Stay updated with the latest legal news, expert analysis, and firm updates from KAASS LAW.
Whether you're facing a legal challenge or seeking proactive counsel, our award-winning team is ready to defend your interests.
One of several risks of tractor-trailers is that they are significantly higher off the ground than passenger cars, and a smaller vehicle can wind up sliding under the trailer in the event of a collision. This is known as an underride collision, and if you've ever been in one, you know how dangerous they can be. When the front of one vehicle collides with the rear of another, it is possible for the first car to go underneath or above the second car. This often results in severe injuries because there are not any parts on top to absorb energy from an impact like seat belts or airbags. Underride has the potential to crush entire cars, leaving victims with severe and disfiguring injuries. Unfortunately, far too many of these collisions result in death. If you've been seriously injured or lost a loved one, you're in for a long and difficult journey.
Naturally, when a truck is rear-ended, the trucking business will argue that the back vehicle's driver is to blame. After all, truckers are no more capable of regulating the vehicle in front of them than any other driver. The truck driver and the trucking firm, on the other hand, are responsible for ensuring that their vehicle does not pose a hazard to other cars, including those approaching from behind. The following are some of the reasons a truck driver could be at fault for an underride collision:
A third party, such as another motorist, may be held liable for an underride collision. For example, say an automobile cuts in front of the truck, prompting the driver to slam on the brakes, producing a chain reaction in which a vehicle coming behind rear-ends the trailer – especially if the rear driver couldn't see the hazard in front since the truck itself was blocking the view. Most significantly, even if the wounded motorist was at fault for the accident, trucking companies and vehicle manufacturers have an obligation to guarantee that the trailer is secured from underride. Underride protections are now standard on most tractor-trailers, although they frequently fail, especially if they are not properly maintained or if they are struck from an angle. Depending on the specifics of the case, an injured person may be entitled to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer for product responsibility or against the trucking business for negligent maintenance.
Truck collisions are typically high-stakes situations, but they're even more so when underride is involved. Multiple insurance firms are usually always involved: the cab and trailer each have their own policies, as do the manufacturer and any other parties involved (such as other involved vehicles). The idea is to take immediate action before legal deadlines pass and crucial evidence vanishes or is lost. We can begin protecting your rights and advocating for your needs as soon as you speak with an attorney. There will be more obstacles in your way, but you won't have to tackle them alone. To talk with an expert underride accident attorney about your case, contact us immediately.
It's an unnerving feeling when you're driving and all of a sudden your car stalls. When you're stranded with an undriveable vehicle on the highway, oncoming motorists are likely to be speeding. If the motorist is distracted, inattentive, or intoxicated, they may not be able to maneuver out of the way quickly enough to prevent colliding with you. Low visibility, bad weather, or a motorist's view being blocked by a large truck ahead of them can all contribute to a collision with your already damaged vehicle. In this article we'll discuss what should happen if you find yourself stranded on the highway with a vehicle that is undriveable.
If you're on the highway, the dangers are greater because other drivers will be speeding past at high speeds. In California, roadside and shoulder of the road crashes involving disabled automobiles may occur in the following scenarios:
Burn injuries are among the most painful and life-threatening injuries a person may sustain. Because of the seriousness of these injuries, medical therapy sometimes necessitates prolonged treatment and possibly a variety of surgeries performed, and even still, patients may be left with permanent scarring. Many burn damage sufferers also suffer from agony and psychological scars that make it nearly hard to live life as they had before.
Fires, on the other hand, aren't the only source of burn injuries. A burn injury can result from a variety of factors, including a defective product, a workplace accident, or negligence from another party. In general, the person or company who causes a burn injury will be held liable to the sufferer for his or her damages. Fires, as well as items and activities that might cause burns, are common in Los Angeles.
A burn injury is a sort of personal injury, and victims are allowed to pursue monetary damages for their physical injuries and financial losses through a personal injury claim. A sufferer of a burn injury may be entitled to compensation for:
Intersections are usually dangerous since they have many lanes of traffic and pedestrians crossing the road with many drivers in vehicles who don't pay attention. A short error in judgment on the part of another driver is all it takes to transform someone's life forever. Drivers must be aware of their surroundings and other drivers on the road to avoid these crashes. Intersections with a high volume of traffic can pose greater risks because more people may be driving through at any given time. It is important for drivers to take caution when approaching an intersection to reduce the risk of an accident or injury.
