Blog

aerial photography of gray concrete roads

Torrance High School junior Valentina d’Alessandro dreamed of becoming a fashion designer.But that dream turned into a nightmare at 1:45 a.m. on Dec. 7, 2013, when the driver of the car she was riding in challenged a co-worker to a street race. He pounded the gas pedal, reaching 80 mph before running a red light and crashing, killing Valentina instantly.Five months later her mom, Lili Trujillo Puckett, started the group Street Racing Kills, which educates youth and adults about the dangers of reckless driving, including street racing, complete with court-ordered diversion classes for offenders.Trulio is now advocationg for a powerful new documentary, Power Trip, is sparking conversations about the rising death toll from car crashes across the United States. Released on March 10, 2025, the film confronts the culture of speed, reckless driving, and the influence of media and advertising on dangerous road behavior.The timing of the release was eerily fitting—on the same day, a crash in North Hills, California, left four injured, including one person in serious condition. This tragic coincidence underscores the film's urgent message.A Personal Tragedy Sparks a MissionOne of the most moving stories featured in Power Trip is that of Lili Trujillo Puckett, who turned personal loss into a mission for change. In 2013, her daughter, Valentina d’Alessandro, was killed when the driver of the car she was in initiated a street race, running a red light at 80 mph. The crash ended Valentina’s life and shattered her dreams of becoming a fashion designer.Months later, Trujillo Puckett founded the nonprofit Street Racing Kills to educate youth and adults about the dangers of reckless driving. She also hosts court-ordered diversion classes for offenders."She gave me this [nonprofit] and this way, I can be with her. Plus, I didn’t want this to happen to anyone else," said Trujillo Puckett. Her organization has become a beacon of hope and advocacy, helping families cope with loss while actively working to prevent future tragedies.The Vision Behind Power TripThe film was directed by Myron Levin, a veteran journalist from Pasadena who reported on traffic safety for the Los Angeles Times and later founded the investigative news outlet FairWarning. Power Trip is his call to action, highlighting an alarming statistic: 42,000 driving deaths occur each year in the United States, with roughly a third linked to unsafe speeds."Far more Americans died in road crashes than in all the wars combined. Yet, this is barely a blip on the public radar," Levin said. Levin’s passion for the project was supported by his friend, Michael Connelly, the bestselling crime novelist, who served as the film’s executive producer. The documentary is narrated by Peter Coyote, known for his work in Ken Burns’ historical documentaries.A Culture of Speed and RiskPower Trip doesn’t shy away from criticizing the automobile industry, particularly its marketing strategies that glorify speed and power. The film features clips from car commercials showcasing vehicles racing at breakneck speeds, drifting around sharp corners, and tearing through urban landscapes."What happens when you make power your thing above everything? You decide fast is never fast enough," the film’s narrator states, as images of cars barreling across bridges and mountains fill the screen.The documentary cites advertisements that boast vehicles capable of reaching speeds over 140 mph—an alarming reality when such speeds are neither safe nor legal on public roads."There is no reason we should have vehicles on our roads capable of doing 140 mph," said Damian Kevitt, executive director of the nonprofit Streets Are For Everyone (SAFE), who also appears in the film.Kevitt’s personal story is one of resilience and advocacy. In 2017, he was hit by a van while cycling, dragged under the vehicle, and left for dead. He survived but lost his right leg. His experience led him to found SAFE and organize public events, including "die-ins" to draw attention to the dangers faced by pedestrians and cyclists.&nbsp; The Broader Impact of Reckless Driving The statistics are sobering. Traffic deaths in the U.S. surged by 30% between 2014 and 2022, and while some predict a slight decline in 2023 and 2024, the numbers remain alarmingly high.In Los Angeles, traffic fatalities crossed the 300 mark in 2022—a record high in two decades. Pedestrian deaths rose 19%, and cyclist deaths jumped by 24%.Kevitt believes society has become desensitized to traffic violence."As a society, we have become used to traffic violence as a part of life," he said. &nbsp; Can Fast Car Ads Really Influence Behavior?While Levin acknowledges there’s limited research proving that fast-car commercials directly cause reckless driving, the film argues that these messages shape cultural attitudes—especially among young male drivers, who statistically take more risks and account for a significant portion of fatal crashes."When behavior is exciting, we might want to imitate it. Young males take more risks and suffer the highest rate of crash deaths," said Michael Brooks, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, in the film. Despite reaching out to a dozen car manufacturers, Levin said none agreed to comment for the documentary.A Mission for Awareness and ChangeTrujillo Puckett continues to speak at seminars and diversion classes, sharing her personal loss and inviting others impacted by reckless driving to tell their stories."I love what [Levin] did. It is awesome. I hope it is going to be of help," she said. Levin, too, hopes the film will spark meaningful conversations and action. He's pursuing interviews with podcasts and plans to distribute the documentary to driver education programs across the country."I hope this film helps stimulate conversation about this preventable tragedy that happens all the time," Levin said. &nbsp; Watch the Film and Join the Conversation Power Trip is now available to stream on YouTube and at www.powertripfilm.com.This powerful documentary is more than a film—it's a wake-up call. One that challenges viewers to reconsider the culture of speed and recklessness on American roads, and to advocate for safer streets for everyone.View more here: <a data-mce-href="https://www.whittierdailynews.com/2025/03/14/pasadena-journalist-famous-novelist-make-film-about-rising-deaths-from-car-crashes/" href="https://www.whittierdailynews.com/2025/03/14/pasadena-journalist-famous-novelist-make-film-about-rising-deaths-from-car-crashes/">Pasadena journalist, famous novelist make film about rising deaths from car crashes – Whittier Daily News</a>

