if the danger should be apparent to the the property owner who accepts the work prior to the accident.  In other words, once the property owner has accepted a contractor's work, no matter how poor it might be, the owner will be the party liable for any injuries and damages resulting from a condition they should have discovered.  (Neiman v. Leo A. Daly Co., (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 962)

Implications of The Neiman Decision

While the "completed and accepted" doctrine has been the law for some time in California, the Neiman decision appears to be the first case to extend the defense to an architect on a construction project.  In the case, the Plaintiff suffered serious injuries when she fell on steps in a theater owned and operated by a community college.  The treads were designed to have stripes in order to make them more visible to patrons while descending the stairs.  In spite of the fact the Defendant (architect) oversaw the construction and should have noticed the stripes were missing, the appellate court basically "shifted" the responsibility to the community college district (premises owner) because the defect was patent, one that could have and should have been discovered upon reasonable inspection.  While the Plaintiff in the Neiman case was not left without a remedy, the suit against a public entity is nearly always more difficult than one against a private firm, like the architecture firm in this case.

Premises liability lawsuits arising from a construction or design defect can be difficult to successfully prosecute against the landowner.  For one thing, if the condition has been in existence for a meaningful period of time and there have been very few or no related accidents, the defense will almost always use this as an argument that the condition was at least reasonably safe.  The counter to this is to establish, where possible, a violation of the applicable building code.  In the case above, the California Code of Regulations sets forth a number of rules and requirements relative to stairways.  A violation of those provisions may provide the basis for a solid negligence claim against the landowner, for allowing a statutory violation to exist on their property.

Falls and Injuries From Defective Construction

If a construction defect has caused serious injuries to you or a loved one, consultation with an experienced Orange County Personal Injury Attorney can help you better understand your rights.  Construction accidents often having devastating consequences and leave the victim with lifelong disabilities.  Compensation for those injuries and damages often require the filing of a lawsuit and substantial litigation, best navigated by an attorney who has handled numerous such cases, from investigation through trial.

A verdict rendered by an Orange County jury in a slip and fall case was upheld on appeal last month despite claims by the injured party's attorney that there had been juror misconduct.  The verdict in favor of the defendant homeowners and the trial court's decision not to grant a new trial trial were affirmed by the Fourth District Court of Appeals despite evidence that the defense verdict was reached after the jury wrongfully considered evidence of liability insurance against the trial court's instructions.  

According to one juror, the jury discussed the belief that the plaintiff must have already been paid on a homeowner's insurance claim by an insurance company for the slip and fall injury that was the subject of the case.  The jury reportedly wondered aloud and was concerned that a verdict in the injured party's favor would be a ‘double recovery.’

The Alleged Misconduct and The Law

Assuming the jury was of the misimpression that a verdict for the injured party would be a "double recovery" because of prior insurance payments, it would be representative of one of the most unsettling facets of a jury trial.  Every juror enters the deliberation room with their own life experience and perceptions as to how the civil justice system works.  There is little to nothing the attorneys in the case can do about that.  However, the jurors are instructed by the court at the close of a civil trial to follow the law and are specifically told their training or experience is not a part of the evidence to be given consideration.   In other words, jurors are supposed to consider ONLY the law and the facts presented within the four walls of the courtroom, and the alleged misconduct above demonstrates why this is so important.

Evidence of Insurance Is Inadmissible

Under California law, a civil jury cannot consider whether any of the parties in a case has insurance, and they are specifically instructed that insurance is totally irrelevant.  Any juror in the above case who may have believed the plaintiff would receive a double recovery by way of a favorable verdict would be grossly misinformed.  The homeowner's insurance company has a duty to defend and indemnify the homeowner relative to personal injury claims and lawsuits.  The homeowner's insurance carrier essentially steps into the shoes of the homeowner for purposes of paying claims or a verdict.  In other words, the injured party generally can recover from only one source and not both.   This is known as the single satisfaction rule, and it prevents unjust enrichment to a party to a lawsuit.

The complexities of premises liability law, jury trials and insurance-related matters are best left to experienced injury trial attorneys.  If you have been injured in a slip and fall or other accident, it may be in your best interests to contact an Orange County injury lawyer for advice.

