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. Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 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. County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 137 Cal.App.4th 292, (Ca. Ct. App. 2006).
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!
The manufactured home once known as a mobile home is a popular dwelling place for many. Builders construct modern manufactured homes according to strict building standards that have evolved nationally since 1976. Unlike conventional "site-built" houses, fabricated models often come with their own warranty forms. Furthermore, 38 states, including California, have rules and regulations regulating manufactured home-building and guarantee systems. In 1958, California itself led the way in the oversight of manufactured home construction.
California does a remarkable job of ensuring the protection by multiple laws and codes of manufactured homeowners. The existence of the Senate Select Committee on Manufactured Home Communities is one unusual feature of manufactured home ownership in California. This is a standing committee which studies the need for legislation and makes recommendations to the Legislature as necessary. The Department of Housing and Community Development is in charge of the California Manufactured Housing Protection and Assistance Program. Which is in charge of enforcing rules and regulations in order to put California's manufactured housing laws and codes into effect. The Department, in particular, had also adopt building standards that are compatible with known and approved standards. As published in the most recent editions of industry codes that are uniform or international.
In California, when someone's conduct is particularly egregious, the court may award "punitive damages" on top of compensatory damages. These damages are not meant to compensate the victim for their losses but to punish the defendant and deter similar behavior in the future. At KAASS LAW, we have extensive experience handling cases involving punitive damages and understand the complexities of pursuing these claims. The following will explores the concept of punitive damages in California, explaining when they are awarded, how they are calculated, and the legal strategies involved in securing them.
Punitive damages are damages that a defendant in a civil action can be ordered to pay to punish him for egregious conducting including employment claims and personal injury. Commonly, punitive damages can’t be awarded for a simple breach of contract, but can be awarded in cases such as insurance company bad faith when the company unlawfully refuses to pay a legitimate claim. California Civil Code Section 3294 allows a jury to award punitive damages to the plaintiff in a personal injury case. The plaintiff must be able to establish convincing and clear evidence that the defendant's conduct amounted to oppression, malice or fraud.
Oftentimes, when we think of the relationship between an attorney and their client, we simply assume that there are little to no complications as the relationship ought to be fairly straightforward. It is a professional relationship that confers with it a certain amount of trust and loyalty.
In other words, the client and the lawyer have entered into an understanding in which they have agreed to work together for a particular dispute, issue, or case.
As a result of this agreement, whatever is in the client’s best interest becomes the lawyer’s objective responsibility to determine, advise, and inform throughout the entirety of their client-lawyer relationship.
Since the client’s best interest becomes the lawyer’s responsibility, it is that lawyer’s legal duty to do everything in their power to help the client.
As such, it makes sense that a lawyer cannot have two clients at the same time whose interests are not aligned. In other words, there cannot be a conflict of interest between the clients that the lawyer represents, otherwise there may be a high chance that the lawyer will not be able to fulfill their loyalties and legal duties to those clients.
California civil litigation proceedings help resolve private conflicts between people, businesses, and/or the government in Government Tort Claims actions. Litigation is one of the most fundamental aspects of law. It refers to the formal process of resolving legal disputes by filing or responding to complaints through the public court system.
What most people tend to think of when they think about lawyers and courts is typically not very representative of what actually goes on. The classic Law and Order portrayal of law in Hollywood, albeit very immersive and dramatic, does not give a realistic overview of what the legal process entails, or how one goes about it.
A much more reasoned approach to understanding how the legal process works, would be to simply take a look at the process of taking legal action, or litigation. In any case, the process begins when someone files suit. Typically, the plaintiff begins this process when they file a formal complaint with the clerk of the court. At this point, the defendant must be notified that a lawsuit was filed against them, so as to give them the proper notice before a court date. The defendant must then figure out their strategy to deal with the lawsuit and so usually a lawyer or firm gets hired on to help with legal counsel and representation. Then, the court establishes personal jurisdiction and a location is finalized for the court that will have authority over the complaint.
The saying "as is the case with California, so is the nation" applies to manufactured homes and to their warranties. Early September 1, 1958, no manufactured home could be marketed or built in California unless it met with state building regulations. In 1976, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development adopted federal regulations for manufactured homes, partly based on the standards of California.
The Golden State has always been regarded as customer friendly and for manufactured home guarantees this is no different. The California Civil Code's Sections 1797 through 1797.7 regulate manufactured home builders and the warranty coverage they must provide. For one, homebuilders, contractors and dealers imported by California have to respect warranties they offer on such homes. At a minimum, home warranties made in California cover "substantial material and workmanship defects" in a variety of home systems.