Pasadena journalist, famous novelist make film about rising deaths from car crashes

Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that can significantly impact a personal injury case. It creates a presumption of negligence when someone violates a statute, regulation, or ordinance designed to protect the public. Understanding how this doctrine works can be crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants navigating negligence claims.What is Negligence Per Se?Negligence per se arises when a person's violation of a law or regulation is presumed to be negligent if certain conditions are met. Under <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=669&amp;lawCode=EVID" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=669&amp;lawCode=EVID">Evidence Code section 669</a>, negligence is presumed when the following elements are established:1. The defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation.2. The violation proximately caused injury or damage.3. The injury resulted from an occurrence that the statute was designed to prevent.4. The injured party is a member of the class that the statute was intended to protect. This framework was clarified in <a data-mce-href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2019/g054545.html" href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2019/g054545.html">Taulbee v. EJ Distribution Corp. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 590, 596 [247 Cal.Rptr.3d 538]</a>, where the court emphasized that the burden is on the proponent of the negligence per se doctrine to demonstrate these elements.&nbsp; How Negligence Per Se is AppliedIf a plaintiff establishes that a defendant violated a statute and that the violation was a substantial factor in causing harm, the jury must find the defendant negligent—unless the defendant can prove that the violation was excused. This was confirmed in <a data-mce-href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/nunneley-v-edgar-hotel-26307" href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/nunneley-v-edgar-hotel-26307">Nunneley v. Edgar Hotel (1950) 36 Cal.2d 493, 500-501 [225 P.2d 497]</a>, which highlighted that negligence can still be proven by other means even if negligence per se is not established.Importantly, negligence per se is not an independent cause of action. Instead, it serves as an evidentiary presumption affecting the standard of care in a negligence lawsuit (<a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/turner-v-seterus-inc" href="https://casetext.com/case/turner-v-seterus-inc">Turner v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 516, 534 [238 Cal.Rptr.3d 528]</a>). In essence, the plaintiff "borrows" a statute to establish both the duty and the standard of care (David v. Hernandez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 578, 584 [172 Cal.Rptr.3d 204]).&nbsp; Excuses for Statutory ViolationsNot every violation of a law results in negligence per se. The doctrine allows for certain exceptions where a violation may be excused. For example, if compliance with the law was impossible or if violating the statute was safer under the specific circumstances, the presumption of negligence may be rebutted. Courts have highlighted this in various rulings, noting that the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to establish that the violation did not cause the plaintiff's injury (<a data-mce-href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1727665.html" href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1727665.html">Toste v. CalPortland Construction (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 362, 371 [199 Cal.Rptr.3d 522</a>]).Moreover, <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/spriesterbach-v-holland-1" href="https://casetext.com/case/spriesterbach-v-holland-1">Spriesterbach v. Holland (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 255, 263 [155 Cal.Rptr.3d 306</a>] clarified that the presumption of negligence can only be rebutted by evidence showing a valid excuse or justification for the violation.&nbsp; Determining the Standard of CareThe trial court plays a key role in determining whether a statute sets the standard of care. The first two elements of negligence per se—violation and causation—are factual determinations for the jury. However, whether a statute is intended to protect against the type of harm suffered, and whether the injured party is part of the protected class, are legal questions for the court (<a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/jacobs-farmdel-cabo-v-w-farm-serv-inc" href="https://casetext.com/case/jacobs-farmdel-cabo-v-w-farm-serv-inc">Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1526 [119 Cal.Rptr.3d 529]</a>).In <a data-mce-href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ramirez-v-plough-inc" href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ramirez-v-plough-inc">Ramirez v. Plough, Inc. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 539, 547 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 97, 863 P.2d 167]</a>, "When Jorge Ramirez (plaintiff) was four months old, he was given a non-prescription drug, St. Joseph Aspirin for Children (SJAC), for relief from cold-like symptoms. After receiving three SJAC tablets over a two-day period, Ramirez’s mother took Ramirez to a hospital, where a doctor prescribed non-aspirin-containing drugs. Ramirez’s mother ignored the advice and continued to provide Ramirez with SJAC. Ramirez subsequently developed Reye’s syndrome and suffered severe neurological damage as a result. At the time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was aware of the relationship between the ingestion of aspirin during a viral illness and Reye’s syndrome, and required a warning label concerning Reye’s syndrome to be displayed on SJAC packaging. Ramirez’s mother sued Plough, Inc. (Plough) (defendant), the manufacturer of SJAC, on Ramirez’s behalf. Although Plough had provided a warning about Reye’s syndrome on the SJAC purchased by Ramirez’s mother, the warning was in English and Ramirez’s mother was only literate in Spanish. The trial court determined that Plough had no duty to provide the warning in a foreign language, and granted Plough’s motion for summary judgment. Ramirez appealed. The court of appeal overturned the decision, holding that the adequacy of the warning provided by Plough was a triable issue of fact. Plough appealed the decision." (<a data-mce-href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ramirez-v-plough-inc" href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ramirez-v-plough-inc">see here</a>)The&nbsp;Ramirez court elaborated that legislative standards become the civil standard of care only because courts accept them. Without such standards, the jury is left to determine what constitutes reasonable conduct under the circumstances.&nbsp;Negligence Per Se and Federal StandardsCalifornia courts recognize that federal statutes or regulations can establish the standard of care in negligence per se claims (<a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/dirosa-v-showa-denko-kk" href="https://casetext.com/case/dirosa-v-showa-denko-kk">DiRosa v. Showa Denko K. K. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 799, 808 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 128]</a>). However, administrative agencies cannot independently impose a duty of care unless authorized by the legislature (Cal. Serv. Station Etc. Ass'n v. Am. Home Assur. Co. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1175 [73 Cal.Rptr.2d 182]).&nbsp; When Does Negligence Per Se Apply?Negligence per se is most commonly applied in cases involving violations of safety regulations, traffic laws, or building codes. However, the courts have limited its application in some contexts. For instance, while negligence per se can apply to building code violations, courts have noted that its application has been limited to specific situations <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-awad" href="https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-awad">(Jones v. Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1212 [252 Cal.Rptr.3d 596]</a>).Similarly, Cal-OSHA regulations can establish standards for duty and care in negligence cases <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/elsner-v-uveges" href="https://casetext.com/case/elsner-v-uveges">(Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, 928 [22 Cal.Rptr.3d 530, 102 P.3d 915])</a>. However, their application depends on the specifics of each case.&nbsp; Why Understanding Negligence Per Se MattersNegligence per se can simplify a plaintiff's case by establishing a presumption of negligence based on statutory violations. However, defendants have the opportunity to rebut this presumption by showing that their actions were justified or that the violation was not the actual cause of the harm.Understanding this doctrine is essential for both sides of a legal dispute. For plaintiffs, it provides a framework to establish negligence more efficiently. For defendants, it highlights the importance of demonstrating valid reasons for any statutory violations.If you believe negligence per se applies to your case, consult us today to evaluate your options and develop a strong legal strategy. Knowing how and when this doctrine applies can make a significant difference in the outcome of a case.