Intersection collisions are frequently side-impact events in which one vehicle's front end collides with the driver or passenger side of another. Because the side of an automobile offers significantly less protection than the front and back, these collisions can be fatal. Vulnerable road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians, are commonly involved in intersection crashes. A split-second change in who had the right of way could determine who was at fault in a junction incident. Witnesses may vary as to which automobile entered the intersection first or what color the traffic signal was. Car accidents and collisions continue to occur at junctions throughout Los Angeles. You are entitled to compensation regardless of where you were harmed and whether or not a reckless driver was to fault.
Pedestrian safety is a critical issue that deserves the attention of both pedestrians and drivers. Every year, thousands of pedestrians are injured or killed in accidents that could have been avoided with increased awareness and caution. In this blog, we will explore the importance of pedestrian safety, common causes of accidents, tips for staying safe, and what to do if you’re involved in an accident. Understanding these factors can help reduce the risks on the road and save lives.
Pedestrians are among the most vulnerable road users. Unlike vehicle passengers who have the protection of a metal chassis, seat belts, airbags, and other safety features, pedestrians have no such protection when involved in an accident. This lack of physical shielding makes pedestrians more susceptible to severe injuries, including broken bones, traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, and in the worst cases, fatalities.
The need for pedestrian safety is particularly urgent in urban environments where heavy foot traffic and vehicle congestion make accidents more likely. Whether you're walking across a crosswalk, waiting at a bus stop, or strolling along the sidewalk, it is important to be aware of your surroundings and take the necessary precautions to avoid accidents.
When your property is damaged due to someone else’s actions, you have the right to seek compensation under California law. But timing is everything. If you wait too long, you may lose the opportunity to recover damages entirely. Understanding the legal timeline and how it applies to property damage claims is crucial for protecting your rights.
In this article, we’ll break down the types of property damage, relevant deadlines, and exceptions under the California Code of Civil Procedure. If you're facing a situation involving damage to your property, this guide will help you take the next step.
There are two main categories of property damage under California law:
This refers to damage involving land or anything permanently attached to it, such as:
Sharing the road with others is a risk that is inherently obvious. We mitigate these risks with proper courses on avoiding collisions and having insurance, just in case. However, unfortunately, from time to time, there are situations where accidents do occur, and the person responsible doesn't have insurance. Lucky for you, prior to the accident, you decided to include Uninsured Motorist Coverage as part of your insurance policy! On the other hand, this can be unlucky for some that didn't know or get UMI coverage. Here at KAASS LAW, we strive to inform our readers and or clients about what types of insurance coverages are available. The following will shed light on what UMI does and why you should need it.
Uninsured Motorist Coverage is a very reliable option that you can have for your insurance policy. This entails that if you're in an accident with someone but they don't have insurance. Therefore, you can make a claim to your own insurance. Since you have coverage, having UMI will help you better when it comes to financial compensation. Normally, these compensations are from the damages against you by the responsible party that is held . It is also worth mentioning that coverage is similar to uninsured motorist coverage. For instance, it pays for bodily injuries suffered in a collision with a driver who does not have enough coverage to compensate for your injuries. Your underinsured motorist policy kicks in to assist cover the gap between the other driver's coverage and the entire amount of your losses.
Real estate transactions are usually the biggest financial process and undertaking for anyone involved in the matter. We rely on and depend on expertise that provides guidance from real estate agents. Normally, they should help guide this complex process, which leaves a place of trust in them for their financial well-being and future. Doing this, while most agents operate with professionalism and integrity, we expect nothing less than that. However, not everything foes according to place. Consequentially, situations and problems occur where an agent fails to uphold their contractual obligations. As a result, this leads to financial losses and significant stress for their clients. At KAASS LAW, serving clients throughout California, we understand the intricacies of real estate contracts and are here to shed light on how real estate agents can breach these agreements.
The relationship between a real estate agent and their client is typically governed by a legally binding contract, often a listing agreement (for sellers) or a buyer-broker agreement (for buyers). These contracts outline the duties and responsibilities of the agent, the scope of their services, the duration of the agreement, and the agreed-upon commission structure. When an agent fails to fulfill these contractual obligations, it can constitute a breach of contract.
