Personal Injury

• Emotional anguish
• Wages that have been lost
• Loss of property
• Medical expenses
• Companionship loss
• Suffering and pain
• Loss of earning potential

Burn injury claims are typically founded on:

• Negligence
• Defects in the product
• Liability for the premises

A wrongful act made by an individual, company, or group that causes harm to another is known as negligence. Because California is a comparative negligence state, a burn injury victim may still be entitled to compensation even if he or she is deemed partially responsible for the accident. The possible damages for a burn injury victim will be lowered by level of fault. In order to prosecute a burn injury claim successfully, a victim must show that:

1. The defendant owes a duty of care to the burn injury sufferer.
2. This duty of care was breached by the defendant.

Common Types of Burn Injuries

If a burn accident occurs as a result of a hazard on their land, the property owner may be held accountable. All property owners and occupants are legally expected to keep their property in reasonably safe conditions under California premises liability law. This means that every property owner has a responsibility to maintain their property, correct any harmful circumstances, or at the very least issue adequate warnings about any hazardous conditions. The following are some of the most common causes of burn injuries:

• Accidents in the kitchen
• Accidents on the jobsite
• Accidents involving fireworks
• Accidents in automobiles
• Accidents in restaurants
• Burns from a tanning salon
• Burns caused by chemicals

Distribution of Faulty Products

A corporation that manufactures or sells a faulty product that results in a burn damage may be held accountable for any losses incurred. Anyone participating in the chain of distribution, including product designers, producers, and retailers, can be held strictly accountable for accidents caused by a faulty product, according to product liability law. The following are some of the most common issues in strict liability cases:

• Errors that occurred during the design process
• Defects in the manufacturing process are a common occurrence.
• There aren't enough cautions or instructions.

After a burn injury, a sufferer must establish the following in order to win a product liability lawsuit:

• This product was used in a reasonable manner by a burn damage survivor.
• A defective product was conceived, manufactured, or sold by the defendant.
• A significant factor that contributed to a burn injury victim's losses was a product defect.
• When the product left the defendant, it already had a design, manufacturing, or warning flaw.

Contact a Los Angeles Attorney Today

If you or someone you know has been injured, feel free to reach out to our office at (310) 943-1171.

A. Product Defect

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.

(i) Manufacturing Defect

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.

(ii) Design Defect

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.

  (iii) Warning Defect

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.

 B. Causation

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.

C. Injury

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).

II. PARTIES

A. Proper Plaintiffs – Who Can Bring Suit

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.

B. Proper Defendants – Who Can We Sue

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.

(i) Service vs. Product

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).

(ii) Joint and Several Liability

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.

 III. Jury Verdicts/Settlements

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;

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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!

Issues with Hoverboards

Some issues with the hoverboard include:

• Manufacture defect
• Technology crashing
• Loss of control
• Advertising Expectations

California Hoverboard Product Liability Lawsuit

There are several possible hoverboard product defects that can exist causing injury. There are 3 theories that a product liability lawsuit can be brought under. The 3 product liability theories include:

• Design Defect: A design defect occurs when the product’s design was an initial factor causing the injury to the consumer
• Manufacturing Defect: A manufacturing defect occurs when the product deviated from design specifications and that defect was a main and initial factor causing the injury to the consumer
• Failure to Warn Defect: A failure to warn defect occurs when there is a risks known to the defendant but not clear to a consumer and the defendant’s failure to provide a reasonable warning or notice, which was an initial factor causing the injury to the consumer

California Laws and Regulations on Riding Hoverboards

California hoverboard or electrically motorized board riders should be aware that there are California laws that govern its use. Some of these California hoverboard laws include but are not limited to:

• Hoverboard riders are permitted to ride on public highways and roadways designated at 35 mph or less;
• Hoverboard riders must be at least 16 years or older to ride on public highways/roadways;
• Riders are not allowed to operate hoverboards on a highway, bikeway, or any other public bicycle path, sidewalk, or trail, at speeds over 15 mph;
• Hoverboard users are required to wear a helmet; and
• It is illegal to operate a hoverboard while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any drug

Personal Injury Attorney

If you or someone you know has been injured and think this can potentially be a Hoverboard Product Liability Claim, don’t hesitate to contact our Los Angeles personal injury attorney today  at (310) 943-1171 for a free consultation and case review.