The home warranties provided by Golden State include plumbing, electrical, fire safety, ventilation, heating and structural systems. In addition, all appliances built in or produced by a manufactured home builder, or their contractors or suppliers have protection by the California guarantee rules. Manufactured home warranties in California extend to their customer for one year from the day a home is shipped. You have one year and 10 days from the date of delivery of your manufactured home to inform your manufacturer, in writing, of any defects.
If your home made in California has a flaw protected by the State's warranty provisions, report to your dealer or supplier first. The Golden State needs manufactured home builders and their dealers to take appropriate action to fix any defects associated with the warranties. The Mobile home Ombudsman's office in California also helps manufactured homeowners cope with warranty and other issues.
In addition to the mandatory one-year warranty, some manufacturers offer voluntary or extended warranties on modular homes. These warranties may cover individual components, including:
Terms range from two to ten years. However, the terms of such warranties usually depend on the specific manufacturer. Buyers should study them carefully before signing a contract. For example, failure to comply with the maintenance requirements specified in the manufacturer's instructions may void the warranty. It is important to note that extended warranties are often arranged through third-party insurance companies rather than directly with the builder.
Once the modular home has been delivered to the site, a technical inspection is recommended. Although not required by law, such a measure allows for the timely identification of hidden defects. This information can be critical when seeking warranty repairs. More information about inspections can be found on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) The buyer must also keep all documents related to the purchase and installation, such as:
This will facilitate the claims process. Our attorneys are available to advise you at any stage. In addition, we recommend that you read the Federal Trade Commission's recommendations for understanding warranty rights.
If you or a loved one has been harmed as the result of another's negligence, then you may be entitled to compensation. If that is the case, contact our Glendale personal injury lawyer today for a consultation and case review. A warranty lawsuit is an extremely complex legal process. Please feel free to give our office a call at 310.943.1171. KAASS LAW helps homeowners address warranty issues, fix defective manufactured homes, and navigate California's complex building regulations.
California Civil Code Section 3294(c) gives the following definition to “malice,” “oppression” and “fraud”:
When dealing with a company as opposed to a private person, California Civil Code section 3294 states that the employer shouldn’t be legally liable for punitive damages, based upon acts of his employee, unless the employer had reasonable knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and hired him with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of other people or ratified or authorized the illegal conduct for which the damages are awarded, or was personally guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the reasonable knowledge and conscious disregard, ratification, authorization, or act of oppression, malice or fraud must be on the part of the director, officer, or managing agent of the corporation.
Some common scenarios include the following:
According to CACI 3940 the jury considers several factors when deciding the amount of punitive damages. Here are some of them:
Pursuing punitive damages requires careful legal strategy and thorough preparation. KAASS LAW can help you:
If you believe you may have a claim for punitive damages, contact KAASS LAW today for a free consultation. We have the experience and expertise to help you navigate the complexities of these claims and fight for the justice you deserve. We understand that pursuing a legal claim can be a daunting process, especially when you're dealing with the aftermath of a wrongful act. Our team is dedicated to providing compassionate and dedicated legal representation, guiding you through every step of the process and advocating for your rights.
A lawyer is not allowed to misrepresent or conceal the dual representation. Simultaneous conflicts of interest can result from the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third party or from the lawyer’s own interests.
In the event that a conflict of interest arises between a lawyer and their clients, there are already established rules that the attorney must follow.
Firstly, the lawyer must clearly identify the client or clients that this conflict affects or may affect. Then, he must determine whether or not a conflict of interest does exist as well as whether or not he can still represent the client despite the existence of the conflict by means of written, informed consent.
While it may sound counter-intuitive at first, a lawyer can, in certain circumstances, represent two clients whose interests are not necessarily perfectly aligned–if and only if they both consent to it after being informed of the risks and challenges that may come about due to that representation.
The complications to the issue of conflict of interest mainly come up due to the fact that a conflict of interest can exist before representation is established, during the client-lawyer relationship, and even potentially after it is over.
The reasons for this vary widely but generally it is always the responsibility of the lawyer or law firm to do their own internal research and determine whether or not it is legal, advisable, and safe to offer up representation of a client. Furthermore, as a general rule it is not favorable nor ideal to be represented by a lawyer or law firm that has a client whose interests do not align with yours.
If the conflict cannot be resolved by means of informed consent of the involved clients, then it is expected that the lawyer withdraw from the representation.
