Ride-sharing companies like Uber have been increasingly popular over the years. This convenient transportation service has been used by millions of people around the globe. However, even though the smart app is safe and reliable, ride-sharing Uber accidents do happen and can become a serious problem really fast. If a person got into an Uber accident, he/she may be wondering what should be done next. In case they have been injured, they may have some medical expenses to cover, may be suffering from pain, or might be out of work because of the injuries they have caused. For starters, discussing and defining which law this falls under in the state of California when it comes down to car accidents, Tort Law.
California is a tort state where drivers who cause accidents pay money to the injured victims. "A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability. In the context of torts, 'injury' describes the invasion of any legal right, whereas "harm" describes a loss or detriment that an individual suffers." There are three types in this matter: Intentional Tort, Negligent Tort, and Strict Liability Tort. With that said, this rule applies to a pedestrian, a passenger, or another motorist who is hit by a ride-sharing driver.
Whenever a person is involved in a car accident, he must make sure to get as much information as possible about the accident. This means taking note of the road conditions, location and time of day, and much more. An injured person must get the following evidence after the accident:
The issue of liability can be complex, and determining liability is critical to getting compensation. The following parties may be liable for injuries in an Uber accident:
There are two categories of damages for personal injury claims: economic and non-economic.
Economic damages include:
Non-economic damages are awarded for injuries that are difficult to assign an objective monetary value. Common non-economic damages include:
The amount of damages that a victim can recover depends on the extent of the injuries and the circumstances surrounding the accident. In case the victim was partly at fault for the accident the amount he may be able to recover can be decreased.
In California, Uber accident victims may not recover non-economic damages in case they don't carry liability insurance, per Proposition 213. Thus the motorists who drive a vehicle without valid car insurance are acting at their own risk of personal safety. In case a person doesn't have insurance, he may not recover compensation for:
Though economic damages are still fully recoverable.
When an injured person reaches his maximum medical improvement after the Uber accident, he must submit a demand for compensation. A demand letter should concisely:
If you sustain any injuries due to an Uber accident, please contact KAASS LAW. We provide free consultations for personal injury matters, especially if you sustain injuries from an Uber car accident. Our team knows how to speak with adjusters and provide guidance on what to do and which direction to lead so we can fight for your financial compensation for the damages that you received. Do not admit to anything of being at fault. Don't sign any documents without first speaking with us first. We have experience in handling and collecting evidence to support your claim. Speaking with an insurance agent can potentially harm your case without you knowing. If you were involved in an Uber accident in California, we invite you to hire our dedicated Los Angeles Uber accident lawyer today at (310) 943-1171 for a free consultation.
Riding the open road with the wind hitting your way can be eventful in your motorcycle rental. However, things can go sideways when dealing with a collision that puts bodily harm upon yourself. Since the vehicle is not yours, or if the other party collided with you with a rented motorcycle, the question arises. Can I sue a rental motorcycle company for this accident? This is a valid question to ask, and here at KAASS LAW, we can help. We understand the devastating impact accidents can have. Furthermore, we dedicate to helping injured individuals understand their rights and pursue just compensation. The following will explore the circumstances under which a rental motorcycle company might be liable for an accident. As a result, this will bring challenges involved in such cases.
When the driver of a rental vehicle is a part of the accident, it is important to know who is liable and how the injured victim must get compensation for the caused injuries. Usually, incidents where a rental motorcycle has been obtained by a driver do not lead to a case because the driver accepts responsibility for the motorcycle, and the rental company can't be responsible for damages to the victim. Though, it is often difficult to discern without a thorough investigation which insurance carrier must provide funds. When the driver has purchased a rental company's insurance, less coverage is allocated to the driver than his own insurance would allow. Generally, a renter needs to get his own liability insurance to rent a car, and if he doesn't, he is supposed to buy liability insurance with minimum coverage through the rental vehicle company. In California, rental vehicle companies do not automatically provide protection to a renter as part of the rental agreement, though some do provide minimum liability protection to international renters. In case a person is suing a driver of a rental motorcycle for causing injuries, usually, he will have to establish the elements of negligence such as duty, a breach of duty, causation, and damages. But, in case the driver has insufficient insurance coverage for the accident, whether, through his personal insurance policy or a policy from the rental motorcycle company. The injured person may not be able to recover the full scope of the damages. Even if he manages to establish the driver's liability for the accident.