A Second Look at Negligence Per Se: What It Means and How It Affects Your Case

A dramatic video captured a high-speed crash on a residential street in Redondo Beach early Monday morning, showing a driver losing control and violently flipping into a home's driveway.<a data-mce-href="https://ktla.com/video/violent-redondo-beach-crash/10531013" href="https://ktla.com/video/violent-redondo-beach-crash/10531013">Watch the video here</a>.According to a KTLA viewer who submitted the footage, the incident occurred around midnight on Garnet Street. The crash was so loud it woke him, his wife, and their daughter.The video shows a small white SUV speeding down the narrow street when it suddenly launches into the air, likely after striking a speed bump. Sparks fly as the vehicle lands front-first, bouncing back onto its rear and swaying side to side.The SUV swerves past parked cars and homes before hitting what appears to be a curb, causing it to flip and land on its side in a home's driveway. The heavily damaged vehicle came to rest on its passenger side in front of a garage door.The KTLA viewer, who has lived on Garnet Street for 33 years, said he had never witnessed anything like it in the neighborhood.It remains unclear whether there were passengers in the vehicle or if drugs or alcohol were involved. However, a spokesperson for the Redondo Beach Police Department confirmed that at least one person was hospitalized and another was taken to jail.It is not yet confirmed whether these were the same individual.

