Blog

Every case is different. Neither this post nor anything on this website should be construed as legal advice. It is crucial that you obtain experienced legal representation so that they can analyze the specvifics of your case. A list of licensed attorneys in California can be found <a data-mce-href="https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/LicenseeSearch/QuickSearch" href="https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/LicenseeSearch/QuickSearch">here</a>. Indeed, when you’ve suffered a personal injury, the process of seeking compensation can feel overwhelming. One of the most critical steps toward securing a successful outcome is choosing the right personal injury attorney. The right lawyer can make all the difference—not only by handling the legal complexities on your behalf but also by providing the guidance and support you need during a challenging time. In this blog post, we explore the key factors to consider when selecting a personal injury attorney and offer tips to help you make an informed decision.Understanding Your Legal NeedsBefore you begin your search, it’s important to clearly understand your legal situation. Personal injury cases can range from car accidents and slip and fall incidents to workplace injuries and medical malpractice. Each type of case has its own set of complexities and legal nuances. Identifying the specifics of your case will help you narrow down your search to attorneys who specialize in the area of law relevant to your injury.Experience and SpecializationOne of the most important factors in choosing a personal injury attorney is their experience in handling cases similar to yours. Look for a lawyer who has a proven track record in personal injury litigation and who understands the particular challenges associated with your type of claim. An attorney with extensive experience is likely to be more adept at navigating the complexities of evidence gathering, negotiations with insurance companies, and the litigation process, should your case go to trial.How to Choose a Personal Injury AttorneyThe reputation of an attorney can provide valuable insight into their effectiveness and professionalism. Consider researching online reviews, testimonials, and any peer recognition the attorney may have received. Personal recommendations from friends or family members can also be incredibly helpful. A lawyer with a strong reputation in the community is more likely to be respected by judges, opposing counsel, and insurance companies, which can work to your advantage.Communication and AvailabilityEffective communication is essential in any legal matter. When choosing a personal injury attorney, you want to ensure that they are accessible and responsive to your needs. During your initial consultation, take note of how clearly the attorney explains the legal process, their strategy for your case, and how frequently you can expect updates. An attorney who listens to your concerns and explains your options in plain language will help alleviate some of the stress associated with your injury.Fee Structure and Financial ConsiderationsMany personal injury attorneys work on a contingency fee basis, which means they only get paid if you recover compensation. While this arrangement can make legal services more accessible, it’s important to understand the specifics of the fee structure before signing any agreements. Ask for a detailed explanation of the contingency fee percentage, any additional costs, and how expenses will be handled throughout your case. Transparency in these matters is crucial to avoid any surprises down the line.Comfort and TrustFinally, trust and comfort are paramount when selecting an attorney. You will be sharing personal details about your injury and your life, so it’s essential that you feel comfortable with your legal representation. During your initial meetings, assess whether the attorney appears genuinely interested in your case and is willing to take the time to address your questions and concerns. Trusting your attorney’s judgment and knowing that they are fully committed to achieving the best possible outcome for you can provide a great deal of peace of mind.ConclusionChoosing a personal injury attorney is a significant decision that can greatly impact the outcome of your case. By carefully considering factors such as experience, reputation, communication, fee structure, and your personal comfort with the attorney, you can make a well-informed decision. Remember that the right attorney will not only handle the legal details but will also serve as a supportive partner throughout your recovery process. Take the time to research, ask questions, and trust your instincts—your future well-being and financial recovery may depend on it.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.