Commercial truck drivers are required to maintain a 'logbook" that records the "hours of service".  In other words, this log contains the number of hours the drive has been driving. Semi-truck drivers hauling cargo have an 11-hour driving maximum after 10 consecutive hours off duty. Further, semi-truck drivers can work a maximum of 70 hours per week. A driver can then resume driving if they rest for 34 consecutive hours, including 2 nights. Furthermore, all carriers and drivers operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) must comply with "hours of service"  regulations found in 49 CFR 395.

Semi-Trucks with Worn Out Breaks

Driving a semi-truck with unmaintained or worn-out brakes is negligent. Commercial vehicles such as tractor-trailers and semi-truck are moving fast and burdened with a heavy load and therefore generally will need a lot more time to come to a full stop than any SUV. As a result, failing to routinely maintain commercial vehicle breaks will need even more time to come to a complete halt.

Things to Do After You Were Rear-Ended By A Semi-Truck

Step 1: Firstly, if you are involved in an accident, the first and most important thing to do is call an emergency response to request medical and police assistance. Step 2: Take pictures of the damage to the vehicles, the position of the vehicles, and the entire accident scene. If there is a debate as to how the semi-truck accident occurred, the damage and positions of the vehicles will help the police and accident reconstruction experts to determine what occurred. Moreover, taking a picture of the driver's logbook logs for that day is a plus. Step 3: Attempt to locate people who may have witnessed the collision. Get their name, address, and telephone number. Additionally, exchange information with the other driver, such as insurance information and driver's license information, vehicle registration, driver's contact, and employer information. Step 4: Seek the proper and immediate medical treatment as soon as possible. Going to the emergency room to be examined will ensure there are no internal or hidden injuries, as well as document your injuries. Step 5: Lastly, contact an auto accident lawyer immediately if you have been involved in a semi-truck accident.

Suing for Injuries Sustained in a Commercial Truck Accident

A victim involved in an accident with a commercial truck can file a lawsuit against the at-fault driver and the commercial truck company. It is important to keep in mind that the tractor and trailer can have different owners. As such, it is important to ask the driver of the truck who owns the tractor and trailer.

What Type of Compensation Can an Injured Truck Accident Victim Recover?

As experienced litigators, we have successfully litigated various personal injury cases including complex personal injury matters. Above all, our attorneys possess the mastery it takes to successfully receive fair settlements during the claims stage of a personal injury case. Don’t accept low-ball offers from insurance companies. An injured truck accident victim may seek compensation for damages which includes:

• Past and future medical bills
• Emotional distress
• Pain and suffering
• Loss of income
• Lost earning capacity
• Loss of employment opportunities
• Loss of consortium

Los Angeles Commercial Truck Accident Attorney

If you or a loved one has been seriously injured or killed due to a negligent semi-truck driver it is crucial to seek advice from an experienced commercial truck accident attorney as soon as possible in order to preserve your claim and legal remedies. We invite you to contact our commercial truck accident attorney today at (310) 943-1171 for a free consultation.

Kaass Law will connect you with leading medical professionals in your area to diagnose and treat your injuries. If you are unable to pay for the medical treatment we can facilitate treatment on a medical lien basis. This means you pay nothing up front. As the conclusion of your case, your medical bills are paid from the settlement.

Contact Us

[contact-form][contact-field label="Name" type="name" required="true" /][contact-field label="Email" type="email" required="true" /][contact-field label="Website" type="url" /][contact-field label="Message" type="textarea" /][/contact-form]

Maintaining Treatment After an Auto Accident

Determining that a medical issue has occurred as a result of an auto accident is not the only factor to consider. After the initial doctor's appointment, it's imperative that accident victims retain and follow up with their medical care. Delaying medical treatment can have a negligible effect on a personal injury claim. Not following up can also result in a negative impact on a financial compensation claim. Consequences may arise if someone fails to attend physical therapy sessions. For example, the court determines that the accident victim's lack of care has caused the illness to worsen.

Skilled Glendale Personal Injury Lawyer

A person involved in an automobile accident may sustain injuries ranging from small cuts and abrasions to serious injuries. Normally, accident victims will be burdened with significant medical bills and, in many circumstances, the inability to work. If you or someone you know has just been in a car accident, we invite you to contact our Glendale personal injury attorney at (310) 943-1171 for a free consultation.

When Does Wage Garnishment Go into Effect?

Wage garnishment goes into effect immediately after the court order is finalized.

Can an Employer Fire an Employee Whose Earnings Are Subject to Garnishment?

No, under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, an employer is prohibited from firing an employee whose earnings are subject to garnishment for any one debt.

What Are the Consequences of Not Paying Child Support?