According to California Vehicle Code Section 406(a), a "moped" or "motorized bicycle" (also known as an electric bike or e-bike) is capable of no more than 30 mph on level ground with fully operative pedals for human propulsion, or an electric motor, with or without pedals for human propulsion or a motor producing less than two gross brake horsepower and an automatic transmission. In California, electric bikes are not considered motor vehicles, and the riders are not required to have a license for operating them. An e-bike doesn’t need to be registered with the state. E-bike riders are not required to comply with California's financial responsibility law and are not required to have liability insurance. California State legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1096 which classifies e-bikes into 3 categories based on the method of operation and maximum speed.
Class 1: E-bike with a top assisted speed of 20 mph that must be pedaled Class 2: E-bike with a top assisted speed of 20 mph that does not have to be pedaled Class 3: E-bike with a top assisted speed of 28 mph California laws also require the rider to obey the following basic bicycle laws:
California, a state known for its progressive policies, takes animal abuse seriously. At KAASS LAW, we believe that animals, as sentient beings, deserve our compassion and protection. Understanding the nuances of California's animal abuse laws is crucial, not only for animal owners but for all members of our community. The following will aim to shed light on these laws, outlining what constitutes animal abuse, the penalties for such acts, and what you can do to help protect vulnerable animals.
According to the animal abuse law California Penal Code Section 597 (PC 597), it is illegal to maliciously and intentionally mutilate, maim, wound, torture, or kill an animal. California law broadly defines animal abuse, encompassing a range of actions that cause unjustified pain, suffering, or death to an animal. These acts can be intentional, negligent, or even a result of an owner's failure to provide adequate care. Some common examples of animal abuse include:
In today's interconnected world, businesses rely heavily on their employees to deliver services, create products, and represent the company's brand. While most employment relationships are mutually beneficial, there are instances where an employee's actions can cause significant harm to others. When this harm stems from an employer's failure to properly vet, manage, or dismiss a problematic employee, it can give rise to a legal claim for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention. At KAASS LAW, we understand the complexities of these cases and dedicate in helping those who with injuries due to an employer's negligence in these critical areas.
Usually, injuries take place in a place of business, or the accident occurs due to the negligence of an employee in any other place. California law gives the injured person the right to sue and recover damages from the employer who is liable for the negligent hiring or supervision of the employee. California Civil Jury Instruction (CACI) 426 clearly explains the elements that must be proven for convicting the employer in negligent hiring and/or supervising the employee:
California, a state synonymous with movement and progress, relies heavily on its intricate network of public transportation. From the iconic cable cars of San Francisco to the sprawling Metrolink system connecting Southern California, millions of people depend on common carriers to navigate their daily lives. We entrust these carriers with our safety, expecting a smooth and secure journey whether we're commuting to work, exploring a new city, or traveling across the state. But what happens when that trust is broken? What legal responsibilities do these common carriers bear, and what recourse do passengers have when negligence leads to injury? At KAASSS LAW, we understand the complexities surrounding common carrier law, and we're here to shed light on this crucial aspect of personal injury and transportation law, ensuring you understand your rights and the protections afforded to you as a passenger in California. Navigating the aftermath of an accident involving a common carrier can be daunting, but with the right legal guidance, you can pursue justice and secure the compensation you deserve.
According to California Civil Code Section 2168, a common carrier is everyone who offers the public to carry persons, property, or messages, excepting only telegraphic messages. Typically, a common carrier is transportation company that has a contract to transport property, people, and goods across or around within state lines as public services. A common carrier is any entity that holds itself out to the public as willing to transport passengers or property from one place to another for compensation. This definition encompasses a wide range of businesses, including:
California follows substantial factor causation. California Civil Jury Instruction 430 describes substantial factor causation as follows: “A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm. Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.” Thus, for being liable in a California personal injury case, defendant’s conduct must have substantially contributed to the harm such that in case the defendant didn’t act as he did, the harm wouldn’t have occurred.