It goes without saying, but getting in a car accident is the last thing on anyone's mind. Furthermore, the situation can be more stressful when the other driver decides to flee the scene and leave you in the dust. These types of scenarios are extremely dreadful, and on behalf of KAASS LAW, we don't wish this on anyone. Committing a hit-and-run is a serious offense in California, carrying major legal penalties for the responsible driver. Additionally, leaving victims after the accident is just disgraceful. At KAASS LAW, we are dedicated to providing clarity on the legal ramifications of hit-and-run incidents and offering guidance to those who have been a victim of this unlawful act. The following will aim at the legal codes of a hit and run, steps to take after the incident, and how KAASS LAW can help.
California Vehicle Code section 16025 makes it a crime to leave the scene of an accident without providing the following information (except under special circumstances, such as being under a lot of injury):
Treatise: Motorcycle Helmet Product Liability in California Product liability lawsuits frequently arise as a result of motorcycle accidents, and a common product at issue is the rider’s motorcycle helmet. For instance, in California, manufacturers, distributers, and retailers of motorcycle head gear can liable for injuries and damages that occur as a result of defective protective gear.
In California, lawsuits brought under the theory of products liability are strict liability cases, meaning the plaintiff does not have to show negligence on the part of the manufacturer or seller in order to prevail on a claim of defective product. The basis for strict products liability is grounded on the public policy considerations that parties involved in the commercial enterprise who make a profit by placing defective products into the marketplace should bear the responsibility of the injuries caused to consumers by those products. V 61 C.2d 256 (Ca. 1964). In order for a plaintiff to prevail and be awarded damages under the theory of products liability the plaintiff must show: (1) there was a defect in the manufacture or design of the helmet or the helmet’s product warning was defective or did not exist; (2) the defect was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury; and (3) injury did in fact occur. , 137 Cal.App.4th 292, (Ca. Ct. App. 2006).
The law of product liability may apply in a circumstance where the driver had meticulously maintained the vehicle but it was nevertheless inoperable due to a manufacturing defect. Injured victims in California who are involved in a disabled vehicle accident may be eligible for compensation from a variety of sources, including the vehicle manufacturer. The issue of whether a manufacturer is liable in the event of a disabled vehicle crash can be complicated. Manufacturers are not liable for accidents that occur due to driver error, but they may be if the disabled vehicle was caused by design flaws or manufacturing defects. Manufacturers are not always aware of design flaws or manufacturing defects, and it's difficult to determine who is at fault in these cases because many factors contribute to an accident. However, there have been instances where manufacturers were found negligent after incidents.
If you are trapped in the middle of the highway;
Dial 911 from your cell phone if you are in a risky situation.
Even if you share some of the blame for your handicapped vehicle accident in California, you may still be entitled to seek compensation from the other at-fault driver. However, the amount of compensation you receive will be proportional to your degree of fault. For example, even if you are 90 percent to blame for an accident, you can still recover 10% of the losses from the other at-fault person. California uses a "pure comparative negligence" rule in this regard.
If you or someone you know has been involved in a disabled vehicle accident, feel free to give our office a call and get the compensation you need for your case. To reach our office, dial (310) 943-1171.
Burn injury claims are typically founded on:
A wrongful act made by an individual, company, or group that causes harm to another is known as negligence. Because California is a comparative negligence state, a burn injury victim may still be entitled to compensation even if he or she is deemed partially responsible for the accident. The possible damages for a burn injury victim will be lowered by level of fault. In order to prosecute a burn injury claim successfully, a victim must show that:
If a burn accident occurs as a result of a hazard on their land, the property owner may be held accountable. All property owners and occupants are legally expected to keep their property in reasonably safe conditions under California premises liability law. This means that every property owner has a responsibility to maintain their property, correct any harmful circumstances, or at the very least issue adequate warnings about any hazardous conditions. The following are some of the most common causes of burn injuries:
A corporation that manufactures or sells a faulty product that results in a burn damage may be held accountable for any losses incurred. Anyone participating in the chain of distribution, including product designers, producers, and retailers, can be held strictly accountable for accidents caused by a faulty product, according to product liability law. The following are some of the most common issues in strict liability cases:
After a burn injury, a sufferer must establish the following in order to win a product liability lawsuit:
If you or someone you know has been injured, feel free to reach out to our office at (310) 943-1171.