SOURCE:   Barboni v. Tuomi (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 340

 In a decision handed down on May 31st, the California First District Court of Appeals decided in favor of a customer who had slipped and fallen in a Safeway store, in spite of the fact the lower court had thrown the case out.  According to the Court's decision, the fact that the aisle where the accident happened may not have been inspected for a period of 20 minutes raised an inference there may have been negligence.  Even though the store had a custom and practice of regularly inspecting the sales floor, the facts of the case revealed this may not have been done for a period of 20 minutes before the customer fell, because of water from an unknown source on the floor.   The case had been dismissed on a motion by Safeway, essentially arguing that they had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the water on the floor.  The appellate court reversed.

What this case demonstrates is something critically important under California premises liability law.  Before liability can be imposed on a business, in the case above a grocery store, it must be shown that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the presence of a "dangerous condition", such as water on a tile floor.   The essence of a constructive notice claim is that the condition existed for such a length of time that it could and should have been discovered upon reasonable inspection.  What the court held in the case above was that the definition of reasonable inspection is nowhere precisely set forth in the law (either by statute or case law) so it should be left to the sound discretion of a jury to determine.  In short, this case is a reminder that the burden is often on the retailer or other business owner to prove a lack of notice.  The burden on the injured party is sometimes limited to showing the existence of the dangerous condition and that it was the cause or a contributing factor in the happening of an accident.

Compensation for the victims of slip and fall accidents, caused by a retailer's negligence in not regularly inspecting their sales floor, should be an important concern for all Californians. When a business patron is injured because regular and frequent measures were not taken by a business owner to keep the property safe, the owner should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 21 years of experience handling slip and fall cases, including just this type.   He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a slip and fall at a business that could have been prevented?

This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

 

 

In the criminal case arising from the tragic beating of Bryan Stow at Dodger Stadium, testimony of Stow's friend revealed a great deal had transpired between Stow and his eventual assailants before the nearly fatal attack.  According to KTLA news, Stow's friend, Corey Maciel, testified at the preliminary hearing for the two suspects that Stow and his friends had endured hours of heckling and thrown food inside the stadium.  Even after this occurred, Stow's group was further taunted in the parking and loud words were exchanged before the final, vicious attack.  The two suspects, Marvin Norwood and Louie Sanchez, are now facing a number of serious felony charges.

See the KTLA news story and video HERE.

As a general principle, there is no duty for anyone to act to protect others from the misconduct or criminal acts of third parties.  However, such a duty may be present if there exists a “special relationship” between the parties.  Courts have found such a special relationship in cases involving the relationship between business proprietors such as shopping centers, restaurants, and bars, and their tenants, patrons, or invitees.  Where the special relationship duty exists the business owner must take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures.  In the Stow case, the Dodger security staff had a duty to protect patrons from foreseeable misconduct and criminal acts.  Since the Dodger security staff knew or reasonably should have known what was happening, their duty likely included an obligation to take reasonable, relatively simple, and minimally burdensome steps to attempt to avert that danger.  If Stow and his friends had been escorted to their vehicle by security or those causing a disturbance had been arrested for disturbing the peace, would the assault on Stow have occurred?  It seems likely it would not have happened.

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes that occur on a business owner’s property should be an important concern for all Californians.   When a business owner's patron is attacked on their property they should be held accountable if they failed to provide a reasonably safe environment, especially when they can prevent or effectively intervene in a criminal assault.   An Orange County personal injury lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 21 years of experience handling personal injury and premises liability cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a violent crime that occurred at a place of business?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

 Fortunately, not everyone has or will experience a slip or trip and fall accident in their lifetime.  However, this type of accident is becoming more and more common here in the United States as the average age of our population increases.  In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year, one in every three adults age 65 and older falls.  These falls are often related to mobility issues common among the elderly, such as unstable or weak hips, knees or ankles.  However, when the neglect of a property or business owner causes or contributes to the happening of a fall, then the injured party should do all they reasonably can to protect their rights.  Absent taking certain, protective measures, a perfectly valid claim or lawsuit may be lost and the injured party may be denied some or all of the compensation they deserve.

