Before you file a lawsuit for breach of contract in Los Angeles Court there are a few requirements to prove. In order to be successful in a breach of contract lawsuit, the Plaintiff must prove the basic elements for breach of contract, including: Whether or not a valid contract existed.
The four basic requirements of a valid contract include the following:
A contract is a binding agreement between two or more parties. Section 1 of the Restatement defines a contract as ‘‘a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty.’’
An "offer" is a manifestation of present contractual intent, communicated to an identified offeree, containing definite and certain terms. The offer element is further analyzed objectively, rather than subjectively. In order other words, for Plaintiff to prove breach of contract, s/he must also prove that the parties intended to enter into a contract.
Two laws govern contract law and depending on the type of transaction or agreement parties have entered into the Courts will determine under which law governs the contracts. The two laws which govern contracts law is common law contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code.
Most contracts are governed by state common law, such as employment contracts, service contracts, or the sale of real property.
The uniform commercial code "UCC" governs contracts which involve merchants engaging in the sales of goods. UCC applies to:
When a party has breached the terms of a contract or interfered with their contractual duties they can be held liable for tort or damages caused to the other party.
The statute of limitation to bring suit for breach of contract in California depends on the type of contract the parties entered to. Breach of written contract differs from oral contracts.
If you are involved in a business dispute or breach of contract matter we invite you to speak to our Glendale business attorney at KAASS Law today! Give us a call or get in touch with us at (310) 943-1171 using the form below; our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, and Armenian. [contact-form to='[email protected]' subject='Contract'][contact-field label='Name' type='name' required='1'/][contact-field label='Email' type='email' required='1'/][contact-field label='Phone Number' type='text' required='1'/][contact-field label='Message' type='textarea' required='1'/][/contact-form]
Motorcycle accident injuries can be reduced by wearing protective gear while riding. While, wearing a motorcycle helmet while riding reduces a motorcyclist’s risk of head trauma, however only by a certain percent. According to CDC wearing a helmet lowers the risk of a head injury by estimated 69 percent and lowers the risk of death by estimated 37 percent. California has motorcycle helmet laws which riders are required to follow. Even when rider wears a helmet, serious head injuries can still occur. Some of the most common motorcycle accident injuries include:
There are many advantages of incorporating a business in California, each business form hold different advantages and disadvantages.
While, there are many benefits of incorporating a business, choosing to register your business under the form of a Limited Liability Company, or "LLC" is one of the more common and better choices. Here are four (4) reasons why forming an LLC in California is the best decision:
An LLC can be organized in various ways. The beauty of an LLC is that the structure of the firm is virtually entirely up to founders' imagination! This is in stark contrast to the rigid, formal structure of a corporation.
Unlike a corporation, which mandates board meetings and shareholder votes along with other burdensome default rules, an LLC has virtually no mandatory rules. Rather, the statutes in your jurisdiction will provide default rules which can be contracted around in the Operating Agreement.
Many business owners believe that incorporating a business is too costly and time consuming. On the other hand, you may be wondering if you truly need to incorporate your business. Quiet frankly, business owners' may find themselves facing personal debts and liabilities in the event of a business dispute or lawsuit. Consequently, business owners then find themselves racking up far more legal fees, costs, stress, and lengthy lawsuits.
There are number of ways California business owners can benefits from incorporating their business. Likewise, California offers a number of different business forms which a business owner may file under. The California Corporations Code outlines minimum filing requirements for incorporating businesses in California. Not all business structure are alike, each offer different benefits and posses disadvantages. Choosing the business structure that best fits your needs its probably the most vital questions any business owners should ask themselves. After all, the foundation and structure of which you build your business will play a major role in your success. Thus, it is a good idea to contact a that can consult you on your options and help you fill in the gaps. We invite you to contact our office and schedule a consultation with a Los Angeles business attorney with strong background in business and economics. Our , near Los Angeles is committed to provide a balanced approach to your legal needs, sound advice and assistance to prevent and or resolve problems.