Intersection accidents are caused primarily by driver negligence, not only in Los Angeles but throughout California. This is because they are primarily caused by driver negligence, not only at intersections but anywhere on the road. When drivers run red lights or stop signs, it increases their risk of having an accident. The following are the most typical reasons of intersection collisions: Failure to Stop at a Red Light - At a red light, all drivers must come to a complete stop. Failure to do so may result in a collision with drivers who have the green light or who are turning left. Also, before performing a right-hand turn, a driver must come to a complete stop. When drivers fail to do so before turning, they are more likely to miss oncoming vehicles or pedestrians attempting to cross, resulting in catastrophic intersection collisions. Accelerating to pass the Yellow light - A yellow traffic light warns vehicles that the light is about to turn red, indicating that they should slow down and stop. Los Angeles drivers, on the other hand, are frequently in a hurry and race through intersections in order to beat the light. Drivers frequently violate the speed limit, colliding with other vehicles in the intersection. Rear ending collision - Rear-end collisions are the most common form of car accident in Los Angeles, with majority of them occurring at junctions. Aggressive drivers behind them frequently rear-end drivers who slow down for yellow lights or fail to recognize that the light has changed from red to green. Making a left turn - Before proceeding with a left turn at an intersection, drivers must look for incoming traffic and pedestrians. Because left-turn accidents are so common in Los Angeles, arrow signals are being put at junctions to limit the amount of left-turn accidents. If you have been involved in an intersection collision, please do not hesitate to give us a call. Our attorney will be able to help you receive the right compensation for your case. Give our office a call at (310) 943-1171.
Whether you're a pedestrian or a driver, there are several measures you can take to stay safe on the road:
The following steps can help ensure your safety and protect your legal rights:
It’s important to work with a law firm that understands the complexities of these cases. At Kaass Law, we are committed to helping pedestrians injured by others' negligence. We can investigate the cause of the accident, gather evidence, and ensure that you receive the compensation you deserve.
For more information on pedestrian safety and legal representation, visit our website at Kaass Law.
For example, if someone drives a vehicle into your home or illegally builds on your land, it falls under real property damage.
This includes movable items not permanently affixed to land or structures. Common examples are:
If a neighbor backs into your car or someone intentionally smashes your laptop, this would be considered damage to personal property.
Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 338, the law sets a clear deadline to file most property damage lawsuits. You typically have three years from the date the damage occurred.
Here’s how the statute applies:
This deadline applies regardless of whether the damage is part of a larger legal claim or an independent lawsuit.
If you attempt to file a lawsuit after the three-year statute of limitations has expired, the defendant will likely file a motion to dismiss your case. In most situations, the court will grant this dismissal, meaning you lose your right to recover compensation, unless a valid legal exception applies.
California law allows for certain situations in which the statute of limitations may be paused or tolled. Below are a few notable exceptions:
If the person responsible for the damage was out of California for part of the three-year period, the timeline may be paused. The statute doesn’t count the time the defendant was unreachable or absent from the state.
If you were under the age of 18 or were not legally capable of making decisions (due to illness or disability), the three-year period may not begin until you reach legal adulthood or recover mental competency.
Waiting too long to file your claim can lead to more than just the dismissal of your case. Evidence can disappear, memories fade, and witnesses may be harder to locate. Filing early helps preserve critical documentation such as:
The longer you delay, the harder it becomes to build a strong case.
If you're unsure whether the three-year deadline has passed—or whether an exception may apply—it's important to speak with a knowledgeable California attorney as soon as possible.
At KAASS LAW, our experienced legal team can review your case, determine applicable deadlines, and help you pursue the compensation you deserve. We offer legal services in Glendale, Los Angeles, and throughout California, handling both real estate and claims.
Learn more about our personal injury and civil litigation services
If your home, land, or personal items were damaged due to another person’s actions or negligence, you have a limited time to act. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 338, most lawsuits must be filed within three years. Missing the deadline could mean permanently losing your right to compensation.
Whether the damage was accidental or intentional, involving a neighbor, a driver, or a stranger, understanding your legal rights and the time limits is crucial. If you're in doubt about how much time you have left—or whether your case qualifies for an exception—reach out to a trusted California property damage lawyer today.