The first thing to do when you are involved in any type of slip or trip and fall accident is to determine whether some artificial, dangerous condition played some role in the accident.  For example, if you were to take a fall in a retail store you would want to look at the floor to see if there is something on it (such as a liquid of some kind) that may have caused the fall.  If something dangerous is found, then steps should be taken to identify the source, if at all possible.  Identifying the source will likely aid in proving how long the condition existed and whether the store's employees knew or should have known of its existence.  The next thing to do is to document the scene of the accident with photographs, if at all possible.  Just about everyone carries a cell phone camera with them, and this would be the perfect time to put it to use.  Photographs of the condition causing the fall will likely go a long way to proving negligence, where it exists.  Next, a report (very short and concise) should be made to the property owner through their employees at or near the time of the accident.  If asked to write out an incident report narrative, careful attention should be paid to keeping the description of the accident as short and to the point as possible.  Finally, if there are any injuries sustained, medical attention should be sought and photographs take of any visible injuries.  If all of these steps are followed, then at a minimum the victim of a fall can rest assured they have done all they could to protect their rights, in the event they were harmed by some else's neglect.

Compensation for the victims of slip or trip and fall accidents, caused by a business owner's negligence, should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a business patron is injured because reasonable measures were not taken by a business owner to keep the property safe, the owner should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.   An Orange County injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a slip or trip and fall that could have been prevented?

This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

 

KTLA news is reporting that the woman suspected of perpetrating the pepper spray incident during a Walmart Black Friday sale may have acted out of necessity.  According to the story, a Los Angeles Police official is quoted as having said, "There was no control. People were getting stampeded and trampled. There were people screaming, yelling that they were being trampled or crushed. This woman may have fired her pepper spray in self-defense."  Initially, media reports and public sentiment seemed to suggest 32 year-old Elizabeth Macias had acted out of malice or a reckless desire to secure an X-Box console during a buying frenzy.  This may not have been the case.

See the KTLA news story HERE.

When a business owner creates or at least allows a potentially volatile situation to exist on their property, ultimately causing injury to someone, they may be held liable.  Under California law, in general a business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to protect patrons from another person's harmful conduct on the owner's property if the business can reasonably anticipate such conduct.  In the case above, it seems a reasonable inference that Walmart could foresee a Black Friday sale of X-Box consoles, if not well controlled, could get out of hand and lead to customer injuries.  Beyond this, assuming that store employees actually witnessed the shoppers were getting unruly and acting aggressively toward one another before the release of the pepper spray, then Walmart could be liable for failing to intervene in time to avoid the injuries that followed.

Compensation for the victims of criminal assaults, occurring on business property, should be an important concern for all Californians. When a business patron is injured because protective measures were not taken by a business owner, the owner should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim.  An Orange County injury lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of an assault that could have been prevented?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

 

Slip and fall accidents are unfortunately common, especially in places of business. The familiarity we all feel within or just outside our home is often lost when we patronize an unfamiliar place of business. This is particularly true in a retail environment where the walking surface can be significantly altered by slick tile, a wet floor or some sort of spill. A fall on hard ground can often be devastating and cause such injuries as broken ankles, knees and wrists, and even traumatic brain injuries. When these injuries and the resulting damages are caused by a business owner's negligence, the patron should do everything they reasonably can to ensure they will be compensated. Otherwise, the physical, emotional and financial impact could be life-altering.

As simple as these recommendations sound, they are sometimes difficult to accomplish in the aftermath of an injury-causing fall. Perhaps the most important evidence gathering to be done is in documenting the cause of the fall. If at all possible, the patron (or someone with them) should take at least a cell phone camera picture of anything on the walking surface that might have caused the fall. This would include any tripping hazards (such as a protruding piece of concrete or flooring, etc.) or slipping hazards (such as liquid on a tile floor, etc.). If there is any evidence at the scene that the condition came from a particular source or has been in existence for some period of time, that too should be documented, ideally with photographs. In every instance, it is important to report the accident to the business owner promptly. A delay in reporting often raises doubts as to the happening of the accident, and it deprives the business owner of the opportunity to do their own investigation into what may have caused the accident. Finally, the injured party should always seek medical attention unless the injuries are clearly superficial. Any visible sign of injury (bruises, cuts, etc.) should be documented with photographs at the earliest opportunity.

When a fall victim presents the above documentation to their injury attorney, that lawyer will likely have a much better chance of proving his client's case and obtaining an optimal recovery. Medical expenses and lost wages may be reimbursed, and the client's pain and suffering will be fairly compensated in that scenario.