In the context of causation, conduct refers to the illegal acts or omissions, on which a claim of legal fault is based, such as product defect, negligence, dangerous condition of public property, or breach of contract.
Defendant’s contributing conduct must be more than a trivial or remote factor. The defendant’s conduct which proximately, directly, and substantially caused injuries to the plaintiff must have been intentional, negligent, or violate. For example, in case the defendant’s innocent cough has startled a plaintiff into falling and injuring himself, the plaintiff can’t sue the defendant for personal injury unless the defendant’s conduct was intentional for the purpose of making the plaintiff startle and fall. Defendant’s conduct can’t be considered a substantial factor in causing the injury to the plaintiff in case the same injury would have occurred without that conduct. Proximate and direct causation requires that the defendant set off a reasonably predictable series of events that lead to the plaintiff’s injuries.
At KAASS LAW, we understand that your reputation is invaluable. While many are familiar with defamation claims like libel and slander, a less discussed but equally damaging legal avenue exists. In another legal term, this called tort of false light. In California, false light claims offer recourse for individuals who are victims of privacy invasion and are in public display that is highly offensive to a reasonable person, even if the information isn't technically false. The following will delve into the intricacies of false light claims in California. As a result, this will be helping you understand your rights and whether you might have a viable legal case.
Invasion of privacy is defined as the intrusion of another person’s right to privacy and can be performed as an unreasonable interference with an individual’s confidential information, solitude, or public image. False light is considered a type of invasion of privacy tort, and it happens when one person alters the public image of another one by portraying that person in an offensive and false light.
To have a successful claim against a defendant, a plaintiff must be able to prove the following four elements:
The business world thrives on trust, integrity, and fair competition. However, the pursuit of profit and advantage can sometimes lead individuals astray, tempting them to engage in unethical or even illegal practices. One such practice is commercial bribery, a serious offense that undermines fair business dealings and can have severe legal consequences. In California, Penal Code 641.3 PC specifically addresses commercial bribery, outlining the prohibited conduct and the penalties for those who violate the law. At KAASS LAW, we commit to upholding ethical business practices and protecting our clients from the legal ramifications of commercial bribery. The following provides a comprehensive overview of Penal Code 641.3 PC, explaining the elements of the offense, potential defenses, and the importance of seeking legal counsel if you are facing accusations or are concerned about potential violations.
According to California Penal Code Section 641.3 (a), an employee who solicits, accepts or agrees to accept money or anything of value from a person other than his employer, corruptly and without the knowledge or consent of the employer, in return for using his position for the benefit of that other person, is guilty of commercial bribery.
The vibrant city of Los Angeles pulsates with a unique energy, attracting creative individuals and entrepreneurs seeking to make their mark. For those with a passion for hairstyling and a desire to build a thriving business, opening a barbershop or hair salon in LA can be an exciting and rewarding venture. However, navigating the legal landscape of licenses, permits, and regulations can be a daunting task. At KAASS LAW, we understand the intricacies of business law and are dedicated to helping entrepreneurs like you turn their dreams into reality. The following will provide a comprehensive guide to the legal requirements for opening a barbershop or hair salon in Los Angeles, ensuring you have the knowledge and resources to launch your business with confidence and compliance
Steps to undertake for opening a barber shop or hair salon in Los Angeles.
In California, rental vehicle companies do not have an legal obligation to investigate a renter's driving record. However, the situation is different in case the at-fault driver rented the car with a suspended license. The rental motorcycle company is required to check the license and compare the signatures on the customer's license and the rental agreement. In case the rental vehicle company doesn't follow the mentioned procedure of verification, it may be held directly liable for negligent entrustment. This is when it rents to an incompetent or unfit driver who has a revoked or suspended license. The rental agency can also be liable if the provided motorcycle had a defect that could lead to an accident, and it was known by the company without a fix implemented. So, there was foreknowledge about the defective materials or parts within the motorcycle that were allocated to the victim of the accident. Even if an insurance policy coverage is at the motorcycle company. The business could still be liable for the damages due to the breach of duty. Furthermore, claims go through an insurance provider to guarantee compensation and recovery of the victim.