Call KAASS LAW at (310) 943-1171 for a free consultation about your property damage case.
Collision coverage, which may be added to a car insurance policy, pays to repair your vehicle if you're in an accident, whether you're at fault, if the other at-fault driver is uninsured, or if you're hit by a hit-and-run driver. But remember that collision policy only covers the cost of repairing your automobile up to the limitations of your coverage, not your injuries. However, the period of time a policyholder has to file an uninsured or underinsured motorist claim depends on your policy. KAASS LAW can help and review if needed.
In this case, you can file a vehicle accident lawsuit, but even if you win, it may be a hollow victory. There's no assurance that if you get a judgment against an uninsured motorist, you'll be able to collect the money (or any portion of it). Due to the fact that an uninsured driver may not have many assets, enforcing the judgment may be a lost battle.
If you are involved in an accident with an uninsured driver and sustain injuries, you would typically file a claim with your own insurance company under your UM coverage. Here's a general overview of the process:
In addition to uninsured drivers, there's also the risk of being hit by an underinsured driver. Someone who has insurance but whose policy limits are insufficient to cover the full extent of your injuries and damages. California law also allows you to purchase Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage. This kicks in when the at-fault driver's insurance limits are exhausted, and your damages exceed their coverage. UIM coverage works similarly to UM bodily injury coverage, allowing you to seek additional compensation from your own insurer up to the limits of your UIM policy.
If you have been injured in an accident involving an uninsured or underinsured driver in California, KAASS LAW can help. We can help with opening up claims if needed and among many other performances such as:
Don't leave your financial future vulnerable to the actions of uninsured or underinsured drivers. Contact KAASS LAW today for a consultation. Our team is here to discuss your auto insurance coverage and how we can help.
Loyalty refers to the duty of the real estate agent to act only in the client's best interests when assisting them in their affairs. This means that doing something during the home buying/selling process that is meant to serve the agent's or a 3rd party's interests could constitute malpractice, even if it was not necessarily detrimental to the client.
Real estate agents and brokers are expected to use a certain standard of care when handling their client's real estate transactions. The standard of care for agents is that of a competent real estate professional, one who has significantly more knowledge of real estate than the average person. Failure to act within the required standard of care would be a breach of contract.
It is required that agents do not disclose information that would hurt their clients' chances of buying or selling a home for the best possible price. However, they are not required to remain confidential withholding the information would be a contract breach act itself.
While certain information must be confidential by real estate agents, they also have the duty to disclose certain information when they are both buying and selling a property. A realtor assisting someone with buying a property must disclose information such as:
A realtor assisting someone in selling a property must disclose information such as:
Obedience simply means that the agent must obey the commands of their clients unless those requests are outlawed by either their contract or the law. The client has the ultimate say in whether they should take an offer or wait for a better one, for instance. The client cannot, however, tell them to hide the fact that the air conditioning unit must have a replacement.
Accounting refers to the agent's duty to safeguard and keep track of all money and documents entrusted to them. This makes it their responsibility to make sure they correctly bill the client and do not release private or sensitive information, especially if it would hurt their bargaining power.
Real estate transactions involve significant investments, and you have the right to expect your agent to uphold their contractual obligations and act in your best interests. If you believe your real estate agent has breached their contract and you have suffered financial harm as a result, it is crucial to seek legal counsel. We can help in the following ways: Review your contract: Analyze the terms of your listing agreement or buyer-broker agreement to determine the agent's obligations. Investigate the circumstances: Gather evidence to determine if a breach of contract has occurred. Assess your damages: Help you quantify the financial losses you have suffered due to the agent's actions. Explore your legal options: Advise you on the best course of action, whether it involves negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or litigation. Aggressively advocate for your rights: Represent your interests to seek the compensation and justice you deserve. Entrusting a real estate agent with your property or your search for a home requires a significant degree of faith. When that trust breaks due to a breach of contract, KAASS LAW is here to provide legal support. Additionally, given the circumstances, we can represent that you need to navigate the complexities and pursue a just resolution. If you have concerns about your real estate agent's conduct, contact us today for a confidential consultation. Our office can also help anyone who is dealing with real estate purchase and sale disputes.
