Sextortion is a serious crime in which a perpetrator threatens to publish private and explicit information or material about you (or to share it with your friends and family) unless you comply with their demands. The demand for sexual images, money, or sexual favors is common. The goal of a sextortionist is to make you fear that he will share your private photos or videos online for all of your friends, family, and coworkers to see. Criminals use your fear to force you to pay them in exchange for not releasing your personal photos, videos, or other media. Starting from 2018 California Penal Code amended the law on the criminalization of extortion and added points with regards to "sextortion" crime.
Sextortion is a type of extortion that encompasses a wide range of behaviors. Sextortion, on the other hand, differs from most other forms of extortion in that it frequently involves threats of revealing the victim's personal, intimate images or videos if individual will not pay. The crime of extortion is defined as:
Some sextortionists, on the other hand, use something as simple as a text message with your text messages and phone number. Victims who are in a monogamous relationship may find this information to be compromising.
Under California's extortion law, Penal Code 518, "sextortion" is a type of blackmail. The term "extortion" is defined in California law. Sextortion is defined by obtaining:
In other words, sextortion is a form of extortion in cases in which the perpetrator threatens the victim to release information (mostly concerning intimate information on the victim) demanding money, or sexual favors, personal media.
The fear of the victim that particular explicit information on him/her made public is the base of sextortion. So, the fear of the victim can affect him/her to make paying money or demanding other sexual favors. Examples of acts of sextortion are webcam blackmail, web sextortion, etc. Most social media websites (such as Facebook, Instagram, skype zoom, etc) enable us to chat with video cameras and, of course, send photos and videos. That is a convenient place for the harassers to find a potential victim. Of course, the crime cannot happen immediately; first, the harasser shall win the victim's trust, build relationships and then threaten to release compromises. Another convenient platform for the harasser is dating websites (Tinder, Match, etc). People, who often use such websites, are more vulnerable to share personal photos and media, or other information.
Avoiding sending explicit content to anyone else via phone, tablet, or computer is the easiest way to avoid sextortion. When someone asks you to send intimate photos or videos online, keep your wits (and a healthy dose of skepticism) about you. Sending intimate photos or video-chatting with someone you haven't met in person is not a good idea. Some examples of helpful tips can be:
If you are being sextorted on the internet, 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. Please feel free to give our office a call at 310.943.1171.
Every time a driver gets behind the wheel, there is a possibility of getting into an accident. Essentially, it is a risk most people end up taking on a day-to-day basis. Nevertheless, it appears that young drivers have a higher risk of causing traffic accidents than others. According to the CDC, the risk of auto accidents is higher among teens between 16–19 than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers between 16-19 are nearly three times as likely as drivers aged 20 or older to be in a fatal car accident. The number one cause for car accidents is not always as simple as speeding or drinking and driving, however, they are probable causes as well. In fact, many believe that inexperience and lack of knowledge are some of the leading causes of such accidents.
Some factors for car accidents among younger drivers include:
A wrongful life lawsuit is a legal action asserted by a person born with a genetic impairment or disability. If the court determines that the plaintiff should not have been born, he or she may be entitled to compensation for medical bills and lost earnings. An individual in California must file this type of lawsuit within one year of reaching 18 years old in order to preserve his or her right to sue. Please check your state laws to find out if the requirements apply to your state.
A wrongful life claim is an often misunderstood type of legal action. The plaintiff in a professional malpractice suit has suffered damages because the defendant's failure to provide adequate care has resulted in injury or death. In California, it is not necessary for a doctor to have caused the patient's illness or injury; only that they failed to diagnose and treat the condition with reasonable skill and diligence. The medical malpractice victim may be able to recover compensation. In California law, a wrongful life claim is analyzed within the context of a professional malpractice action and there are 5 elements in a professional malpractice cause of action:
Gym injury lawsuits in California are not uncommon. Some of the most injuries happen in fitness centers. How can we prevent these injuries? This article will inform you of what steps to take if you or someone you know has been injured at a fitness center. In most cases, fitness center injuries are the result of carelessness.
Anyone injured in a fitness center accident may file a personal injury lawsuit against those responsible under personal injury law. Members of a gym may also be able to file a product defect lawsuit against an equipment manufacturer for injuries sustained while using defective equipment.