One of the core aspects of being a lawyer is to faithfully represent a client and all of their best interests once the client-lawyer relationship gets established and, as such, if an unresolvable conflict of interest arises, then it is only natural for the lawyer to withdraw from the representation. If he does not, then he cannot faithfully represent his client or clients and that goes contrary to the ethos of the profession.
Our lawyers in Glendale, Los Angeles, CA, at KAASS LAW believe in the integrity that comes with the legal profession and we stand to uphold it at all costs.
We thoroughly search our database to avoid such problems and we work with clients to ensure their needs and interests are always met. In the event that you feel you may have been represented by a lawyer or law firm who failed to inform you of a conflict of interest or who deliberately took on your representation regardless, we encourage you to give us a toll free call at (310) 943-1171 to speak to our defense attorneys today.
We will fight to right the wrongs of other malicious firms or lawyer and we stand by our client’s best interests always. At KAASS LAW, we know exactly where our loyalties lie–with our clients.
Bear in mind that most of this process is heavily bureaucratic and involves many back and forth between the two parties. To avoid some of the confusion, both parties must meet and discuss with each other the nature of the case. This is done to determine specific issues, points of disagreement, to broach the possibility of settlement, and to start making plans for discovery and disclosure. In fact, depending on the case, discovery and disclosure can very easily end up taking up a huge chunk of time because during this period, both parties must disclosure to one another the various pieces of information they are planning on submitting and using as evidence in court. If the case ends up having many different pieces of evidence, then the discovery and disclosure period will be very lengthy, and yet also very important too.
This period is one of the few in which both parties must be completely open and honest with one another, and therefore it marks an excellent opportunity for a good lawyer to get enough insight as to how the opposing side is going to approach the conflict. By seeing the evidence that the opposition plans to use against you, you can formulate a general picture of their plan so that you can begin countering it with yours. As such, this step in the legal litigation process is absolutely crucial for both sides.
Once both sides have had their turn to see the other side’s evidence, the court will move to schedule an early pretrial conference. There, at the pretrial conference, both sides meet in a courtroom in front of a judge, who facilitates a discussion of the issues of the case. This discussion is important to have because some cases are not suited to go on trial since there may be a lack of material issue of dispute or disagreement between the parties. Other cases are just simply ambiguous and some clarification is needed for the judge to determine what the key problems are and whether or not those issues can be resolved through trial. As such, the judge will ask questions to both sides so as to clarify the actual points of contention for each party.
After that, the defendant has the ability to file motions and answers, the first of which aims to dismiss or otherwise discredit the plaintiff’s accusations and the latter of which acts as a response to the initial complaint made by the plaintiff. Either way, these motions can be absolutely crucial to the success of the defendant in court because they can make huge strides by eliminating several avenues of argumentation that the plaintiff or prosecutor may use in court. Past this period, both parties once again disclose documentation and the discovery process moves forward; both parties now have another opportunity to file for more motions and finally the court will hold one last pre-trial conference. After all of that has been said and done, the court conducts the trial.
During the trial is when most, if not all, of the action that you see on TV actually takes place. As you can see, there is a lot more to the story that happens leading up to the day of trial and even during the trial the proceedings take place in an organized manner. At the end of the trial, the court decides upon and files its judgment. Once this takes place, post-trial proceedings, such as appeals, can be made. If either party chooses to appeal, they have another opportunity to present their case, which may or may not sway the final decision. Appeals are considered on the basis of briefs or oral arguments which to serve to demonstrate why the judgment that was rendered was unjust or inadequate, as well as to propose another judgment that the court can implement instead.
Finally, the last ruling or verdict is made, which is typically by a jury, and judgment is enforced. This means that whatever the court decides must get carried out and at this point the litigation process finally concludes. This coverage and overview of the litigation process aims to illuminate the various steps, proceedings, and protocols that go into the work that gets put into any given lawsuit case. Folks who work in the legal world all must understand and abide by the legal process and as such litigation is the cornerstone of how our society enforces laws and renders justice. At
KAASS LAW's civil litigation lawyers are well-aware have litigated and tried numerous cases in various areas of law. We believe that going the extra mile to educate and raise awareness will always pay dividends in the end. As such, we are always available to answer and to clarify any questions or concerns our clients may have regarding their case, and it is also why we do pro bono work. If you have any questions concerning a legal matter, feel free to reach out to us at (310) 943-1171 to speak to our experienced litigators today. We will give you the insight, confidence, and security you need to win your case.