• Murder with malice aforethought
• Malpractice
• Automobile collision
• Motorcycle accident

Wrongful Death Filing: Key Elements

Cases involving death have to meet conditions:

• Another person's carelessness or malicious intent to hurt the deceased is the reason for the death
• Financial losses for the remaining family members due to the death
• The selection of a legal attorney to handle the decedent's estate

The limitation period for the area where the deceased passed away specifies how long you have to submit a wrongful death claim. If a death investigation takes longer than expected to identify the reason for the incident, you may still submit a claim.

Damages in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

The primary measurement of damages in a wrongful death lawsuit is financial. This category of damages includes lost services, support, medical costs, funeral costs, and the chance to inherit something. The majority of states uphold negligence laws that specify who qualifies for damages and what kinds of damages a court may grant. Frequently, each state will stipulate that the verdict in a wrongful death case serves as just recompense for the monetary losses brought on by the deceased person's passing. A person who is a co-owner of a decedent's estate may be entitled to compensation for funeral and medical expenses that they paid for or assume responsibility for. A damage judgment could also include interest charges dating back to the decedent's passing.

Settlement Amounts for Wrongful Death

Age is one of the factors that will determine compensation. Therefore, damages like medical expenses, cemetery, and funeral costs, and the cost of your suffering and pain as calculated by applying the multiplication or per diem approach will all be taken into account. The at-fault party's insurers will send a check to your attorney for the full amount of the settlement when a wrongful death lawsuit is over. After deducting their fees and other legal expenses, your attorney will send a cheque for the remainder to the surviving family members in accordance with the settlement agreement. The estate executor may also receive the check from them.

Contact a Los Angeles Attorney Today

If your loved one was a victim of someone's negligence which resulted in wrongful death, you should talk to a lawyer as soon as possible. Since there is a statute of limitation for a wrongful death claim. For a consultation right away, contact Kaass Law at (310) 943-1171. Visit our other website for more information.

• Car accidents
• Bicycle or motorcycle accidents
• Truck accidents
• Pedestrian accidents
• Slip and fall accidents
• Medical malpractice
• Child injury accidents
• Intentional actions, which can contain a distinct criminal case

When Can You File a Car Accidents Death Claim in California?

Numerous circumstances allow one to file a lawsuit for wrongful death in California after a fatal auto collision. Therefore, as a surviving family member of a victim, you will first need to prove the following elements for a valid wrongful death lawsuit:

• The defendant had a duty of care and responsibility towards the victim.

The defendant had a legal responsibility to do everything to prevent harm to the loved one. According to California law, all drivers are obliged to drive in a way that does not injure others.

• The defendant breached his duty of care towards the victim

This means that the defendant committed wrongdoing and breached his duty of care towards the victim.

• The defendant's wrongful actions caused the deadly car accident.

The defendant is directly responsible for the car accident that claimed the life of your loved one.

• You suffered the compensable loss.

To clarify, your loved one's passing must have caused your family to experience financial or nonfinancial losses, such as the absence of the decedent's companionship, care, and earnings. Thus, you will probably be able to obtain a settlement or jury decision that compensates you and your loved ones for both concrete and intangible damages if you or your wrongful death attorney can demonstrate that these aspects are more likely true than false. Moreover, the victim's family can have a different claim against the reckless driver for additional damages, like the medical costs related to their injuries before they passed away.

Who Has the Right to Bring a Case for Car Accidents Death Involving Accidents?

According to California law, only certain people can file a wrongful death claim for compensation, including:

• The victim's spouse or domestic partner
• The victim's children
• The victim's grandchild, if his or her child passed away

Under California's intestate succession laws, anyone entitled to the victim's property can file a wrongful death action if no family member is listed above. This can also include the victim's siblings and parents too. Additionally, some people who were financially reliant on the victims at the time of the accident may be able to file a wrongful death claim. They include:

• Putative spouse
• Children of the putative spouse
• Stepchildren
• Victim's parents
• The legal guardian of the victim

Contact a Los Angeles Attorney Today

Certainly, you will receive support, advice, and representation from the Kaass Law wrongful death and automobile accident attorneys at this difficult time. Give our office a call at 310.943.1171 and visit our other website for more information.

Some surviving family members may be eligible to pursue a wrongful death case if a family member died in an electrocution accident. The family can seek damages for their loss through a wrongful death lawsuit, which also serves as a means of holding the accident's cause accountable for their deeds.

What are the Damages of Electrocution?