If you sustain an injury in an accident involving a rented motorcycle, it is important to seek legal consultation as soon as you can. Our personal injury firm can:
At KAASS LAW, we have years of experience in handling personal injury cases, including motorcycle accidents, with rental companies. We understand the complexities of these cases and we commit to helping our clients obtain the compensation they deserve. If you've you've been injured in an accident involving a rented motorcycle, contact us today for a confidential consultation. We will review your case, explain your options, and help you navigate the legal process. Don't face this difficult time alone. Let the experienced attorneys at KAASS LAW fight for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxKaTtFv-A If you’ve been injured in a motorcycle accident, we invite you to contact KAASS Law for a free consultation at (310) 943-1171. Our staff speaks English, Spanish, Armenian, Russian, and French.
E-bike accident injuries can be extensive, including fatalities. As e-bikes are faster and heavier than conventional bicycles, the e-bike force of impact on a pedestrian can be up to forty-five times harder. Here are the most common types of injuries associated with e-bikes:
For holding an at-fault party accountable for the accident, a victim proves that the at-fault driver's negligence was the main factor in the crash. If the driver was impaired, speeding, distracted, or otherwise careless, he can be liable for caused injuries. There are several ways of proving the fault and determining the liability.
In case a defective or dangerous roadway caused a bicycle crash, the city or governmental agency, responsible for maintaining the roadway can be liable for the accident.
In case the crash took place because of a malfunction with the e-bike itself, the victim can sue the manufacturer with a defective design, defective manufacturing or labeling or warning error claims
Potentially liable parties in personal injury electric bike lawsuits also include pedestrians and other e-bike drivers.
A successful e-bike accident claim will include compensation for:
If you or a loved one has been injured in an e-bike accident we encourage you to contact experienced bike accident attorneys at KAASS Law for a free consultation today.
Under this animal abuse law in California, it is also prohibited to maliciously or intentionally maiming, torturing mutilating or a bird, reptile, amphibian, mammal, or fish that is protected or endangered species.
To convict the defendant under California Penal Code Section 597, the prosecutor must prove that he acted maliciously, intentionally, or cruelly when committing the act of animal abuse.
The defendant can fight a PC Section 597 charge in case he injured or killed an animal for the purposes of protecting himself, another person, or even another animal. The defendant must present the evidence that he acted reasonably given the circumstances of the incident.
A defendant can fight a PC Section 597 charge in case the animal’s injury or death was an accident and wasn’t the result of any intentional plan, maliciousness, cruelty, or gross negligence.
There are plenty of reasons when a person can be falsely charged with a PC Section 597 violation. It can be mistaken identity or a purposeful accusation of another person of animal abuse.
California PC Section 597 Animal Abuse can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the defendant's criminal history and the facts of the case and.
In case the animal abuse involved the use of a deadly weapon, the judge can extend the sentence by an additional year. Moreover, the conviction for Penal Code Section 597 PC violation may result in additional consequences, such as mandatory counseling or the animals being permanently removed from the defendant’s custody. The defendant can also face occupational and professional license restrictions, immigration consequences, loss of rights to own firearms, and more.
At KAASS LAW, we're passionate about protecting animals and holding abusers accountable. We can assist in cases of animal abuse by:
Education is key to preventing animal abuse. By understanding the laws and recognizing the signs of abuse, we can all play a role in protecting vulnerable animals. If you suspect an animal is being mistreated, don't hesitate to report it. Your actions could save an animal's life. This type of cruelty also includes animals left in hot vehicles. Additionally, LA Animal Care & Control is another great platform for reporting any form of animal cruelty.
At KAASS LAW, we believe that animals deserve our respect and protection. By working together, we can create a community where animal abuse is zero tolerance. If you have any questions about California's animal abuse laws or need legal assistance in an animal-related matter, please contact us for a consultation. We're here to help.
The key element in a negligent hiring claim is foreseeability. Did the employer know, or should they have reasonably known, about the employee's unfitness? A thorough background check, careful review of credentials, and robust interview process are essential to mitigating the risk of negligent hiring.
According to California law, employee is any person subject to the direct control of an employer. Such people consist not only of salaried employees also of temporary workers, per diem overflow workers, independent contractors, agents, and third parties such as security guards.