Some common causes of motorcycle accidents, Los Angeles County:
Traumatic brain injury is divided into two categories -- mild and severe. A traumatic brain injury is considered mild if a loss of consciousness lasts for less than 30 minutes. On the other hand, traumatic brain injury is considered severe, if a loss of consciousness lasts for more than an hour.
Signs of a mild traumatic brain injury include,
Signs of a moderate to severe brain injury may begin within days and symptoms include:
As an owner of a registered trademark or service, you probably wonder when others are responsible for infringing your mark. You should know that the test for trademark infringement is the likelihood of confusion as a result of the similarity of the marks.
A person may be liable for infringement of a federally registered mark if his use of a mark in relation to any goods of services is likely to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114(1). This test to determine whether a registered mark is being infringed is known as the test of likelihood of confusion.
The test of likelihood of confusion includes not only the confusion as to source but also as to affiliation, connection or sponsorship. Champions Golf Club v. Champions Golf Club, 78 F.3d 1111, 1121 (6th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted). This means that a user of a mark may be liable for trademark infringement if the use creates a likelihood of confusion that the goods are affiliated to, connected with or sponsored by the owner of the registered mark.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) gives an opportunity to US Citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring their children to the United States. US citizens can sponsor both their married and unmarried children. However, the unmarried children under twenty-one (21) fall under the category of immediate relatives who are exempt from numerical quotas applicable to other family based preference categories. The question whether the child falls under the category of immediate relatives is extremely important because if immediate relatives can obtain their green cards within less than a year, children of US citizens, falling under one of the preference categories, will have to wait at least seven (7) years depending on their country of citizenship and marital status. Lawful permanent residents can only sponsor their unmarried children who fall under the Second Preference – spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents. However, children under twenty-one (21) of permanent residents have certain privileges compared to children who are twenty-one (21) or older. First of all, seventy-seven percent (77%) of available visas in the second preference category is allocated to spouses and unmarried sons and daughters under twenty-one (21) of permanent residents. § 203(a)(2). Additionally, seventy-five percent (75%) of visas issued to spouses and unmarried children under twenty-one (21) of permanent residents are not subject to the per country limitations. . § 202(a)(4)(A). As a result, if children under twenty-one (21) of permanent residents can obtain their green cards within less than two (2) years, children who are twenty-one (21) or older will have to wait at least seven (7) years depending on their country of citizenship. As it can be seen, the age of the child is crucial for both the petitions filed by US citizens and permanent residents. There is a possibility that although the petition is filed while the child beneficiary is under twenty-one (21) he will be twenty-one (21) or older at the time of adjudication of the petition. In 2002, the Congress enacted the Child Status Protection Act to protect children beneficiaries who turned twenty-one (21) after the immigration petition was filed on their behalf. These provisions of the Child Status Protection Act are known as “age-out protection” provisions.
(a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner. (b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following: (1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect’s involvement in criminal activity. (2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime. (3) In the execution of a warrant. (4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person. (c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply in any case where the victim of the bite or bites was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act or acts that prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work. (d) Subdivision (b) shall apply only where a governmental agency using a dog in military or police work has adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or military work enumerated in subdivision (b). Although, the owner(s)' of a for damages in There is a defense to this rule known as “” Assumption of risk can be used as a defense when the victim of a is working in the capacity of a veterinarian, or some other contracted dog handler. , 16 Cal. App. 4th 650 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. June 15, 1993); , 140 P.3d 848 (Cal. Aug. 28, 2006). “, which is generally applicable in strict liability actions has long been recognized as a defense to a action brought pursuant to the dog bite statute (§ 3342) under appropriate facts.” 140 P.3d 848, 853.