Construction workers frequently become victims of electrocution at work sites. Construction accident lawsuits in these situations may concentrate on recovering worker's compensation benefits as well as financial compensation from the employer, contractors, and others accountable for the working site's harmful circumstances. Two factors determining the damages of recovery in an electrocution lawsuit are how severe the injuries were and whether they were fatal. Compensation damages are meant to put the victim of an electric shock accident back in the same situation they would have been in if the event hadn't happened. Punitive damages may also be available in specific circumstances. When the defendant acted in a particularly egregious manner, punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages, may be available. Injuries brought on by the defendant's malice, oppression, excessive carelessness, or deception are included in this. The jury takes into account these factors while determining how many punitive damages to award:

1. How vile were the defendant's actions were
2. The connection between the harm to the plaintiff and the number of punitive damages
3. What sum will punish the perpetrator and deter such wrongdoing in the future

Bring a Wrongful Death Claim For a Family Member

Electric shock results in electrocution, which is death. However, the deceased victim of an electrical accident is not eligible to bring a personal injury claim on their behalf. Nevertheless, a wrongful death case enables the remaining family members to obtain compensation. When a loved one passes away as a result of another's negligence, some family members may be eligible to launch a lawsuit for damages. Depending on the state law in question, certain family members may be qualified to make a wrongful death claim. The following relatives may bring a wrongful death claim in California:

• Surviving partner
• Domestic companion
• Children
• Grandchildren
• Anyone else who would be qualified to inherit the decedent's assets under California's laws on intestate succession.

An additional "survival" cause of action can be brought in addition to a wrongful death claim. To make up for damages incurred by the victim as a result of the wrongdoing, this kind of claim is made on behalf of the decedent's estate.

In Case of an Electrocution, Who is at Fault?

The location of the accident, the parties involved, and the source of the electric shock are all important considerations for determining who is responsible for an electric shock accident. Negligence is typically a number one cause of an electrocution lawsuit filing. Any losses resulting from the wrongdoing of the negligent person are their responsibility. Following an injury accident, the plaintiff alleging negligence must prove the elements below to get damages:

• The defendant had a duty of care to the plaintiff
• Through negligence, the defendant violated that duty of care
• Negligence on the part of the defendant played a significant role in any injuries or fatalities

Employers are accountable for an employee's negligent acts when they result in an accident. A company is vicariously accountable for its workers' negligence under "Respondeat Superior" rules. The owner of the property may be held accountable for any hazardous conditions that existed there when an electrical shock happens on someone else's property. According to "premises liability" rules, property owners and occupiers have a responsibility to keep their property in good shape and notify visitors of any potentially hazardous situations.

Contact a Los Angeles Attorney Today

Contact a Los Angeles Attorney today for a consultation on your case. Wrongful death cases are one of our many practices. Please dial 310.943.1171 to speak to our specialized attorneys.  

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!

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]

• Past and present medical expenses
• Future medical costs
• Missed time from work
• Loss of future earning capacity
• Pain and suffering

What Damages Are Recoverable in California Personal Injury Cases?

There are two types of damages that are recoverable in California personal injury cases, which include special damages and general damages. Special damages are those damages that are financial in nature, such as hospital and medical bills or lost wages. On the other hand, general damages are those that are non-financial losses, including pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and emotional distress.

What is the California Statute of Limitations for Pedestrian vs Vehicle Accident?

The statute of limitation for bringing a pedestrian vs car accident is 2 years from the date of the accident. However, claims involving government tort or injury involving a government entity, such as a car accident with a government city vehicle, requires the injured party to first file a claim with the appropriate governmental agency within 6 months from the date of the accident. Finally, depending on the outcome of the claim, the claimant will then have either 6 months or two years to file suit. If you fail to follow the guidelines for the statute of limitations, you may lose your right to file a claim.

Statute of Limitation: Injured Pedestrian involved in Accident with Vehicle CCP 335.1

California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 provides, an injured pedestrian has two years to file a claim against those who may be liable for their accident.