Dramatic video shows violent crash on quiet Southern California street

man in white hard hat standing on brown wooden dock during daytime

When it comes to personal injury law, not all negligence is created equal. While ordinary negligence involves a failure to exercise reasonable care, gross negligence takes things a step further. It's a term that often surfaces in legal discussions, especially when liability waivers, statutory immunities, or serious accidents are involved. But what exactly is gross negligence, and how does it differ from ordinary negligence? Let's break it down.What is Gross Negligence?Gross negligence is defined as a lack of any care or an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation to prevent harm to oneself or others. It is more than just failing to act with reasonable care; it's about acting in a way that's reckless or showing a complete disregard for the safety of others. This standard can be met through action or inaction.As the California Supreme Court explained, gross negligence has long been defined as either a "want of even scant care" or "an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct." <a href="https://casetext.com/case/santa-barbara-v-superior-court" data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/santa-barbara-v-superior-court">(City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 754 [62 Cal.Rptr.3d 527, 161 P.3d 1095])</a>.<figure id="figure-tkasafu4gm87kzqmw"><img id="tkasafu4gm87kzqmw" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1384677745/photo/compliance-block-removal-game-concept.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=E79mWDKpkwhvijQZ7MWO3gWq61URZj6ZSuFayLsJlZY=" alt="Compliance Block Removal Game concept" title="Compliance Block Removal Game concept" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1384677745/photo/compliance-block-removal-game-concept.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=E79mWDKpkwhvijQZ7MWO3gWq61URZj6ZSuFayLsJlZY=" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Gross Negligence vs. RecklessnessIt's important to distinguish gross negligence from recklessness or willful misconduct. Reckless conduct involves acting with intentional disregard for a known risk. While gross negligence doesn’t require intent, it does require behavior that is unreasonable and dangerous. As noted in City of Santa Barbara, "wanton or reckless misconduct (or 'willful and wanton negligence') describes conduct by a person who may have no intent to cause harm, but who intentionally performs an act so unreasonable and dangerous that he or she knows or should know it is highly probable that harm will result." (Id. at p. 754, fn. 4).When Does Gross Negligence Matter?Gross negligence often becomes relevant in specific legal contexts:Statutory Immunities: Certain statutes offer immunity unless gross negligence is proven. For example, <a data-mce-href="https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-831-7/#:~:text=(E)%20An%20act%20of%20gross,or%20damage%20to%20personal%20property." href="https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-831-7/#:~:text=(E)%20An%20act%20of%20gross,or%20damage%20to%20personal%20property.">Government Code section 831.7(c)(1)(E)</a> excludes immunity for public entities or employees if gross negligence is the proximate cause of an injury during hazardous recreational activities. Liability Waivers: Courts have distinguished between ordinary negligence and gross negligence in cases involving signed liability waivers. A waiver may release liability for ordinary negligence but not for gross negligence (<a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/santa-barbara-v-superior-court" href="https://casetext.com/case/santa-barbara-v-superior-court">City of Santa Barbara, supra, 41 Cal.4th at 777</a>). In these cases, once a defendant establishes the validity of a liability release, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove gross negligence by a preponderance of the evidence <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/eriksson-v-nunnink-2" href="https://casetext.com/case/eriksson-v-nunnink-2">(Eriksson v. Nunnink (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 708, 732, 734 [183 Cal.Rptr.3d 234]).