Not paying child support can lead to serious consequences, including being in contempt of court, which may lead to jail time. It is important to ask the court to change the child support amount should an individual lose their job or any other important change that decreases an individual’s income.

Attorneys at KAASS LAW

If you or someone you know is subject to wage garnishment and have further issues and/or questions, please contact us at 310.943.1171 for a free consultation. Our attorneys will evaluate the details of your matter and let you know what to expect and how you can proceed.

1. Knew, or through the execution of reasonable care and caution should have known,
2. About a hazardous condition on the property they own or control, and
3. They failed to repair, protect against, or provide enough warning of the condition.

Common Causes of Slip and Fall Accidents

As you may imagine, many factors can come into play in slip and fall cases. The most important factors tend to be those that we can link to what may have caused the slip and fall to recover damages. Some examples of these factors and causes are:

• Leaks
• Spills
• Uneven flooring
• Loose carpeting
• Uncovered or exposed cables and cords
• Broken furniture
• Failure to close off construction sites, and
• Failure to put up warning signs about known hazards in the area.

Who is Liable for Slip and Fall Accidents?

According to California law, people owe a duty of care to protect those who enter their property from harm. Duty of care applies to anyone who owns, leases, occupy or controls the property. However, it does not just apply to individuals; parent companies or insurers may also be liable to pay damages to people injured in slip and fall accidents in California.

Let’s explore a possible slip and fall scenario: Stephanie is out with her friends at a club, and she slips on someone’s spilled drink, injuring her head. This is a situation where there may be several possible liable parties, such as the promoter, the club owner, the parent company, the party’s insurers, and maybe even the club’s or promoter’s staff. As such, we can take many possible avenues in determining who is liable for a slip and fall injury, depending on the context of the situation.

Proving Fault in Premises Liability Cases

You need to know the four things that have to be established to prove that negligence led to your injuries in the slip and fall case. These four things are important to establish if you wish to recover damages:

1. The defendant owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled the property;
2. The defendant was negligent in their use and maintenance of the property;
3. You were harmed by slipping and falling on the property; and
4. The defendant’s negligence was a major factor in causing the harm you suffered.

Once these four get established, we are well on our way to recovering damages for your slip and fall case. You are entitled to recover all compensatory damages that resulted from their negligence. Compensatory damages include:

• Medical Bills
• Lost Wages
• Lost Earnings Capacity
• Pain and Suffered
• Potential Punitive Damages

We can recover punitive damages for a slip and fall case if the defendant’s recklessness led to severe injuries or death or if the defendant deliberately destroyed evidence of their liability.

Statute of Limitation in Slip and Fall Accident Lawsuits

Although an injured party may be eligible to recover damages, there is a statute of limitation ("SOL") to bring a slip and fall lawsuit. In California, the statute of limitations for slip and fall cases is two years from the accident date.

Many injured wonder what they must do to prepare for a slip and fall claim? The key is to show that the fall was the result of negligence. To prove that a third party was negligent, an injured party must collect evidence. Such evidence can include:

• Video footage of the fall
• Witness testimony and statements
• Doctor’s treatment notes and assessments
• Testimony from accident reconstruction experts

Contact Us

If you or a loved one has been injured in a slip and fall accident in California, don't navigate the legal complexities alone. The experienced personal injury attorneys at KAASS LAW are here to help. We offer a free, no-obligation consultation to discuss your case and explain your rights. Contact our office today to take the first step towards justice and recovery. Let us help you navigate the treacherous terrain and fight for the compensation you deserve.

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 193.8

CCPC 193.8 states that: "An adult, who is the registered owner of a motor vehicle or in possession of a motor vehicle, shall not relinquish possession of the vehicle to a minor for the purpose of driving if the following conditions exist: (1) The adult owner or person in possession of the vehicle knew or reasonably should have known that the minor was intoxicated at the time possession was relinquished. (2) A petition was sustained, or the minor was convicted of a violation of Section 23103 as specified in Section 23103.5, 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code or a violation of Section 191.5 or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5. (3) The minor does not otherwise have a lawful right to possession of the vehicle."

What Are Some Possible Defenses to Negligent Entrustment?

Some possible defenses to negligent entrustment include:

• that the driver did not cause the car accident in the first place; or
• that the injuries sustained from the accident were not caused by the other driver.

Additionally, one can argue that the car owner was not aware that the driver (who allegedly caused the accident) was not a reasonably safe driver due to having a clean driving record and possessing a valid driver's license.