Burn injuries are among the most painful and life-threatening injuries a person may sustain. Because of the seriousness of these injuries, medical therapy sometimes necessitates prolonged treatment and possibly a variety of surgeries performed, and even still, patients may be left with permanent scarring. Many burn damage sufferers also suffer from agony and psychological scars that make it nearly hard to live life as they had before.
Fires, on the other hand, aren't the only source of burn injuries. A burn injury can result from a variety of factors, including a defective product, a workplace accident, or negligence from another party. In general, the person or company who causes a burn injury will be held liable to the sufferer for his or her damages. Fires, as well as items and activities that might cause burns, are common in Los Angeles.
A burn injury is a sort of personal injury, and victims are allowed to pursue monetary damages for their physical injuries and financial losses through a personal injury claim. A sufferer of a burn injury may be entitled to compensation for:
Treatise: Motorcycle Helmet Product Liability in California Product liability lawsuits frequently arise as a result of motorcycle accidents, and a common product at issue is the rider’s motorcycle helmet. For instance, in California, manufacturers, distributers, and retailers of motorcycle head gear can liable for injuries and damages that occur as a result of defective protective gear.
In California, lawsuits brought under the theory of products liability are strict liability cases, meaning the plaintiff does not have to show negligence on the part of the manufacturer or seller in order to prevail on a claim of defective product. The basis for strict products liability is grounded on the public policy considerations that parties involved in the commercial enterprise who make a profit by placing defective products into the marketplace should bear the responsibility of the injuries caused to consumers by those products. V 61 C.2d 256 (Ca. 1964). In order for a plaintiff to prevail and be awarded damages under the theory of products liability the plaintiff must show: (1) there was a defect in the manufacture or design of the helmet or the helmet’s product warning was defective or did not exist; (2) the defect was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury; and (3) injury did in fact occur. , 137 Cal.App.4th 292, (Ca. Ct. App. 2006).
Started back in 2013, hoverboards have been in public for some time now . They began to quickly gain fame as most teenagers started purchasing the product. However, many problems arose during that time. Let's discuss Hoverboard Product Liability Claims.
A hoverboard is a way of portable transport, made to ride with only feet. There is a common term for them, which is "self-riding scooters." Hoverboards came to be the "next big thing" at the time of their release. With it being technologically so active, there came along a variety of issues with the product.
With the hoverboard being the new portable way of transit, technological reliability is highly dependent on during the use of this product. An example of a defect in technology included the hoverboard coming to an immediate stop. Now, this may not sound so bad, however, the damages it led to have been far more serious. With further elaboration, let's discuss how the hoverboard is driven. Riding a hoverboard, you must place your two feet in the two given spots. Being able to move the hoverboard forward or backward, you must lean forward and backwards, respectfully. To turn in direction, the body weight must transfer to one leg while the other maneuvers the opposite leg to start turning. This applies to both sides while you are turning. So, if someone were to be riding the hoverboard and going in a forward motion and suddenly the hoverboard comes to an immediate stop, there are a countless number of physical damages that may arise in the midst of this accident. Technology crashing may also lead to a loss of control.
A rear-end collision between a semi-truck and a passenger vehicle is something that happens often. The first thing that comes to mind when you hear the words "rear-ended by a semi-truck" is most likely the severity of damage such an accident can cause. This is primarily due to the overwhelming size and weight of the semi-truck can pose a serious risk of catastrophic injury or wrongful death in an accident.
There are many causes for rear-end accidents involving semi-trucks. Some common causes as to why a semi-truck driver may rear-end another vehicle include:
An automobile collision may be one of the most distressing events that one can go through. Whether the event is minor or major, it is critical to get medical attention for an injury. This is especially important if the accident victim intends to file a personal injury claim. Getting medical help after a car accident is one of the most important components. It helps document the injuries, and preserve your rights and remedies. As the injured victim, consider several key criteria while seeking medical help. Let's discuss some important factors you should be aware of in order to protect your rights.
Depending on the case, you may or may not require emergency medical assistance. If the accident results in apparent catastrophic injuries, the person will almost certainly be taken to a local hospital. In some circumstances, if an injury is not immediately visible, the victim must seek medical assistance on their own. If you do not require emergency medical assistance for whatever reason, you should be aware that injuries may not be distinctive immediately. A variety of factors can contribute to a lack of sensitivity to an injury. For example, due to the initial adrenaline rush, a person may fail to notice whiplash after an accident. There are also a variety of physical symptoms that can take days to surface. Thus, it is critical to get medical help as quickly as possible following an automobile accident.
Wage garnishment allows an individual’s earnings to be withheld by an employer for the payment of a debt such as a child support.
According to the California Code, Family Code section 5206, earnings include:
Yes, there is a maximum wage amount that can be subject to garnishment. Under the Consumer Credit Protection Act’s Tile III, the maximum allowable garnishment from disposable earnings cannot exceed 50% if the worker is supporting another spouse or child, or up to 60% if the worker is not. Furthermore, an additional 5% may be garnished for support payments more than 12 weeks in debt.
With these factors in mind, let's understand why these four key points are leading causes of accidents involving new or younger drivers.
The idea of speeding crosses the mind of many new drivers. With the freedom to drive on their own, new and younger drivers feel the urge to test their limits. By doing so, they risk their own lives along with the lives of other drivers and pedestrians. Many people think that because they are young, they will never experience serious injuries in an accident. A concerning difficulty that parents face is their child's perception of invincibility. As a result, many new drivers speed and drive recklessly. The truth is, speeding makes it more likely to get involved in an accident and sustain an injury. This often results in greater accident rates among new and younger drivers than experienced drivers.
As we all know, driving under any sort of drug or alcohol consumption is not permitted under any circumstance. With this being said, there are still a number of drivers who go behind the wheel and get into accidents. Driving under the influence puts everyone around you at risk of being endangered. New and younger drivers frequently consume alcoholic beverages or use drugs prior to driving. Despite all the anti-drunk driving programs made to raise awareness, drunk driving is still a problem. People's perception of driving is affected when they consume alcohol before driving. The result is having slower response times and making wrong decisions, which can lead to severe personal injuries in accidents.
With technology being a very important factor in everyone's lives today, we often get distracted by them when we shouldn't be. For example, if you were to receive an urgent text at the time you are driving, would you pick up your phone to read and respond? Well, if you responded yes to that example, you are one example of a danger on the road. To avoid getting distracted from the text, wait for a clearance to pull over and reply. By doing so, you may save someone's life, better yet, maybe even yours. Texting is just one common example of getting distracted while on the road. Driving while being distracted removes the mind, eyes, and hands from our present driving.
Over time, every driver becomes aware of ways to handle their vehicle. Becoming familiar with the car, how it runs, and how you react in certain situations while driving is important things to consider. This expertise comes with practice. Let's also remember that consistently switching up cars can be dangerous due to the fact that the size, rear-view mirrors, gas, and brake pedals operate just a little differently from one vehicle to another. In simpler terms, you have to drive to become a better driver.
If you or someone you know is driving with the intention of putting everyone around them in danger, here is what you can do to help them.
If you have been in an accident with such a driver, don't be afraid to call our firm now. We can help assist you with your case. To reach our office, call 310-943-1171.
Many people do not know that California allows a wrongful life lawsuit. This type of suit is brought by someone who believes he or she would have made different decisions if they had been informed about the risks of having children with genetic defects or disabilities. The plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements in case he claims that the defendant was negligent because failed to inform him of the risk that his child would be born genetically or impaired disabled.
Wrongful life is defined as when parents sue doctors or hospitals for delivering their child with birth defects. This issue can arise when a mother seeks an abortion because she does not want to bring a baby into the world who will have serious health problems. There is controversy on whether or not these cases should be allowed to go forward in court. A wrongful life lawsuit is a claim for damages, made by a person or entity that suffers injury because of the negligence of another. A wrongful life lawsuit may be brought by the estate of an unborn child if the parents have obtained counseling and written consent from their physician before conceiving and they can show that, but for the negligent act or omission, he would not have been born alive. Wrongful life lawsuits can be filed against:
Due to wrongful life/wrongful birth of a child, the plaintiff is able to recover damages. If you are considering bringing a wrongful life lawsuit in California, it is important to understand the potential for damages. Wrongful birth lawsuits are brought by people who believe they would not have existed if their parent had not been exposed to an avoidable risk factor or treatment, like being pregnant while using medication that could cause birth defects, taking certain drugs during pregnancy, etc. Some common damages a plaintiff can recover in a wrongful life/wrongful birth lawsuit include:
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 wrongful life lawsuit is an extremely complex legal process in which plaintiffs are suing doctors who allegedly failed to inform them about birth defects in their unborn child before they gave consent for the pregnancy to continue. Please feel free to give our office a call at 310.943.1171.
Fitness center injuries are common and can cause serious damage to the victim. Injuries may be caused by a defect in the equipment, faulty construction, or even improper maintenance. Gym injuries are frequently caused by the following factors:
Victims of injuries sustained at a gym or fitness center can frequently recover monetary damages. You can file a personal injury lawsuit to seek compensation for your injuries. If you suffer injuries in a gym-related accident, you may recover compensation for the following:
Under California's negligence laws, a negligent party is liable for any injuries caused to another. You may not know what caused a fitness center injury accident or who was at fault. There could have been a number of factors that contributed to the accident that were not apparent at the time. Investigators may need to determine who was at fault so the injured victim can pursue compensation.
After a fitness center injury, anyone who was partially responsible for the injury may be held liable for damages. This could include anyone who directly caused the injury or anyone who failed to follow proper safety procedures. Even if you did nothing wrong, you may still face liability. You should still pursue damages if someone else contributed to your injuries. After a gym injury accident, you may hold the following parties responsible:
Many gym injuries involve trauma to the neck, spine, back, or head. These injuries can be difficult to identify, however. You may not experience severe pain after the injury and believe that nothing is wrong. Some people are also tempted to "tough it out" or "walk it off." However, you should not take any chances with serious head, neck, or back injuries that could result in long-term problems. You should seek medical attention immediately following a gym injury. Even if you are unsure whether you require medical attention, you should consult with your doctor. There are many ways to prevent these injuries from happening including wearing supportive shoes for any type of exercise, getting proper instruction on how to use machines before using them alone, stretching before exercising to reduce soreness later on in the day and warming up with a five-minute jog or walking session before beginning an intense workout. Following a gym injury, you may want to obtain contact information from anyone who witnessed the accident. If there was an equipment malfunction, ask the gym to preserve the faulty equipment so an expert can inspect it during the investigation. Be sure to take photos of the area around the accident, including any obstacles or conditions that may have contributed to your injury. Pictures will be of benefit to your case.
If you or someone you know has been involved in a personal injury at a fitness center, please feel free to contact KAASS Law by calling 310.943.1171. Our team of experienced attorneys will be sure to get you the compensation you need for the severity of your case.
Burn injury claims are typically founded on:
A wrongful act made by an individual, company, or group that causes harm to another is known as negligence. Because California is a comparative negligence state, a burn injury victim may still be entitled to compensation even if he or she is deemed partially responsible for the accident. The possible damages for a burn injury victim will be lowered by level of fault. In order to prosecute a burn injury claim successfully, a victim must show that:
If a burn accident occurs as a result of a hazard on their land, the property owner may be held accountable. All property owners and occupants are legally expected to keep their property in reasonably safe conditions under California premises liability law. This means that every property owner has a responsibility to maintain their property, correct any harmful circumstances, or at the very least issue adequate warnings about any hazardous conditions. The following are some of the most common causes of burn injuries:
A corporation that manufactures or sells a faulty product that results in a burn damage may be held accountable for any losses incurred. Anyone participating in the chain of distribution, including product designers, producers, and retailers, can be held strictly accountable for accidents caused by a faulty product, according to product liability law. The following are some of the most common issues in strict liability cases:
After a burn injury, a sufferer must establish the following in order to win a product liability lawsuit:
If you or someone you know has been injured, feel free to reach out to our office at (310) 943-1171.
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!
Some issues with the hoverboard include:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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-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]
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.
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.
Wage garnishment goes into effect immediately after the court order is finalized.
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.
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.
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.