Generally, in tort law, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. This means that the plaintiff holds the burden of proving the claims made against the defendant. This usually sounds fair because the individual making the claim should have to prove the claims they are making. However, sometimes fairness demands that the burden should switch on to the defendant to prove that they were not in fact negligent. In order for a Plaintiff to meet his or her burden of proof by circumstantial evidence. Such is the case for the “res ipsa loquitur” doctrine. Res ipsa loquitur is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself.” Under this doctrine, the plaintiff is permitted to make a prima facia claim against the defendant for negligence, without actually having to prove the actual negligent act(s). 3-31 California Torts § 31.32
Plaintiff must prove three (3) things,
The only real reason to lay down your motorcycle is if you are almost certain that you will not be able to stop your bike in time and you have nowhere to swerve to avoid the accident. In other words, if swerving out of the way or hitting your breaks is not an option because you believe that even more serious consequences will results, laying down your motorcycle would be a good choice in this type circumstance.
Successful, rapid stopping is best accomplished by quickly applying both the front and rear brakes at the same time. If doing so results in your front wheel locking, then at that point you have to rapidly disengage the brake before firmly reapplying pressure to the rear brake. On the other hand, if your rear wheel locks up as opposed to the front wheel, then it is best to allow it to remain locked and kee[ applying the brakes until you have completely stopped. Hiring a Los Angeles motorcycle accident attorney and motorcycle accident attorney in Glendale can help motorcycle accident victims preserve their accident claim, increase compensation, and avoid having to deal with the difficulties of insurance companies and insurance adjusters. As experienced motorcycle accident litigators, we have successfully litigated various personal injury cases. KAASS LAW understands the mastery it takes to successfully receive fair settlements during the claims stage of a personal injury or accident case. When you are involved in a motorcycle accident and suffer damages, you are legally entitled to compensation by negligent and responsible parties, or their insurance carriers. We invite you to contact our motorcycle accident attorneys for a free personal injury consultation. We will review your motorcycle accident claim, evaluate the facts surrounding your case, and consult with you on your options. Please call our office at (310) 943-1171 and speak to an experienced Los Angeles motorcycle accident attorney. Give us a call, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian. [su_button url="tel:+1 3109431171" background="#2def58" color="#ffffff" size="9" center="yes" icon="icon: share"]CALL US NOW FOR A FREE CONSULT[/su_button] KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW Motorcycle Accident Collision Lawyers and Attorneys helps clients in: County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, Burbank, West Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Calabasas, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda. Pamona FOR A FREE DETAILED REVIEW BY OUR AWARD WINNING LOS ANGELES MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT ATTORNEYS FILL OUT THE FOLLOWING FORM: [contact-form to='[email protected]' subject='NEW CLIENT - Moto Accident'][contact-field label='Name' type='name' required='1'/][contact-field label='Email' type='email' required='1'/][contact-field label='Phone' type='url' required='1'/][contact-field label='Facts of Accident' type='textarea' required='1'/][/contact-form] https://kaass.com/california-motorcycle-helmet-laws/ https://kaass.com/common-causes-of-motorcycle-accidents/ https://kaass.com/common-traumatic-brain-injury-symptoms/
An LLC has even more limited liability than a corporation or limited liability partnership! The founders can execute an Operating Agreement that vacates most of their fiduciary responsibility. This is extremely important as it shields owners from being personally financially responsible for the liabilities of the LLC should things go wrong. This means that creditors cannot go after the personal assets of the owners to pay business debts.
Unlike a corporation which is subject to "double taxation" (i.e. a corporation pays taxes on its annual earnings while shareholders must also make tax payments on dividend payments), an LLC is eligible for flow-through (aka pass-through) taxation under IRS rules. A Flow-Through entity, such as an LLC, is not subject to taxation. Rather, taxes are only paid once the income passes to the owners. Ultimately, the beauty of an LLC is that it offers the limited liability of a corporation with the freedom and tax advantages of a partnership. Owners of an LLC are shielded from personal liability, avoid double-taxation, and have the flexibility to organize the LLC management structure in any way they see fit. Our Glendale business attorneys will help you make the right decision as each entity has its own significant consequences in matters pertaining to issues of liability, management, ownership, and control; business succession matters such as transfer, assignment, and dissolution; as well as business taxation.