Have you or a loved one been injured in a fall caused by someone else's negligence?

Compensation for the victims of fall accidents, caused by another’s negligence, should be an important concern for all Californians. When a fall occurs on someone else’s property because of the owner’s negligence, the owner should be held accountable. An Orange County injury lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims. Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type. He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.
 

In general, a business owner who holds their property open to the public for entry is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the property.  Such a business proprietor may be responsible for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons.  What the law in California requires is that the business owner exercise reasonable care to discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done and then take measures to prevent injury or give patrons a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect themselves against it.   Absent doing these things, a business can be held liable in civil court.

In the context of a criminal assault taking place on business property, the victim often has no meaningful recourse against the actual perpetrator since that person will likely have little to no assets with which to satisfy a civil judgment for damages.  If a business has "set the stage" for an assault to take place or does nothing meaningful to prevent it, the law allows recovery against the business owner.  Perhaps the most common example is where a bar or restaurant allows an unruly and potentially violent customer to remain on their premises, even after a fight has begun or is inevitable.  In those circumstances, the restaurant or bar owner may be liable for the injuries sustained by an innocent victim.  One major obstacle presented by these cases is the need to prove the criminal activity would not have occurred or successful intervention could have been accomplished.  An experienced trial attorney is often able to establish this by garnering important witness testimony and perhaps securing the assistance of a security expert.

Have you or a loved one been seriously injured during an assault taking place on business property?

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes that occur on a business owner’s property should be an important concern for all Californians. When a proprietor invites guests onto their property they should be held accountable if they fail to provide a reasonably safe environment, especially when they can prevent or effectively intervene in a criminal assault.  An Orange County personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  Mr. Ralph can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

 

In an appellate decision rendered just recently, the Second District Court of Appeals allowed a lawsuit against a restaurant to move forward to trial, even though the injured party could not provide any evidence as to how or why a bar stool in which he was seated collapsed.  According to the Court's decision, the customer was injured when he sat down on a counter stool, leaned against the back, and the chair fell off the base, causing him to fall to the ground.  No other physical condition of the premises contributed to the fall.

Of the three screws attached to the seat, the subject of the case, two broke approximately one-half inch from the head, and one broke about one-fourth inch below the head.  The plaintiff had no knowledge or information as to what caused the screws to break.  In fact, when the customer turned the stool in order to sit down, he did not notice anything wrong with the stool and felt no looseness.  The plaintiff did not know whether the screws failed before he placed his body on the seat, and he observed nothing about the screws which indicated long-term failure.  In spite of the defendant's evidence of regular inspections and the absence of any prior, similar accident, the Appellate Court ruled the case should be allowed to proceed to trial under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  That doctrine essentially requires that the injured party prove: (1) the accident would not normally occur absent someone's negligence, (2) that the defendant had exclusive control over the injury causing instrument (in this case the stool) and (3) the accident was not the result of the plaintiff's voluntary action or contribution.

Often, when an accident like the one above occurs it will be difficult if not impossible for the plaintiff to establish exactly what caused the accident to happen.  Instead the law allows, as this case demonstrates, the plaintiff to proceed under the theory that someone else's negligence had to have caused the accident, because the accident would not have happened otherwise.  To proceed in this fashion with a lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove the defendant being sued had exclusive control over the instrument (chair) causing the fall.  A jury may then (in spite of the defendant's claim of regular inspections and even absent a prior accident) be called upon to decide the case.

Compensation for victims of business premises accidents, like the one above, should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a business patron is injured through no fault of his own because of a defect within a business (such as the stool described above), they should be held accountable.  An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a loved one been injured in an accident involving the failure of chair or stool within a business?

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Earlier this week a California appellate court decided a case in which the issue of liability of a restaurant was called into question based on an alleged failure to act within one minute of a danger being created.  In August of  2007, a boy vomited on a floor in the common area of a shopping center, 15 feet from the entrance to the restaurant.  Less than one minute later, the plaintiffs slipped in the spill and fell.  Restaurant employees immediately began taking measures to clean up the spill.  One employee stationed near the front of the restaurant radioed management to inform them of the spill and then began walking toward it.  The employee was somewhere between the front of the restaurant and the spill when the plaintiffs slipped, perhaps as close as two or three feet from them at the time of their fall.  There was no evidence the employee noticed plaintiffs or had enough time to warn them.  The assistant general manager arrived on the scene about 30 seconds after receiving the radio call, but the victims were already on the ground.  After the slip and fall, restaurant employees cleaned up the spill with paper towels.