If you cannot find the driver, compensation for the damages depends on your insurance policy coverage. Furthermore, if you have collision coverage, your insurance will cover your property damage. In addition, if you have Medpay coverage, your insurance will cover any medical bills you incur. Keep in mind, however, that Medpay will only cover the direct costs of your medical bills, and it will not compensate you for lost wages, pain, suffering, or emotional distress caused by the accident. If you have uninsured (UM) coverage, your insurance will pay for your bodily injury claim, which includes future medical expenses as well as pain and suffering. Depending on your limits, your uninsured motorist coverage will be able to provide coverage for injuries sustained by you and your passengers.
California Vehicle Code sections 20002 and 16025 make it illegal to flee the scene of an accident and withhold the required identification and insurance information from the other parties involved.
CVC 16025, requires drivers must share and exchange insurance information. A CVC 16025 offense is considered an infraction in California and is punishable by a fine of up to $250.
CVC 20002 makes it illegal to flee the scene of an accident where there is only damage to property and no injuries. It is considered a misdemeanor in California, however, it is common for these cases to be dropped, if the defendant pays financial restitution for the damages.
The penalties for violating CVC 20002 can include:
CVC 20001 makes it a crime to flee the scene of an accident where there are injuries or death. This is a felony offense in California that is punishable by:
Being the victim of a hit-and-run accident can be a frightening and frustrating experience. Here are crucial steps to take to protect your safety and legal rights:
At KAASS LAW, we are here for you. The following are some of the many things we normally offer:
Please contact us for a free consultation so may further help!
Product defects can determine by: (1) manufacturing defect; (2) design defect; or (3) warning defect. The mere fact that a plaintiff suffered an injury from the normal use of a product does not itself establish that the product was defective. Hennigan v. White, 199 Ca.App.4th 395 (Ca. Ct. App. 2011). For example, a plaintiff who suffers a head injury while wearing a motorcycle helmet in its normal use is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a claim for products liability. Instead, there has to be some kind of legal defect in the motorcycle helmet.
Manufacturing defects are most common. Strict products liability for a manufacturing defect can be found in two scenarios: (1) when the product left the manufacturer’s control, it differed from the manufacturer’s intended result or (2) when the product left the manufacturer’s control, it differed from apparently identical products of the same manufacturer. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc., 20 Ca.3d 413 (Ca. 1978). Additionally, the defective product must have been used in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer and yet still caused the plaintiff’s injury. Id. The following scenario highlights the “reasonably foreseeable use” element of a manufacturing defect claim: Plaintiff wears her motorcycle helmet on backwards, shorty thereafter gets into a collision due to her vision obstruction. A defect in the face shield of the helmet causes injury to the back of her head. Plaintiff would not be able to maintain a products liability case against a motorcycle helmet manufacturer because, even though the face shield was defective, she was not using the helmet in a manner that would be reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. California’s Civil Jury Instructions require that in order for a plaintiff to establish a claim for manufacturing defect, all of the following must be proven: (1) that the defendant manufactured or sold the product at issue; (2) that the product contained a manufacturing defect when it left the defendant’s possession; (3) that the plaintiff was harmed; and (4) that the product defect was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. CACI No. 1201. “A product will be considered as containing a manufacturing defect if the product differs from the manufacturer’s design or specifications or from other typical units of the same product.” CACI No. 1202.
In terms of analyzing a plaintiff’s claim under the consumer expectation test, a jury will be instructed that the following elements must be proven before judgment can be awarded in favor of the plaintiff: (1) that the defendant manufactured or sold the product (2) that the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way; (3) that the plaintiff was harmed and; (4) that the product’s failure to perform safely was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. CACI No. 1203. Alternatively, when reviewing a claim for design defect under the risk-benefit test, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that the defendant manufactured or sold the product; (2) that the plaintiff was harmed and; (3) that the product’s design was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. CACI No. 1204. If a plaintiff can prove these three facts, then the jury is instructed to decide in favor of the plaintiff unless the defendant can prove that the benefits of the product’s design outweigh the risks of the design. Id. In deciding whether the benefits outweigh the risks, the jury is instructed to consider the following factors: (1) The gravity of the potential harm resulting from the use of the product; (2) The likelihood that the harm would occur; (3) The feasibility of an alternative design at the time of manufacture; (4) The cost of an alternative design; (5) The disadvantages of an alternative design; and (6) Any other relevant factors. Id.