For further question regarding incorporating your business, feel free to contact our office at (310) 943-1172. Our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.
KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office.
KAASS LAW immigration attorneys helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
Prior to starting a business, a business name must be selected that is not already in use. You can find out if the fictitious business name you choose is available for use by going to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder website. If the business name you selected is available, you may then register with the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Office. Likewise, fictitious business name statements must also be filed with the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Office.
Starting a business is no small task and you should be confident in your abilities to successfully form your business. California offers a number of business structures you can utilize to accomplish certain things. Choose the business structure that best fits your needs.
Sole proprietorships are the basic business form under which a business owner can operate a business. It is important to remember that sole proprietorships are not legal entity. It simply refers to a person who owns the business and is personally responsible for its debts. In other words, a sole proprietorship is owned by one individual, of which is personally taxed on income and is personally liable for debts of the business. Thus, if you are a sole proprietorship, consider registering a sole proprietorship into a corporation. This way you not only protects your personal assets and personal liability, but you also tell the world that you take your business seriously.
A corporation, in its legal form, is an entity separately from you, the business owner. In California, corporations are considered to be an “entity”, you can think of it as a separate “person”. One benefit of registering and filing your business under a corporation is it can shield business owners from personal liability and debits. A corporation is also taxed and so are its shareholders.
A limited liability company, commonly referred to as an “LLC”, offers liability protection like a corporation, but is not taxed as an entity. Instead, the LLC's income is usually taxed through the individual on their income. Corporations provide limited liability protection to their owners. Typically, the owners are not personally responsible for the debts and liabilities of the business; thus, creditors cannot pursue owners’ personal assets.
Hiring a motorcycle accident attorney can help preserve your claim, increase compensation, and deal with the difficulties of dealing with insurance companies and insurance adjusters. Many times the adjusters will try to blame the motorcyclist by saying you were not riding at a safe speed during the collision or perhaps riding at excessive speed. Your motorcycle accident attorney will have Neurologists, Orthopedists, and other doctors to help treat you for your injuries. Many of these specialists take cases on a lien basis. This means that you will not have to pay out of pocket for the treatment you receive until you recover monies. to determine the full extent of the injuries. A quality motorcycle lawyer will hire experts, if necessary, to reconstruct the accident and/or speak to the forces exerted on the human body of the motorcycle rider. If you or a loved one has been involved in a motorcycle accident in Glendale near Los Angeles, CA we invite you to contact our office for a free confidential consultation and case evaluation with an experienced Glendale personal injury attorneys and Los Angeles motorcycle accident lawyers at (310) 943-1171. Give us a call, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.
Often times, common traumatic brain injury symptoms are not immediately apparent. It may take several days or weeks for traumatic brain injury symptoms to surface. This depends on a number of factors including how severe was the incident. It is important to speak to your physician's if you begin to notice physical or behavioral changes. You should also consider receiving an MRI of your brain. A thorough neurological examination or a brain imaging scan should reveal any damage to the brain's surface.
It is important to collect all the documentation and medical records that are related to the injury. Also, it is a good idea to keep a journal and keeping track of the time and effects the injury has on your daily life. Consult with an experienced traumatic brain injury lawyer. Your attorney will consult with out on your options, whether there was any potential negligence that can be asserted against the third party. You may be able to collect monetary compensation, the cost of therapy, medical expenses, loss of income, reduced quality of life, and more for a traumatic brain injury cases. Have you or a loved one suffered a traumatic brain injury due to the negligence of another? A Los Angeles personal injury attorney from KAASS Law may be able to provide you with legal assistance.