For being liable for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention the employer should have known or been on notice that the employee was incompetent or unable to perform the work. According to California Civil Code Section 1714, every person is responsible for injuries caused by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their person or property. But this rule applies only in case the employee was acting within the scope of employment. So the employer is liable in case the employee was doing his job, carrying out company business, or otherwise acting on the employer's behalf when the accident happened.
An employer cannot be liable in case the employee committed intentionally wrongful acts. But if the employer knew or reasonably should have known about the employee's intention to engage in an illegal act, the employer can still be liable for negligent hiring or supervision.
Employers can’t be liable for the negligent or intentional actions of the employee which fall outside of the scope and course of the employment, because the consequences are unrelated to the employer.
Here are a few actions the employer can undertake to avoid claims of negligent hiring or retention
At KAASS LAW, we have extensive experience in handling cases involving negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. We understand the intricacies of these claims. As a result, we dedicate to fighting for the rights of those of sustain injuries due to an employer's negligence. If you or a loved one has suffered harm as a result of an employee's misconduct, contact us today. Our skilled legal team can investigate your case, gather evidence, and help you pursue the compensation you deserve. We commit to holding employers accountable for their negligent actions and ensuring justice for our clients. Additionally, we are familiar with representing clients in employment discrimination.
Don't face these challenges alone. Let KAASS LAW be your advocate.
The key element distinguishing a common carrier from a private carrier is the public offering. A private carrier, like a company that only transports its own goods or employees, does not fall under the same legal obligations as a common carrier.
Here are the elements which the plaintiff must establish under a negligence cause of action:
Common carriers in California are subject to a higher standard of care than other automobile operators. Under California Civil Code Section 2100 a common carrier “must use the utmost diligence and care and for the safe carriage, must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill”. Typically, common carriers must follow the below-mentioned guidelines:
Here are some examples of unseen parties that can be liable for an accident involving a common carrier:
Normally a plaintiff has two years from the date of the accident to file a personal injury cause against the common carrier. There is a six-month deadline to file a claim for plaintiffs who have suffered injuries while on-board common carriers owed by public entities. Failure to file a claim within the six-month period will bar the injured person from recovery. In some cases, California civil courts allow exceptions for this rule:
Victims suffered from the common carrier’s negligent conduct have a right to monetary recovery for all their losses, including:
At KAASSS LAW, we're dedicated to protecting the rights of individuals injured due to the negligence of common carriers. We understand the complexities of this area of law and have a proven track record of success in representing clients in these cases. If you or a loved one has been injured while riding on a bus, train, plane, or any other form of common carrier, contact us today for a free consultation. We're here to fight for you and help you get back on track. Don't let negligence derail your life. Let KAASSS LAW be your guide.
Defendant’s negligence can combine with another factor to cause injury to the plaintiff. In case the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing injury to the plaintiff, then the defendant is responsible for the injury. The defendant cannot avoid legal responsibility just because some other condition, person, or event was also a substantial factor in causing the injury to the plaintiff.
In case the defendant claims that the injuries were caused to the plaintiff as a result of another person’s misconduct he must prove all of the following:
Publication doesn’t necessarily need to be an actual publication, such as online or in a newspaper. Usually, it involves making the matter public or communicating the matter to the public, which means more than a few people.
In California, a plaintiff has one year to file a lawsuit against the defendant for the false light invasion of privacy. This period starts running when the plaintiff knows or should have reasonably known about the defendant's unlawful actions.
False light incidents can cause much damage to a person and typically the main legal remedy will be a monetary damages award. A monetary amount, in full payment, by the defendant to the plaintiff for compensating the losses he has experienced as a result of the false light incident. The damages may cover losses such as:
A plaintiff can have a limit to a false light claim in case their extremely open about the publication, such as made no efforts to hide it and it was something commonly known with other people.
If you believe you have been the victim of false light, it's crucial to seek legal advice as soon as possible. An experienced attorney at KAASS LAW can evaluate your case, explain your legal options, and help you pursue justice. We can investigate the circumstances surrounding the publication, gather evidence to support your claim, and negotiate with the defendant or represent you in court.