The appellate court, in affirming the trial court's decision against the plaintiffs, concluded that the law gives a landowner reasonable time to remedy or warn against the dangerous condition once it has been discovered. The court also acknowledged that  negligence in slip-and-fall cases is founded upon the defendant's failure to exercise ordinary care in remedying the defect after he has discovered it.  Many cases involve the question of whether a dangerous  condition has existed long enough for a reasonably prudent person to have discovered it, and that is often a question of fact for the jury to decide.  However, in the case above the court concluded that the defendant (restaurant) had actual knowledge of the spill immediately, and that the accident occurred less than a minute after the spill. According to the court, as a matter of law and based on the undisputed facts, the one minute was not enough time to remedy or warn the plaintiffs of the danger.  In reaching this decision, the appellate court relied on a 60 year-old decision in which is was determined that a one and a half minute delay in remedying a dangerous condition (a banana peel on a supermarket floor) was insufficient for the market to be held liable.  Girvetz v. Boys' Market, Inc. (1949) 91 Cal. App. 2d 827.

While the decision rendered this week by the Court of Appeals is not binding (since it was unpublished), it did make clear that trial courts are likely to follow the Girvetz case as it applies to the issue of timing.  In short, an injured plaintiff must be able to show the dangerous condition existed for more than just a minute in most circumstances.  In the majority of cases, the precise time at which a danger is created is unknown, and its length of existence must be proven by inference.  In light of the decision above, and Girvetz, if the defense can show the danger existed for roughly one minute before an accident it is unlikely a court will even allow the case to be decided by a jury and will instead render its own judgment for the defendant.

Compensation for the victims of fall accidents, caused by another’s negligence, should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a trip and fall occurs on someone else’s property because of the owner’s negligence, the owner  should be held accountable.  An Orange County injury lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Do you believe the "one minute rule" is fair?

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Everyday in California someone slips or trips and falls in a retail or commercial environment.  Often times the cause is the neglect of the property or business owner in not maintaining a reasonably safe environment for patrons.   Those who suffer injuries as a result of a slip or trip and fall accident have certain rights that need protecting.  Preparing for the eventual possibility, if not probability, that you may have to prove your case in court, an accident victim should take certain steps to ensure their claim is perfected as well as it can be.

The first and most important step is to document the circumstances surrounding the fall.  While it may not immediately occur to you to do this, you, a friend or family member should take the following steps as close in time to the happening of the accident as possible:

• Photograph the area of the fall and any slip/trip hazard present (i.e., water or liquid on a salesfloor, etc.)
• Gather names of witnesses to the fall
• Report the accident to management while at the scene, or as soon thereafter as possible
• Seek immediate medical attention for any injuries sustained
• Document as soon as possible what happened in notes intended to be shared in the future with an attorney

Every slip/trip and fall accident is different, and the victim's ability to accomplish everything on the list above will vary from case to case.  However, it is important to as many of these things as soon as possible since the loss of evidence is often what compromises the merit of such a case.  If the cause of the accident is not readily apparent, the scene should still be documented since some cases will depend on the eye and opinion of an expert.  For example, while there may not appear to be anything dangerous on a floor when a victim falls, the co-efficient of friction (slipperiness) of the floor may have been the invisible cause.  It would be important in such a case just to establish the cleanliness and general condition of the flooring so that later expert testing can simulate the same condition.

An experienced personal injury attorney will be able to evlauate the evidence collected, and perhaps collect additional evidence, in order to ensure the victim's case is fairly evlauated and thereafter presented, should the claim be meritorious.  In some cases, only the  investigation permitted after the filing of a lawsuit (civil discovery) will permit the attorney a fair opportunity to determine whether the case is truly valid.

Compensation for the victims of fall accidents, caused by another’s negligence, should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a trip and fall occurs on someone else’s property because of the owner’s negligence, the owner  should be held accountable.  An Orange County injury lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a loved one been injured in a slip or trip and fall accident?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Just after the Sunday night Lakers game against the Golden State Warriors, a 2 year-old boy, Lucas Anthony Tang, fell to his death from a luxury suite at Staples Center.  According to news reports, the family remained in the suite after the game to take pictures.  At some point, the family realized the boy was missing only to have security tell them a short time later he had fallen to the seats below and was being rushed to County USC Medical Center.  Not long after reaching the hospital, the toddler unfortunately succumbed to his injuries, leaving behind a devastated family, including an 11 year-old sister.  Since this tragic accident, it has been reported that the Los Angeles Police Department's Child Abuse Unit is investigating the circumstances surrounding Lucas' death.

 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/child-abuse-unit-investigating-boys-death-in-staples-center-fall.html

Obviously, an accident like this is horribly tragic and not something from which a family will quickly, if ever, recover.  It is important for this reason, and to prevent future accidents similar to this, to completely and thoroughly investigate all of the circumstances.  What comes to mind immediately is the apparent lack of a barrier that would have prevented the fall from occurring.  Should it be possible for a small child to climb over the wall/retainer and fall 50 feet to the seats below?  While safety measures are rarely full proof, it seems a logical inference that the barrier in this particular case was inadequate, given that a 2 year-old was apparently able to scale the retainer and fall.  Surely, it could reasonably be expected that patrons within the luxury boxes at the Staples Center would include small children, even toddlers.

In California, every business owner has an obligation to provide a reasonably safe environment for their guests.  In cases involving safety measures within a unique business climate, experts are often necessary to make a determination whether the business owner failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.  For example, in this case, expert testimony may be necessary in the fields of human factors and sports arena safety.  One measure of the reasonableness of certain safety measures is to look at the standards in the industry to determine whether other similar businesses provide different or better safety measures.  A human factors expert could address the issues of human capacity and predisposition with regard to children climbing or attempting to climb over barriers, as well as other related issues.

Compensation for the victims of serious fall accidents should be an important concern to all Californians.  When a victim is badly injured or even killed because of a business proprietor's neglect, the business owner should be held accountable for any injuries and damages suffered.  An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  Mr. Ralph can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a fall caused by the neglect of a business owner?

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

In California, a landowner  generally owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain their property in such a manner as to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of injury.  The failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.  

Among other things, the obligation above requires the management/employees of a business to ensure there are adequate handicap parking spaces available for their disabled guests, as required by both State and Federal law.  The Federal Law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, mandates a certain number of handicap parking spaces so that disabled patrons have the ability to access places of business open to the public.  Beyond that, it is expected of business owners that they maintain a regular, meaningful inspection practice relative to the parking and, specifically, that intended for persons with a disability.  Simply having marked spaces in the parking lot is not enough, and business owners must ensure those spaces are being used appropriately. 

Here in California, business patrons are entitled to the protections of the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA).  Sections 54 through 55.2 of the California Civil Code are intended to secure to disabled persons the “same right as the general public to the full and free use” of facilities open to the public. (§54, subd. (a).)  Section 54.1 states that “[i]ndividuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, … and privileges of all common carriers, … modes of transportation … , places of public accommodation, … and other places to which the general public is invited … .” (§ 54.1, subd. (a)(1).) “ ‘Full and equal access’ ” is defined by section 54.1 to mean access that complies with the regulations developed under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111–12117), or under state statutes, if the latter impose a higher standard. (§ 54.1, subd. (a)(3).) “Access” refers not only to entry into a building but, more broadly, to the use of all facilities made available for general public use, such as restrooms, parking, and fixtures within a building. (Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc., (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 254, 261)

Under both Federal and State law protecting disabled persons, failure to maintain in operable working condition accessible routes for the handicapped is a violation.  Obstructions caused by furniture, filing cabinets, or potted plants are prohibited.  In one recent case, a concrete trash container, blocking an accessible route of travel to an entrance, presented a breach of this duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  (Madden v. Del Taco, Inc., (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 294, 303-304)

When a violation of the laws above leads to an injury, the injured party may be entitled to compensation for their damages.  For example, when a handicapped patron is denied safe access to a business and is therefore caused to fall, the injuries and damages sustained are generally compensable.  In order to prevail, it must be shown there was a statutory violation and this must have been a substantial factor in causing the accident to occur.

Compensation for victims of  equal access violations should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a business owner does not provide safe and equal access to disabled patrons (even those suffering from a temporary disability), they should be held accountable.  An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a loved one been injured because safe and equal access was denied?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Currently, the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph is representing victims of falls occurring within a variety of properties, from parking lots to movie theaters.  The owners and operators of these businesses have one thing in common - they must take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the patrons coming on to their property.  For example, in the case of the movie theater, the operator has an obligation to ensure moviegoers can safely navigate the walkways and steps in a dark theater.  It has become the standard for theaters to place light strips on the steps to ensure changes in elevation can be seen.  When the lights are not maintained and do not function as intended, any injury sustained by a patron as result should be the responsibility of the theater  owner.

In a parking lot, the walking surface should be maintained in a reasonably safe condition to prevent falls.  Where a park owner, such as a City or County, has allowed the asphalt to deteriorate to the point of creating large pot holes, the municipality should be held responsible when a patron is caused to fall and suffers a serious injury.

While  property owners are not insurers of the safety of their patrons, owners do owe the patrons a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe.    A property owner exercises ordinary care by making reasonable inspections of the portions of the premises open to customers, correcting problems and/or warning of their existence.  For example, if the owner operates a self-service grocery store, where customers are invited to inspect, remove, and replace goods on shelves, the exercise of ordinary care may require the owner to take greater precautions and make more frequent inspections than would otherwise be needed.  The owner must safeguard against the possibility that such a customer may create a dangerous condition by disarranging or dropping the merchandise.  (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 1200)

Compensation for the victims of fall accidents, caused by another’s negligence, should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a trip and fall occurs on someone else's property because of the owner's negligence, the owner  should be held accountable.  An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Does the California law imposing liability on property owners seem fair?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Just last night, another bar fight resulted in serious injuries to an apparently innocent victim.  Outside of the Lucky John's bar in Fullerton, following an altercation inside the bar, a patron was stabbed and had to be taken to a nearby hospital for emergency treatment of his wounds.  A 31 year-old male was arrested on felony charges for assault with a deadly weapon.  The knife apparently used in the crime was recovered from the parking lot.  The Fullerton Police Department (714-738-6800) is still looking for the second suspect, described as a male about 5'9", with a shaved head.

The law as it relates to an assault occurring on a business owner's property is complex, but it does provide for victim compensation when the business owner could have done something to prevent the injuries from occurring.  California law generally requires a business operator to use reasonable care to protect their guests from another person's harmful conduct on their property if the owner can reasonably anticipate such conduct.  The critical issue in these cases is generally whether the business proprietor knew or reasonably should have known of the dangerous propensity of the attacker before the incident occurred.  Also, putting aside the individual assailant, sometimes liability will be found where the nature or location of the business is inherently dangerous and little to no security was provided.  The next step in the legal analysis is to identify the criminal conduct that could have been prevented had the business taken the proper measures and what injuries would have been avoided.

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes is an important concern for all Californians.  When a business invites guests onto their property they should be held accountable if they fail to provide a reasonably safe environment.  An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  Mr. Ralph can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a violent crime occurring within a business?

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Every year many people suffer severe injuries from slip/trip and fall accidents.  Often, wet floors, changes in elevation, faulty and absent warnings and flawed walkways make people victims of slip and trip and fall accidents.  Assuming the fall happened on property owned or controlled by another, the law generally allows the injured party to recover compensation for injuries and damages caused by neglect.  For example, when a business owner chooses to construct a speed bump within a parking lot where patrons are known to walk, the bump must be distinguished from the surrounding pavement.  Most commonly, the bump is painted a bright, solid color or at least striped with paint in order to warn patrons of its presence.

In a recent case, a woman was traversing a parking lot near the entrance to a laundromat when she was caused to fall by an unpainted, unstriped speed bump.  Because of the property owner's neglect, the paint on the surface of the bump had been allowed to fade and completely disappear in most places.  The victim sustained serious injuries including a broken nose, loose teeth and fluid in her knee requiring extensive medical treatment.  Not 100 feet away and within the same parking lot, another speed bump was in fact better maintained and white stripes remained intact across its surface.

Should the property owner be held liable for the failure to warn?