A plaintiff must prove all of the following to establish a claim for warning defect: (1) that the defendant manufactured or sold the product; (2) that the product has potential risks or side effects that were known or knowable in light of scientific or medical knowledge at the time of manufacture or sale; (3) that the potential risks or side effects presented a substantial danger when the product is used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way; (4) that ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks or side effects; (5) that the defendant failed to adequately warn or instruct of the potential risks or side effects; (6) that the plaintiff was harmed and; (7) that the lack of sufficient instructions or warnings was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. CACI No. 1205.
The defective product must have actually caused the plaintiff’s resulting injury. Horn v. General Motors Corp., 17 Cal.3d 359 (Ca. 1976). It is not enough that the defect played some role in causing the injury, however, the defect must have been a substantial factor that lead to the plaintiff’s injury. Soule at 572. In fact, a defect is considered legally and factually irrelevant if it played no part in bringing about the injury. Id. (Holding that if the external force of a vehicle accident was so severe that it would have caused identical injuries in spite of the defect in the vehicle’s collision safety, then the defect cannot be considered a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s injury.) Practically, in cases of motorcycle helmet product liability, this would mean that if a plaintiff suffered a head injury during a motorcycle crash such that was so severe the outcome would have been the same regardless of whether or not the plaintiff was wearing a helmet, then a claim cannot be made for products liability even if the helmet was found to be defective.
Injury must occur. In terms of products liability, a defendant can be strictly liable for physical injuries which connects to persons or property. As the old saying goes, "No harm no foul." However, it is important to note that a plaintiff cannot prevail on a claim of strict liability for purely economic loss. Absent a claim of personal injury or damage to other property, there is no strict liability for loss of value, cost of repair, or replacements of the defective product. Jimenez v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 473 (Ca. 2002). Additionally, California courts have held that the injury suffered by plaintiff must have actually occurred, meaning it is insufficient to claim only the likely potential for injury. KB Home v. Superior Court, 112 Cal.App.4th (Ca. Ct. App. 2003).
A broad range of plaintiffs may recover under the theory of product liability. Recovery from injury is not limited to the first purchaser of the product, but rather to anyone whose injury was reasonably foreseeable. Elmore v. American Motors Corp., 70 C2d 578 (Ca. 1969). This can include innocent bystanders injured by defective automobiles or employees injured by defective equipment owned by their employers. See Elmore v. American Motors Corp., supra, 70 Ca.2d 586 (Ca. 1969). See Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc., 20 Cal.3d 413 (Ca. 1978). A practical example of this concept in a motorcycle helmet product liability case can is as follows: Biker Son purchases a motorcycle helmet for Biker Dad’s birthday. Biker Dad has a motorcycle accident while wearing the helmet and suffers a brain injury as the result of a design defect in the helmet. Although Biker Dad was not the direct purchaser of the helmet, he is a proper plaintiff who can bring suit against the helmet manufacturer.
In instances of product liability, the manufacturer is normally the most obvious defendant, but they are far from the only defendant available. Originally, the doctrine of strict liability only applied to the manufacturers of defective products. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57 (Ca. 1963). However, over time, California courts have expanded the doctrine to reach parties involved in the commercial chain of distribution of the defective product. Peterson v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.4th 1185 (Ca. 1995). This means that not only the manufacturer of a defective motorcycle helmet can be liable in a claim of products liability, but also the distributor and the retailer can be liable as well.
Although there are several potential defendants available to the plaintiff in a motorcycle helmet products liability action, not everyone can be under the doctrine of a lawsuit. You will note that manufacturers, distributors, and retailers have one common theme that exists between them – they are all involved in the chain of custody of a product. One party that cannot hold liability under the doctrine of products liability is a party who provides a service. Strict products liability will always involve a tangible product that places into the stream of commerce, so if the potential defendant is offering a service, rather than a product to the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot bring suit against the service provider under the theory of products liability.Gagne v. Bertran, 43 Cal.2d 481 (Ca. 1954). For example, a plaintiff would most likely not be able to bring a products liability suit against a business that provides motorcycle riding lessons, even if the business provided the plaintiff with a defective helmet to use during the lesson. The plaintiff may be able to sue under another legal theory, but not products liability. In some cases there may be a dispute over whether the business is providing a product or services, and in those instances, the court must determine whether the dominant role of the defendant should identify as a service or a sale. Murphy v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 40 Cal.3d 672 (Ca. 1985).
Product liability among defendants is joint and several, meaning that any defendant established by the plaintiff as involved in the stream of commerce of the defective product is responsible for all of plaintiff’s damages.
Below is a list of various California jury verdicts and settlements for cases regarding product liability connection to a defective motorcycle helmet:
• Esposto v. City and County of San Francisco; State of California; Shoei Helmet Corporation; Paulson Manufacturing Company; David Golden Motorcycles, Inc., JVR No. 43984 Superior Court, San Francisco County (1986). A plaintiff in his mid-30s is a victim in motorcycle accident, resulting in becoming a quadriplegic. The plaintiff sued the city of San Francisco and State of California arguing that poor road conditions contributed to his accident. Additionally, the plaintiff sued the motorcycle manufacturer and retailer and claimed that the bike, helmet and visor were defective. The manufacturer and retailer maintained that the products were not defective. The plaintiff eventually settled for a total amount of $865,000. The city and county paid the large bulk of the settlement.
• Sheryl Suglia v. Nexl Sports Products, LLC, Lifestyle Custom Cycles, Gilbert J. Williams and Mark Skolnick Jr., 2009 WL 3260089, Superior Court, Los Angeles County (2009). Plaintiff and her late husband got into a collision with their motorcycles, head-on, by a drunk driver, resulting Plaintiff having severe injuries the passing of her husband .At the time of the crash, plaintiff and her husband were wearing “beanie” type helmets manufactured by Nexl Sports Products and sold by retailer Lifestyle Cycles.The particular "beanie" type helmets did a recall in 2003 for failing to pass Department of Transportation penetration and impact-absorption tests. The plaintiff sued the manufacturer and retailer under the theory of strict products liability and negligence, claiming that both defendants should have made her aware of the product recall. Plaintiff sought more than $2 million in economic damages. The jury found in favor of the defense, reasoning that the impact between the car and motorcycle was so major that no helmet could have prevented the resulting injuries.
• Sally Doe v. Daytona Helmets Inc.; Jeffrey McKinley; Big Dawg Custom Cycles & Rodney Chatwin, individually, 2006 WL 4589449, Superior Court, Alameda County (2006). Plaintiff is dealing with head injuries due to a motorcycle accident. One of the claims brought by plaintiff was for products liability against the motorcycle helmet manufacturer. The crux of plaintiff’s argument was that the helmet failed to meet DOT safety requirements, despite the fact that it displayed a DOT compliant sticker. The parties reached a settlement agreement and the plaintiff received approximately $1 million from the helmet manufacturer and an additional $1 million from the remaining defendants.
• Grant Thor and Sara Guerrero v. Kerr Leathers, Inc., Sunright International and Visalia Harley-Davidson, 2007 WL 2872337, Superior Court, Tulare County (2007). Plaintiff's late father received severe head injuries due to an motorcycle accident, resulting his late fathering from passing away. Plaintiff brought a products liability suit against the manufacturer. The retailer of the helmet claiming that it was defective after it failed a “retention” test by the Federal Government. The defendants recalled the helmet, but there was no evidence of the plaintiff’s father ever receiving notice of the recall. Plaintiff settled for approximately $2 million.
• Riley v. Grandon, 5 Trials Digest 17th 7, Superior Court, Riverside County (2013). The Decedent was a motorcycle passenger when the bike struck a speedbump, lost control, and crashed. Unfortunately, the Decedent fractured her skull and died as a result of her injuries. The Decedent’s estate brought suit against the driver of the motorcycle under a theory of negligence and also alleged strict product liability against the manufacturer and retailer of the helmet the Decedent was wearing at the time of the accident. At the end, the plaintiff claimed that the helmet did not meet motorcycle safety standards. Plaintiff reached a $1 million settlement with the helmet retailer. THIS ARTICLE IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, NO ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVLIGE, CONSULT, OR ADVICE. PLEASE CONSULT WITH A PROFESSIONAL. Contact KAASS Law for further assistance and representation!