</a>Gross Negligence in PracticeCalifornia courts have provided clarity on how gross negligence is evaluated:A lack of gross negligence can be determined as a matter of law if the plaintiff's evidence fails to raise a triable issue <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/grebing-v-24-hour-fitness-usa" href="https://casetext.com/case/grebing-v-24-hour-fitness-usa">(Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 631, 638-639 [184 Cal.Rptr.3d 155]</a>).However, determining whether conduct constitutes gross negligence is generally a question of fact, dependent on the nature of the act and surrounding circumstances <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/jimenez-v-24-hour-fitness-usa-inc" href="https://casetext.com/case/jimenez-v-24-hour-fitness-usa-inc">(Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 546, 555 [188 Cal.Rptr.3d 228])</a>.Evidence that a defendant's actions "substantially or unreasonably increased the inherent risk of an activity" may establish gross negligence, especially when it involves a breach of safety protocols or industry standards <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-fitness-intl-llc" href="https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-fitness-intl-llc">(Anderson v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 867, 881 [208 Cal.Rptr.3d 792])</a>. &nbsp; Statutory Examples of Gross Negligence California statutes frequently reference gross negligence in the context of immunity for emergency responders and professionals. For instance:<a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-business-and-professions-code/division-2-healing-arts/chapter-6-nursing/article-2-scope-of-regulation/section-27275-immunity-for-emergency-care-at-scene-of-emergency" href="https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-business-and-professions-code/division-2-healing-arts/chapter-6-nursing/article-2-scope-of-regulation/section-27275-immunity-for-emergency-care-at-scene-of-emergency">Bus. &amp; Prof. Code, § 2727.5</a>: Grants immunity to licensed nurses providing emergency care unless their conduct is grossly negligent.<a data-mce-href="https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-bpc/division-2/chapter-5/article-17/section-2395-5/" href="https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-bpc/division-2/chapter-5/article-17/section-2395-5/">Bus. &amp; Prof. Code, § 2395.5</a>: Offers similar protection to licensed physicians providing emergency obstetrical services unless gross negligence is involved.<a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1799.106.&amp;lawCode=HSC" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1799.106.&amp;lawCode=HSC">Health &amp; Saf. Code, § 1799.106</a>: Immunizes firefighters and police officers providing emergency medical services, unless their actions are grossly negligent.In <a data-mce-href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/209/349.html" href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/209/349.html">Decker v. City of Imperial Beach (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 349, 358 [257 Cal.Rptr. 356]</a>, the court cited Prosser on Torts, describing gross negligence as "a failure to exercise even that care which a careless person would use."<figure id="figure-qxr2ot03efm87l502o"><img id="qxr2ot03efm87l502o" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1761233614/photo/traffic-cone-gavel.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=R9eOD1pjoP4v-5AfDz8fn4bChCU8NLn5VEDne9srRe4=" alt="Traffic Cone Gavel" title="Traffic Cone Gavel" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1761233614/photo/traffic-cone-gavel.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=R9eOD1pjoP4v-5AfDz8fn4bChCU8NLn5VEDne9srRe4=" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> Can Gross Negligence Be Determined as a Matter of Law?Yes, but only when the facts are clear-cut. Courts have ruled that if the plaintiff’s evidence fails to establish gross negligence, summary judgment may be appropriate<a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/joshi-v-fitness-intl" href="https://casetext.com/case/joshi-v-fitness-intl"> (Joshi v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 814, 828 [295 Cal.Rptr.3d 572])</a>. Still, many cases rely on the judgment of a jury to decide whether a defendant's conduct rises to this higher level of negligence.&nbsp; Why Gross Negligence is ImportantUnderstanding gross negligence matters because it defines the boundaries of liability and personal responsibility in California law. It also highlights the level of care expected in hazardous situations and can determine whether liability waivers or statutory immunities hold up in court.&nbsp; Final ThoughtsGross negligence isn’t just a legal term; it’s a standard that protects people from egregious behavior that poses unnecessary risks. If you've been injured and believe gross negligence played a role, it's crucial to speak with an experienced attorney. They can help you navigate complex legal standards and fight for the compensation you deserve.Understanding the nuances of gross negligence is key to protecting your rights and holding others accountable for extreme misconduct.Southern California Personal Injury Law: Trusted Personal Injury Law FirmAt Southern California Personal Injury Law, we take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.