In order to show likelihood of confusion, there must be a probability of confusion; mere possibility of confusion is not enough. Nora Beverages, Inc. v. The Perrier Group of America, Inc., 269 F.3d 114, 121 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). It should also be noted that plaintiff does not have to prove actual confusion in order to show that the defendant is liable for trademark infringement. Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 506 F.3d 1165, 1176 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). If the plaintiff is able to show likelihood of confusion the defendant will still be liable for trademark infringement even if the plaintiff shows no instances of actual confusion.
The test for likelihood of confusion is whether a reasonably prudent consumer is likely to be confused as a result of the similarity of the marks. Dreamwerks Production Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). The likelihood of confusion exists when there is a likelihood that an appreciable number of reasonably prudent consumers is likely to be misled or confused because of the similarity of the marks. McGregor-Doniger, Inc. v. Drizzle, Inc., 599 F.2d 1126, 1130 (2d Cir. 1979) (internal citations omitted). To sum up, there is a likelihood of confusion when there is a probability that an appreciable number of reasonably prudent consumers will be confused as to the source, affiliation, connection or sponsorship of goods or services because of the similarity of the two marks.
Federal courts in different federal circuits have come up with multi-factor tests in order to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion or not. The test in the 9th Circuit, which includes the State of California, is the eight-factor Sleekcraft test pursuant to which the court shall consider the following factors to determine if there is a likelihood of confusion or not:
These factors are not requirements but are helpful guidelines for courts in order to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion or not. Eclipse Ass’n, Ltd. v. Data General Corp., 894 F.2d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 1990). The application of the text shall be flexible, and there is no specific formula setting forth how the factors included in the text shall be considered. Nautilus Group, Inc. v. ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 372 F.3d 1330, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). The important question is what the analysis as a whole reveals about the issue of likelihood of confusion. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002). This means that none of the factors is determinative but the analysis as a whole shall answer the question whether there is a likelihood of confusion or not.
It should be noted that the degree of similarity of marks necessary to show likelihood of confusion varies depending on the competitiveness of goods and services. The more similar the goods or services the less similar marks need to be in order to prove likelihood of confusion. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 970 F.2d 874, 877 (internal citations omitted). Conversely, “… the greater the degree of similarity between the marks, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods is necessary to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.” The Board of Regents, University of Texas System v. Southern Illinois Miners, LLC, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1182, 1189 (internal citations omitted). Hence, if the marks are very similar the court may find a likelihood of confusion even if the goods or services at issue are not very similar. To summarize, your trademark or service mark is being infringed if a use of another mark creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers. If the other mark is very similar to your trademark or service mark you might have a cause of action for trademark infringement even if the goods or services are not very similar. If you believe someone is infringing on your trademark or have questions regarding trademark registration, copyright, or any other intellectual property related question, we invite you to contact our office and speak to one of our experienced business attorneys at (310) 943-1171.
Adjudicators must determine whether the beneficiary qualifies as an immediate relative child based on his age on the date of filing the immigrantion visa petition on his behalf. Id. § 201(f)(1). As such, the date when the US citizen parent files the immigration petition for his child, the Form I-130, determines whether the child falls under the category of immediate relatives or not. This means that although the child may turn twenty-one (21) after filing the immigration petition on his behalf, he will always qualify as an immediate relative as long as he is not married. The date of filing the petition is the date when the Form I-130 is filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Adjudicators shall determine whether the beneficiary qualifies as a child under twenty-one (21) of a lawful permanent resident by using the following formula: the age of the child on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available minus the number of days during which the petition for the child was pending. Id. § 203(h)(1). If the child is under 21 after using this formula he will benefit from the age-out protection provision of INA. The immigration petition is considered to be pending from the date of filing the petition until the date of approval. It should be noted that the beneficiary may benefit from the age-out protection only if he seeks to acquire a status of a lawful permanent resident within one (1) year after the availability of an immigrant visa number. Id. The age-out protection provisions of the INA are intended to protect the children of US citizens and lawful permanent residents who turn twenty-one (21) after filing the immigration petition on their behalf. Hence, if the child of a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident will turn twenty-one (21) soon they should try to file the immigration petition before the child turns twenty-one (21) in order to benefit from the age-out protection provisions. If you have questions regarding an immigration matter, we invite you to contact our immigration attorney for a free consultation at (310) 943-1171. KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW helps clients in Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.