Protecting Yourself from Negligent Entrustment Claims

While you can't control the actions of every driver on the road, you can take steps to protect yourself from potential negligent entrustment claims:

• Verify Driver's Licenses: Trust but verify. Always check if the person actually has a license to drive your car. 
• Be Aware of Driving History: It's understandable to place judgment on people for their past behavior. Yet, it is also arguably naive to assume the best in them. 
• Never Lend Your Car to Someone Impaired: This goes without saying, but it is worth mentioning. If they have been drinking and or not sober whatsoever, don't do it. Even if they are sober but cannot see or pay attention, don't give them the keys. 
• Consider Medical Conditions: Sometimes the driver is legally prescribed to something that requires them not to drive. Please confirm with them before giving them the keys. 
• Trust Your Gut: If you got a bad feeling about it, don't do it. Whether it may be irrational or not, don't commit to anything you're not comfortable of doing, 
• Insurance Coverage: Make sure your insurance got you covered before taking the risk. 

Why Should You Contact KAASS LAW?

If you have been injured in an accident caused by someone driving a vehicle they were negligently entrusted with, or if you are a vehicle owner facing a negligent entrustment claim, it is crucial to seek experienced legal counsel. At KAASS LAW, our skilled attorneys can:

• Investigate the Accident: Our expert team can assess, investigate, and determine who the liable, responsible parties are. 
• Gather Evidence: We can collect data, documents, and statements and organize scheduled interviews with witnesses if needed. 
• Negotiate with Insurance Companies: KAASS LAW's case managers and our litigate attorneys can fight for your case tooth and nail. 
• Represent You in Court: If necessary, provide strong and effective representation in court to protect your rights.
• Advise Vehicle Owners: Counsel vehicle owners on how to minimize their risk of negligent entrustment claims and defend against such claims.

The concept and doctrine of negligent entrustment show a big key in the responsibility of the vehicle owner. By understanding this legal concept and taking action towards safety, both vehicle owners and those injured by negligently entrusted vehicles can navigate the complexities of California law. Contact KAASS LAW today for a consultation to discuss your specific situation and learn how we can help. Alternatively, to know more about negligence, especially gross negligence in California, KAASS LAW can offer guidance. 

What Compensation is Available in a Horse-Riding Accident

If someone suffers an injury in a horse-riding accident, they can seek compensation for the following:

• Medical expenses incurred resulting from the accident;
• All future medical and rehabilitation expenses;
• Lost wages and salaries including loss of future income;
• Non-economic damage, such as pain and suffering

The statute of limitation for filing a civil lawsuit in a horse-riding accident is 2 years.

Personal Injury Attorney

If you or a loved one has been injured in a horse-riding accident, we invite you to contact KAASS LAW at (310) 943-1171 for a free consultation and case review.

Additional Circumstances Affecting Liability

In some cases, the determination of liability may depend on the specific relationship between the parties involved in the incident. For example, if an injury occurs during a paid horseback riding lesson, the instructor has a duty to ensure the safety of the client. Failure to fulfill this duty may result in the company being held liable for negligence. In addition, a signed waiver of liability does not always exempt the defendant from legal consequences. In California, courts look at the circumstances of the case. Especially if the defendant's conduct goes beyond ordinary negligence and approaches gross negligence. Therefore, with a signed waiver, an injured person can still file a lawsuit.

Proving Negligence

To successfully bring a negligence claim, four key elements must be proven:

• The defendant had a legal duty of care
• The defendant breached that duty
• The breach of duty was the proximate cause of the injury
• The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach

In the case of horseback riding, such duties may include:

• Regularly inspecting the condition of the horses
• Checking equipment
• Instruction
• Selecting suitable routes, especially for beginners

Gathering Evidence and Testimony

It is important to gather evidence as soon as possible after an accident. Such as:

• Medical records
• Photographs of the accident scene
• CCTV footage
• Witness contact information
• Contracts and agreements with the club or trainer

You may also need the opinion of equine or veterinary experts. To confirm that there is a defect in the equipment or that the animal is unfit for use.

Non-pecuniary Damages

In addition to economic losses, the injured party is entitled to compensation for:

• Physical pain
• Mental suffering
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• Interference with a normal way of life

The court may consider the severity of the injuries, the length of recovery, and the impact on personal activities.

Contact KAASS LAW

If you have been injured in an equestrian accident, it is important to consult with an attorney as soon as possible. Contact KAASS LAW at 844-522-7752 for a free consultation. We will analyze the details of your case and explain your legal rights and options.