At KAASS LAW, we dedicate in protecting our clients' rights and reputations. If you believe you have been the victim of false light in California, contact us today for a confidential consultation. We will carefully review your case and provide you with honest and straightforward legal advice. Additionally, we are quite familiar with filing a CA Tort Claims Act. Give us a call so we can assess and schedule a consultation for legal assistance!
Don't let a false portrayal damage your reputation any longer. Let KAASS LAW fight for you.
The prosecutor must establish the following elements to prove a charge of Penal Code 641.3 PC commercial bribery:
Penal Code Section 641.3 PC applies similarly to employees receiving or soliciting bribes and to the person offering bribes. The commercial bribery statute is based on the concept of fiduciary duty between an employer and his employees. The purpose of PC Section 641.3 is to punish individuals who conduct actions to undermine the employer's interests for receiving money or anything else of value that personally benefits them.
The main defense to commercial bribery charges is that there is no evidence that the employee or the person who pays the bribe had corrupt intent.
Commercial bribery can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on the amount of the bribe.
If the value of the bribe is less than $1,000, the defendant will be charged with a misdemeanor, and the following penalties include:
If the value of the bribe is $1,000 or more, the defendant will be charged with a felony, and the following penalties include:
If the victim suffered monetary losses, a court can also order restitution pursuant to California PC Sections 1202.4(a) and (f). Civil damages can also be recovered under California Civil Code Section 3281 if the employer suffered a loss.
If you're facing accusations of commercial bribery, there may be legal defenses available to you. Some potential defenses include:
If you're facing accusations of commercial bribery or are concerned about potential violations, it's crucial to seek legal counsel from an experienced criminal defense attorney. An attorney can:
At KAASS LAW, we understand the complexities of commercial bribery laws and the potential impact these charges can have on your business and reputation. Our firm has a fair understanding of these types of bribery laws, especially Federal Bribery Laws. Our attorneys dedicate to providing skilled legal representation and protecting your interests. If you're facing allegations of commercial bribery or need guidance on compliance with Penal Code 641.3 PC, contact us today for a free consultation.
An establishment must provide adequate hand washing facilities, including soap, air hand dryers or paper towels.
According to California Business and Professions Code Section 7351 the establishment must provide at least one public toilet room located on or near the premises. The restroom cannot be used as a storage.
At least one sink with hot and cold running water must be provided in each work area, where hairdressing is performed.
Potable drinking water must be available to employees and customers
The establishments must keep the floors, woodwork, walls, furniture, ceilings, furnishing and fixtures clean and in a good condition.
The Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 requires barbers and hair salons to conspicuously and clearly disclose the customers in writing the pricing for each service provided. Barbers and hair salons must follow specific posting requirements.
Moreover, barbers and hair salons must display in a conspicuous place at least one sign which states: “CALIFORNIA LAW PROHIBITS ANY BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT FROM DISCRIMINATING, WITH RESPECT TO THE PRICE CHARGED FOR SERVICES OF SIMILAR OR LIKE KIND, AGAINST A PERSON BECAUSE OF THE PERSON’S GENDER. A COMPLETE PRICE LIST IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.” After receiving a written notice, the Business establishments must correct a violation of any of the requirements in a 30-day period. Otherwise, it can be a fine of $1,000 for each violation for failing to do so. Additionally, according to California Civil Code Section 52(a), a business may be liable for any amount determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to three times the amount of actual damage but no less than $4,000, plus any attorney’s fees. However, an action under this section 52(a) doesn’t prohibit an aggrieved party from seeing any other available procedure or remedy.
Opening a barbershop or hair salon in Los Angeles can be a complex process, with numerous legal requirements to navigate. At KAASS Law, we have extensive experience assisting entrepreneurs in launching and running successful businesses. We can help you:
Ready to take the leap and open your dream barbershop or hair salon in Los Angeles. KAASS LAW is here to support you every step of the way. Contact us today for a consultation. We'll answer your questions, provide expert legal guidance, and help you build a thriving and compliant business.
Do you have any additional questions about starting a business in Los Angeles, California? Our business law attorneys at KAASS LAW would be happy to answer your questions and help you out.