While many may be under the impression that you can only be sued if your dog bit someone which resulted in scarring or breaking of the skin; "it is not necessary that the skin be broken in order for the statute to apply". (Johnson v. McMahan (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 173, 176 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 173].) In Priebe, the Supreme Court of California held that the defendant dog owner was not strictly liable when his dog bit the plaintiff kennel worker. Id. at 861. The court reasoned, “Priebe, by virtue of the nature of her occupation as a kennel worker, assumed the risk of being bitten or otherwise injured by the dogs under her care and control while in the custody of the commercial kennel where she worked pursuant to a contractual boarding agreement.” Id. Similarly, the court in Cohen, held that the plaintiff veterinarian assumed the risk of being bitten by the defendant’s dog, and therefore was barred from recovery. Cohen, 16 Cal. App. 4th 650, 657. However, the court in Davis v. Gaschler, held that the assumption of risk did not apply when the plaintiff stopped to help a dog that was hit by a car and was bitten by the dog. Davis v. Gaschler, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1392, 1402 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. Dec. 23, 1992). The court reasoned, “plaintiff was not employed or otherwise compensated for helping injured dogs. Nor was there an employment relationship or any relationship between plaintiff and defendants.” Id. at 1401.
In California, dog owners can be held responsible for the harm from a dog bite, no matter how carefully they guard or restrain their dogs.
The plaintiff bit by the dog was lawfully on the private property of the owner if [he/ she] was performing any duty required by law or was on the property at the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
Are you in need of a dog bite lawyer in California? A Los Angeles dog bite attorney can provide you with the services you need. KAASS Law can help you out with various types of personal injury and dog bite cases. If you have questions regarding dog bite laws in California, we invite you to contact our experienced Glendale personal injury attorneys for a free consultation at (310) 943-1171 or our Los Angeles branch at (310) 943-1173.
Res ipsa loquitur is important because sometimes it is impossible for the plaintiff to provide evidence. This is usually the case in medical malpractice suits where the plaintiff was unconscious when the negligent act(s) causing damages occurred. In Ybarra v. Spangard, the Court held that due to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the burden of proof switched on to the defendants when the plaintiff was unconscious during the negligent acts and was unable to prove which medical professional acted negligently, and caused her injuries. Ybarra v. Spangard, 154 P.2d 687, 691 (Cal. Dec. 27, 1944). Another case where res ipsa loquitur comes into play is when multiple people may have caused the plaintiff’s damages, and it would be impossible for the plaintiff to prove which exact person it was. In Summers v. Tice, the Court held that two defendants, who had negligently shot at the plaintiff, were both liable for the plaintiff’s injuries even though only one of them technically caused it. Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1, 5, 1948 (Cal. 1948). The Court explained that it would be impossible for the plaintiff to prove which of the defendants actually caused the injury because they both shot their guns in her direction at the same time. Id. The Court therefore applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and found both defendants equally liable because neither could meet the burden of proving they did not cause the injury. Id.
Give us a call, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is intended for California residents only. This content provides only general information which may or may not reflect current legal developments. KAASS LAW expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any of the contents of this website. The above content DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship. KAASS LAW does not represent you unless you have expressly retained KAASS LAW in person at the KAASS LAW office. KAASS LAW helps clients in: Los Angeles, Burbank, Hollywood, Glendale, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Studio City, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Sunland, Tujunga, Sylmar, La Crescenta, La Canada, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, Brentwood. Pacoima, Montebello, Commerce, Alhambra, Downey, Bell, Maywood, Walnut Park, Vernon, Lynwood, Echo Park, Silverlake, Mission Hills, Northridge, Woodland Hills, Encino, Canoga Park, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda.