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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

Early Saturday morning a 27 year-old man was beaten and stabbed outside a Hollywood nightclub, leaving the victim in critical condition.  According to a KTLA news report, the fight occurred at about 1:30 a.m. outside the Playhouse Hollywood nightclub on Hollywood Boulevard near Wilcox Avenue.  A graphic YouTube video has surfaced showing the melee in the middle of the street. 

The victim was knocked to the he ground and beaten until he was unconscious.  Citing police sources, KTLA has reported the man was also stabbed during the incident.  A 19 year-old suspect has been arrested and reportedly charged with attempted murder.

See the KTLA story and video HERE.

Under California law, a business owner (such as those who own Playhouse Hollywood) has a duty to ensure that their patrons are provided a reasonably safe environment when coming onto the property.  In general, one in control of property has a duty to use reasonable care to protect guests from another person's harmful conduct on their property if the owner can reasonably anticipate such conduct.  When large crowds form in or outside a business, and those in the crowd are known to have been drinking, a business owner is generally required to provide at least some sort of protection for their patrons.  Perhaps more importantly, when a business owner is aware fights are braking out on or just outside their property (involving their patrons) they are generally responsible for taking reasonable, prompt steps to intervene.   A failure to fulfill such a duty is negligence and may result in liability being found against the business for any resulting harm.

Compensation for the victims of criminal assaults, occurring inside or just outside a business, should be an important concern for all Californians. When a business patron is beaten because protective measures were not taken by a business owner, the business should be held accountable and compensation paid to the victim or the victim's family.  An Orange County premises liability 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 an assault occurring on or near a business establishment?

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.

 

An arrest has been made after one man was killed in a dispute outside the Albatros Mexican restaurant in Lake Forest on June 11th.  The victim,  26-year-old Elvis Kechechian of Mission Viejo, was fatally stabbed outside the restaurant after an altercation began inside.  A second victim was taken to the hospital in critical condition.  KTLA news reported the suspect, Justin Tombleson, has been taken into custody and charged with the murder.  Tombleson appears to have a history of violent crime, going back to 2003, at least according to a search of the Orange County Superior Court website.

See the KTLA story HERE.

Aside from Tombleson’s potential liability for the stabbings, the Albatros restaurant may also have exposure to a civil lawsuit for wrongful death, and for the injuries sustained by the critically injured victim.  Depending on what went on inside the restaurant before the violent altercation outside, the owner of the Albatros could be liable for having been negligent in failing to protect to the two victims.  This liability, if any, will depend on the nature of the altercation inside, the length of time over which it took place and the steps taken, if any, by employees of the Albatros to prevent the death and serious injuries that eventually did occur.

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 injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury and wrongful death 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 that occurred at a business establishment?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.

At about 2:00 a.m. yesterday, a dispute broke out inside the Albatros Mexican Restaurant located on Rockfield in Lake Forest, resulting in the fatal stabbing of a patron.  According to a report by KTLA news, Elvis Kechechian, 26, of Mission Viejo tragically died from his wounds inflicted after the argument got physical outside the restaurant. Another victim was rushed to a local hospital in critical condition.   Kechechian had been coaching ice hockey at Santa Margarita Catholic High School since 2010, according to school officials.  He was described and will be remembered as “compassionate, dedicated, sweet and soft-spoken, Elvis was proud to be part of Santa Margarita’s ice hockey program and enjoyed celebrating the successes of the players and team,” the school’s statement said.

See the KTLA story HERE.

It is currently unknown what exactly transpired inside the Albatros restaurant, but apparently the argument must have been intense as it ultimately resulted an extremely violent altercation just outside.  The attacker, or attackers, would obviously be liable both civilly and criminally for the death and critical injuries inflicted, and at least potentially the restaurant owner/operator could be exposed to civil liability for the damages resulting from this violent altercation.  Under California law, a business proprietor owes a duty to their patrons to 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.  If the place or character of the business, or the proprietor’s past experience, is such that they should reasonably anticipate criminal conduct on the part of third persons, either generally or at some particular time, the business operator may be under a duty to take precautions against it, and to provide a reasonably sufficient number of  employees to afford reasonable protection.  In other words, if a business operator is aware a criminal assault is likely to occur or is occurring on their property they must take reasonable steps to prevent harm to their patrons.  This duty may obligate the business to provide security officers or, at a minimum, notify the police when necessary.  A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence for which the business owner may be held liable.

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 injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury and wrongful death 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 that occurred at a business establishment?

• 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.

The Los Angeles Times reported this morning that one of the suspects in the brutal beating of Giants fan Bryan Stow was taken into custody early this morning.  Citing official sources, the Times reported that at about 7 a.m. the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT team descended on an East Hollywood apartment building with a warrant in hand.  According to apartment building manager Maritza Camacho, police, using loudspeakers and with guns drawn, called out to the occupants of Apartment 25.  Arrested inside the apartment was one of the men police suspect in the March 31 beating at Dodger Stadium that left Stow with brain damage.  He remains to this day in critical condition.