Understanding Gross Negligence: What It Means and Why It Matters

When a plaintiff alleges harm due to a dangerous condition on public property, the legal framework for such a claim is defined by <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=835.&amp;lawCode=GOV" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=835.&amp;lawCode=GOV">Government Code § 835</a>. This statute sets forth the conditions under which a public entity may be held liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on its property. In this blog post, we explore the essential factual elements required to establish a claim under § 835, along with key case law and statutory references that illustrate how courts analyze these issues.Essential Factual ElementsTo succeed in a claim for a dangerous condition on public property, the plaintiff must prove each of the following elements:Property Control: The plaintiff must show that the defendant owned or controlled the property. Control is paramount—more so than mere ownership—as it indicates the entity’s capacity to maintain, protect, or warn users of any hazards. As emphasized in <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/goddard-v-dept-of-fish-wildlife" href="https://casetext.com/case/goddard-v-dept-of-fish-wildlife">Goddard v. Department of Fish &amp; Wildlife (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 350, 359 [196 Cal.Rptr.3d 625],</a> a public entity may not be held liable for a dangerous condition on property it does not control. Existence of a Dangerous Condition: The property must have been in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury. This involves a condition that creates an unreasonable risk of harm. Courts require evidence that the condition was dangerous—not merely defective—and that it posed a substantial risk to the public. The concept of “dangerous” is interpreted through the lens of what would be reasonably foreseeable, as further explained in <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/hayes-v-state-of-california-2" href="https://casetext.com/case/hayes-v-state-of-california-2">Hayes v. State of California (1974) 11 Cal.3d 469, 472 [113 Cal.Rptr. 599, 521 P.2d 855].</a> Foreseeable Risk: It must be established that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the type of injury that occurred. In other words, the risk of harm from the condition should have been predictable by a reasonable person, linking the condition directly to the injuries sustained. Creation or Notice of the Dangerous Condition: For public entities, liability under § 835 requires the plaintiff to demonstrate either:a) That the dangerous condition was created by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee acting within the scope of their employment; or b) That the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition for a sufficient time prior to the injury, thereby failing to take reasonable steps to protect against it. This dual pathway is well illustrated in<a data-mce-href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20150813041" href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20150813041"> Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1099, 1104 [190 Cal.Rptr.3d 850, 353 P.3d 773]</a>, where the court underscored that a public entity may be liable if it either created the dangerous condition or had ample notice to remedy it. Further, <a data-mce-href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/2198303.html" href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/2198303.html">Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, 647 [307 Cal.Rptr.3d 346, 527 P.3d 873]</a> confirms that liability can be imposed even if the dangerous condition was not directly created by the entity’s employees, so long as the entity had notice and failed to act. Injury to the Plaintiff: The plaintiff must have sustained harm as a result of the dangerous condition. This element links the hazardous condition to a specific injury, requiring evidence of causation. Causation: Finally, it must be shown that the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. This causation requirement ensures that the property defect was not merely incidental but played a critical role in the harm suffered. Judicial Interpretations and Policy ConsiderationsCase law provides further clarity on these elements. For instance, in <a data-mce-href="https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/castro-v-city-of-894633995" href="https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/castro-v-city-of-894633995">Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1457–1458 [192 Cal.Rptr.3d 376]</a>, the court noted that a dangerous condition on public property can expose users to increased risk from third-party actions if certain features of the property amplify those risks. Similarly, <a data-mce-href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/brown-v-poway-unified-school-dist-31442" href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/brown-v-poway-unified-school-dist-31442">Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 836 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 679, 843 P.2d 624]</a> distinguished between dangerous conditions created by the public entity versus those for which the entity had notice, emphasizing the importance of both creation and notice in determining liability.In <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/metcalf-v-county-of-san-joaquin" href="https://casetext.com/case/metcalf-v-county-of-san-joaquin">Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1135 [72 Cal.Rptr.3d 382, 176 P.2d 654]</a>, the court warned against a broad application of the res ipsa loquitur presumption in these cases, noting that the legislative history of § 835 requires a clear demonstration that an employee’s negligent or wrongful act led to the dangerous condition. <a data-mce-href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/128/668.html" href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/128/668.html">Meanwhile, Curtis v. State of California (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 668, 693 [180 Cal.Rptr. 843] </a>reinforces that a public entity may be held liable if either negligence or notice is established.The pivotal role of control is further supported by <a data-mce-href="https://www.lawpipe.com/California/Mamola_v_State_of_California_ex_rel_Dept_of_Transportation.html" href="https://www.lawpipe.com/California/Mamola_v_State_of_California_ex_rel_Dept_of_Transportation.html">Mamola v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 781, 788 [156 Cal.Rptr. 614]</a>, which clarifies that the entity’s capacity to protect or warn is what ultimately underpins liability—not mere ownership.Lastly, recent cases such as <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/nunez-v-city-of-redondo-beach-2" href="https://casetext.com/case/nunez-v-city-of-redondo-beach-2">Nunez v. City of Redondo Beach (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 749, 757 [297 Cal.Rptr.3d 461] </a>remind us that if a property defect is deemed trivial or insignificant, it may not rise to the level of a “dangerous condition” as a matter of law. The evidence must be viewed favorably for the plaintiff, but if the risk is deemed minimal, liability might not attach.ConclusionIn essence, a dangerous condition on public property claim under Government Code § 835 requires a careful, fact-specific analysis. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the public entity controlled the property, that a dangerous condition existed and created a foreseeable risk, that the entity either created the condition or had sufficient notice to remedy it, and that these factors were a substantial cause of the injury. Through decisions in Cordova, Tansavatdi, Castro, Brown, Metcalf, Curtis, Mamola, and Nunez, California courts have delineated a rigorous framework for assessing these claims. For legal practitioners and policy-makers alike, understanding these elements is crucial to ensuring that public entities are held accountable for maintaining safe environments, thereby protecting the welfare of the public.Southern California Personal Injury Law: Trusted Personal Injury Law FirmAt Southern California Personal Injury Law, we take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.

Dangerous Conditions on Public Property: Essential Elements for Liability

In personal injury litigation, defendants sometimes invoke the affirmative defense of failure to wear a seat belt. This defense asserts that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to, or even caused, the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. To successfully assert this defense, the defendant must prove four essential elements:Availability of a Working Seat Belt: The defendant must establish that a functioning seat belt was available in the vehicle at the time of the accident. Reasonable Use Expected: The defendant must demonstrate that a reasonably careful person in the plaintiff’s situation would have used the available seat belt. This analysis may consider the specific language of <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=27315.&amp;lawCode=VEH" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=27315.&amp;lawCode=VEH">Vehicle Code section 27315</a>, which outlines the legal expectation for persons 16 years or older. Plaintiff’s Failure to Wear the Seat Belt: Evidence must show that the plaintiff did not, in fact, wear the seat belt provided. Causation: Finally, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff’s injuries would have been avoided or would have been less severe if the seat belt had been used. This defense is grounded in the notion that a plaintiff’s failure to take reasonable precautions—such as wearing a seat belt—can limit or reduce recovery for injuries that might otherwise have been mitigated.The seminal case <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/franklin-v-gibson-4" href="https://casetext.com/case/franklin-v-gibson-4">Franklin v. Gibson (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 340, 343 [188 Cal.Rptr. 23]</a> sets forth the dual issues that a defendant must prove. First, that a reasonably prudent person in the plaintiff’s position should have worn the seat belt; and second, that the plaintiff’s failure to do so materially affected the extent of the injuries sustained. Similarly, <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/truman-v-vargas" href="https://casetext.com/case/truman-v-vargas">Truman v. Vargas (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 976, 983 [80 Cal.Rptr.373]</a> underscores that expert testimony may be necessary to distinguish between injuries that were unavoidable and those that could have been prevented—or at least lessened—if the seat belt had been worn.In <a data-mce-href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/4/737.html" href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/4/737.html">Housley v. Godinez (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 737, 747 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 111]</a>, the court approved jury instructions that explicitly address the seat belt defense. These instructions remind the jury that even though the defendant may assert this affirmative defense, the ultimate determination of negligence must account for whether, in the exercise of ordinary care, the plaintiff should have worn the seat belt. The court noted that expert testimony is pivotal in assessing the nature and extent of the injuries that could have been mitigated by seat belt use. The case further clarifies that the existence of Vehicle Code section 27315 does not automatically negate liability; rather, it provides a framework for the jury to weigh the comparative negligence of the plaintiff.Moreover, in <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/hardison-v-bushnell" href="https://casetext.com/case/hardison-v-bushnell">Hardison v. Bushnell (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 22, 28 [22 Cal.Rptr.2d 106]</a>, evidence was presented indicating that the plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt contributed to the severity of the injuries. The court emphasized that the foreseeability of injury, rather than the precise degree of injury, is key in determining causation. This principle is echoed in <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/lara-v-nevitt" href="https://casetext.com/case/lara-v-nevitt">Lara v. Nevitt (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 454, 458-459 [19 Cal.Rptr.3d 865]</a>, where the court noted that while expert testimony is not always required to prove that failing to use a seat belt may cause injury, such testimony can help differentiate between injuries that were inherent in the collision and those that might have been prevented by the use of a seat belt.It is important to note that the affirmative defense based on failure to wear a seat belt is not predicated on a violation of a Vehicle Code provision per se, nor is it negated by any exemption contained within the statute. Instead, it is a defense that relies on demonstrating comparative negligence—the idea that the plaintiff’s own failure to exercise reasonable care contributed to the harm suffered.Secondary sources such as the California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed., § 4.71-4.72) and the works by<a data-mce-href="https://store.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/california-torts-grpussku10295.html" href="https://store.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/california-torts-grpussku10295.html"> Levy et al. in California Torts, Ch. 20, Motor Vehicles, § 20.05</a> further elucidate how this defense operates within the broader context of negligence law. These sources emphasize that the seat belt defense is a tool for apportioning fault rather than completely absolving the defendant of liability.In summary, the affirmative defense of failure to wear a seat belt requires a careful factual analysis and presentation of evidence regarding the availability of a working seat belt, the expected behavior of a reasonably careful person, the plaintiff’s actual actions, and the causal relationship between the lack of seat belt use and the injuries sustained. By understanding and effectively employing this defense, defendants aim to mitigate their liability, while courts carefully consider these factors to ensure a fair allocation of responsibility between the parties involved.Understanding these elements is crucial not only for defendants seeking to assert this defense but also for plaintiffs who must be prepared to counter it with evidence and expert testimony. As illustrated by cases such as Franklin v. Gibson, Truman v. Vargas, Housley v. Godinez, Hardison v. Bushnell, and Lara v. Nevitt, the seat belt defense remains a significant aspect of personal injury litigation in California, reflecting the nuanced interplay between statutory mandates and the principles of comparative negligence.Southern California Personal Injury Law: Trusted Personal Injury Law FirmAt Southern California Personal Injury Law, we take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.

Blog

Pasadena journalist, famous novelist make film about risi...

A Second Look at Negligence Per Se: What It Means and How...

Dramatic video shows violent crash on quiet Southern Cali...

Understanding Gross Negligence: What It Means and Why It ...

Dangerous Conditions on Public Property: Essential Elemen...

Understanding the Affirmative Defense of Failure to Wear ...