Personal Injury Attorney

Our personal injury attorneys specialize in various personal injury matters including complex personal injury cases, government torts specifically related to auto accidents, motorcycle accidents, left turn motorcycle accidents, truck accidents, multi-car accidents, which involve a government vehicle such as Metro Bus, fire truck, U.S Postal Service, and Water & Power Truck. If you have been involved in an accident involving a Government vehicle, give our office a call at (310) 943-1171 for a free consultation.   [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]  

California Pedestrian Vehicle Accident Video

[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/California-Pedastrian-Vehicle-Accident.mp4"][/video]

Common Causes of Slip and Fall Accidents

Common causes of slip and fall accidents occur when property owners fail to exercise reasonable care in preventing slip or fall hazards, such as:

• Wet floors
• Grease or oil spills
• Food debris
• Faulty staircases
• Loose staircases
• Loose carpets
• Spilled drinks or liquids

Property owners are legally responsible to inspect the property for any hazard risks and maintain the property in a safe manner. If there are any latent or concealed perils on the land, the possessor is under a duty to exercise ordinary care either to make the condition reasonably safe for those coming onto the land or to give such persons a warning adequate to enable them to avoid injury. Failure to repair or fix a slip hazard, resulting in a preventable invitee or customer injury, is an act of negligence.

Slip and Fall on Governmental Public Property

Premises liability claims against government entities, due to injuries sustained on public property are often very challenging to litigate. Government entities enjoy greater protections against premises liability claims than do ordinary private persons and businesses. In California, to bring a successful premises liability claim against a government entity, one must prove an additional element that does not exist in premises liability claims against private entities - under Government Code section 835, the injured party must prove either: (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. Are you wondering how to prepare for a slip and fall claim? If you were injured due to a slip and fall accident, our knowledgeable Los Angeles personal injury attorneys can help you get the compensation you deserve. Call us at (310) 943-1171, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a free consultation tailored to the specifics of your case, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.

What is Loss of Consortium?

Loss of consortium is a claim for damages suffered by the spouse or children of a person who has been injured or killed as a result of the defendant's negligent or wrongful acts. Generally, claims for loss of consortium are not awarded unless the person injured dies or suffers a severe and enduring injury. The suing party must show that the injured or deceased family member cannot provide his or her spouse or family member with the same love, affection, companionship, comfort, society, or sexual relations that were provided before the accident.

What is a Statute of Limitations?

Statute of limitations is the period of time you have to file a claim or suit. Personal injury cases have a statute of limitations varies depending on the type of case, but generally, the time limit usually starts on the day the accident or injury occurred and can last anywhere from 1 to 2 years. However, in claims involving government tort or injury involving government entity, such as an car accident with a government city vehicle, requires the injured party to first file a claim with the appropriate governmental agency within 6 months from the date of the accident. Finally, depending on the outcome of the claim, the injured party will then have either 6 months or two years to file suit. If you fail to follow the guidelines for the statute of limitations, you may lose your right to file a claim. Thus, it is vital you speak to a Los Angeles personal injury lawyer immediately to preserve your claim! Our lawyers in Glendale, Los Angeles, California, will be happy to help you through every step of your personal injury case.

Contact Us!

Our personal injury attorneys specialize in various personal injury matters including complex personal injury cases, government torts specifically related to auto accidents, motorcycle accidents, left turn motorcycle accidents, truck accident, multi-car accidents, which involve a government vehicle such as Metro Bus, fire truck, U.S Postal Service, and Water & Power Truck. If you have been in an accident involving an Government vehicle, give our office a call at (310) 943-1171 for a free consultation! This content is for educational purposes only. KAASS LAW is authorized to practice law in California. The above content is 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, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda, San Diego, La Jolla, El Cajon, Chula Visa, Del Mar

Wrongful Death Damages

In a California wrongful death lawsuit, the estate generally seeks compensation for the survivors' loss, such as financial support the decedent would have contributed to the family during the lifetime of the decedent or the plaintiff, loss of companionship, and funeral and burial expenses. The damages in wrongful death lawsuits are by "pecuniary and/or financial losses". Courts have interpreted "pecuniary injuries" as including the loss of support, services, medical and funeral expenses. Finally, a damage award may also include interest from the date of the decedent's death. Moreover, the estate of the decedent may also seek non-economic damages including loss of decedent’s love, companionship, loss of support, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, loss of the enjoyment of sexual relations, loss of decedent’s training, and guidance.

Wrongful Death Lawyer in Glendale, CA Near Los Angeles

We invite you to contact our Glendale personal injury attorney today for a free consultation and case review. KAASS LAW has successfully represented victims in California wrongful death lawsuits. Call us at (310) 943-1171, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a free consultation tailored to the specifics of your case, our attorneys speak English, French, Spanish, Russian, Armenian, and Italian.

This content is intended for educational purposes only. 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, North Hills, Porter Ranch, Chatsworth, Reseda, San Diego, La Jolla, El Cajon, Chula Vista, Del Mar