See the Los Angeles Times story HERE.

Following the attack on Stow, Dodger Stadium reportedly beefed up security at the stadium to deal with fights that had been breaking out at games in recent years.  In general, a possessor of land who holds it open to the public for business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to  discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it.  Here, Dodger Stadium would be liable if they acted unreasonably in failing to prevent the attack on Stow.  Should such a claim be brought by or on behalf of Stow, a civil jury could be called upon to apportion responsibility between the assailants and Dodger Stadium.  The question might be posed this way:  But for the neglect of Dodger Stadium, would the attack on Stow have occurred?

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 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 20 years of experience handling personal injury and premises liability 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 that occurred at a business establishment?

• 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.

According to a story by KTLA news, family members of Bryan Stow are struggling to remain optimistic.  According to the story, Stow, the Giants fan who was brutally beaten while leaving a baseball game at Dodger Stadium, may never fully recover.   While a hospital spokesperson says Stow is being slowly weaned of the anti-seizures medication that he has been receiving since his violent brain injury, family members told KTLA that their son, husband, and father of two, may be gone forever.

See the KTLA story and photograph HERE.

The tragic story of Stow's attack and beating has made national headlines since the incident at Dodger Stadium on March 31st.  One issue that has arisen in the wake of this tragedy is whether Dodger Stadium security took reasonable steps to protect fans like Stow on the date of the incident.  It has been reported the patrons suspected of attacking and brutally beating Stow had caused earlier problems at the Stadium.  The question then becomes whether security had sufficient, if any, information that should have led them to take protective measures, for the benefit of the law-abiding fans present.  Under California law, the general duty of a property owner (like Dodger Stadium) includes the duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of third persons which threaten invitees where the occupant has reasonable cause to anticipate such acts and the probability of injury resulting therefrom.  Whether Dodger security had any such duty will likely be decided when and if a civil action is brought by or on behalf of Bryan Stow and/or his family.

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 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.  A personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years of experience handling personal injury and premises liability 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 that occurred at a business establishment?

• 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.

 

According to KTLA news, two women have been charged after a video showing a brutal attack on a teenage girl at a Baltimore-area McDonald's restaurant surfaced on the internet Friday.  Citing the Baltimore Sun, KTLA reported the police have charged a 14-year-old girl as a juvenile, and charges are pending for her 18-year-old accomplice.  The attack apparently occurred on April 18th at the 6300 Kenwood McDonald’s location.   The Sun also also reported that State’s Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger says the attack may be classified as a hate crime because the attackers were both black, and the victim white.

See the KTLA news story and video HERE.

In the video, McDonald's employees can be seen making what appears to be a half-hearted attempt to intervene in the assault.  The vicious attack goes on and on before finally ending only after an elderly woman gets involved and the victim appears to go into convulsions.  Under California law, a property owner has an obligation to provide a reasonably safe environment for their patrons.  This duty requires the property owner and their employees to intervene when a third party criminal assault is imminent or is taking place within the business.  If it can be shown the business owner failed to take the steps required by law and such intervention would have prevented or lessened the injuries and damages sustained, the victim may possess a valid cause of action.  In such cases, it is often necessary to offer the testimony of an expert in private security/law enforcement to address the issue of causation.

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 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 20 years of experience handling personal injury and premises liability 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 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.

   

The Associated Press and Fox News are reporting  the San Francisco Giants fan who was beaten at Dodger Stadium after last week's opening game shows signs of brain damage and remains in critical condition.  While the victim, Bryan Stow, remains hospitalized police detectives are looking into unconfirmed reports that the same suspects struck other Giants fans minutes before the attack that left Stow in a coma.  Stow, a 42-year-old paramedic and father of two from Santa Cruz, remains in critical but guarded condition at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center.  As a result of the attack, he suffered a severe skull fracture and bad bruising to his brain's frontal lobes, said Dr. Gabriel Zada, a neurosurgeon.  According to Zada, "there is evidence of brain injury and dysfunction."

See the Fox News story HERE.

Among the issues coming to light in this case is whether the Dodgers' security staff took reasonable steps to prevent this assault from occurring on their premises.   There are now unconfirmed reports that these same assailants attacked other Giants fans prior to the vicious attack on Stow.   Assuming this to be true, then the question becomes whether, under California law, the Dodgers' duty to take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties was fulfilled.  Under California premises liability law, a business proprietor has a duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of third persons which threaten invitees where the proprietor has reasonable cause to anticipate such acts and the probability of resulting injury.  Here, if the Dodgers' security staff failed to intervene and protect Stow from the assault that should have been foreseen, the Dodgers would be liable.

Compensation for the victims of violent crimes that occur on a business owner's property is an important concern for all Californians.  When a business proprietor invites guests onto their property they should be held accountable if they fail to provide a reasonably safe environment.  An Orange County personal injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 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.

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.

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.

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.