How to Choose a Personal Injury Attorney

taxi cabs loading on road between high rise buildung

California law imposes specific duties on both drivers and pedestrians when using crosswalks, a provision primarily codified in <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21950.&amp;lawCode=VEH" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21950.&amp;lawCode=VEH">Veh. Code § 21950</a>. This statute mandates that drivers must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. When approaching a pedestrian in such areas, a driver is required to use reasonable care by reducing speed or taking any other action necessary to ensure the pedestrian’s safety. At the same time, pedestrians are also expected to exercise reasonable care for their own safety. They must not suddenly leave a place of safety—such as a curb—and enter the roadway in a manner that poses an immediate hazard, nor should they unnecessarily delay traffic while in a crosswalk.The legal framework governing crosswalk accidents often necessitates a comparative negligence analysis based on these statutory duties. In Menchaca v. Helms Bakeries, Inc. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 535, 544 [67 Cal.Rptr. 775, 439 P.2d 903], the court noted that while driving a motor vehicle inherently involves risks that require caution, it does not mandate "extreme caution" under all circumstances. This balanced view is critical in determining liability when a pedestrian unexpectedly enters the path of an oncoming vehicle. For instance, in Spann v. Ballesty (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 754, 761 [81 Cal.Rptr. 229], the court explained that when a pedestrian suddenly leaves their place of safety, the vehicle may be so close that it constitutes an immediate hazard, thereby justifying the imposition of liability if the driver fails to act appropriately.Conversely, case law also recognizes that a pedestrian’s failure to exercise reasonable care does not automatically relieve a driver of their duty to ensure safety. In Schmitt v. Henderson (1969) 1 Cal.3d 460, 463 [82 Cal.Rptr. 502, 462 P.2d 30], it was held that a driver’s failure to yield the right-of-way constitutes a violation of both the statute and the standard of negligence, barring any reasonable explanation for the conduct. However, the courts have also emphasized that while pedestrians have a preferential right-of-way, as noted in Byrne v. City and County of San Francisco (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 731, 742 [170 Cal.Rptr. 302], this right is not absolute. Pedestrians are still under a duty to exercise ordinary care for their own safety, and a failure to do so may mitigate the liability of a driver who otherwise complies with the statutory duty.The responsibilities of both drivers and pedestrians are further underscored by the principle that the level of caution required differs according to the inherent risks of operating a vehicle versus walking on a public roadway. In Cucinella v. Weston Biscuit Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 71, 75–76, 81 [265 P.2d 513], the court articulated that while drivers must remain constantly alert due to the significant risks associated with controlling a motor vehicle, pedestrians, with only their physical capabilities at stake, are expected to exercise care commensurate with the potential for injury in their specific circumstances.Secondary sources such as <a data-mce-href="https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/Summary-of-California-Law-11th-Witkin-Library/p/106154043" href="https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/Summary-of-California-Law-11th-Witkin-Library/p/106154043">Witkin’s Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017, Torts §§ 1012, 1013, 1016)</a>, the <a data-mce-href="https://store.ceb.com/products/california-tort-guide?srsltid=AfmBOorNttyfLZZggHqq33B8O6COv8DzqxrUVUtn0tHdU8GV57zDBj1Q" href="https://store.ceb.com/products/california-tort-guide?srsltid=AfmBOorNttyfLZZggHqq33B8O6COv8DzqxrUVUtn0tHdU8GV57zDBj1Q">California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. §§ 4.72-4.73)</a>, and Levy et al. in <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">California Torts, Ch. 20, Motor Vehicles, §§ 20.10-20.12</a> further expound upon these statutory and case law principles. These texts provide practitioners with detailed insights into the comparative negligence framework applicable in crosswalk accidents and reinforce the understanding that both drivers and pedestrians bear responsibilities that influence liability determinations.In conclusion, the duties imposed on drivers and pedestrians in crosswalk scenarios are designed to enhance safety on California roadways. By requiring drivers to yield and exercise reasonable care, while also mandating that pedestrians do not act unpredictably or create hazards, the law seeks to balance the rights and responsibilities of all roadway users. Courts continue to apply these principles, as demonstrated in landmark decisions such as Menchaca, Spann, Schmitt, Byrne, and Cucinella, ensuring that liability in crosswalk accidents is apportioned fairly based on the conduct of each party. This integrated approach not only promotes roadway safety but also serves as a critical guide for legal practitioners handling crosswalk accident claims.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.

Duties of Care for Pedestrians and Drivers in Crosswalks: A Legal Analysis

come on in we're open signage on glass panel

In the realm of product liability, strict liability is a foundational doctrine that holds manufacturers, distributors, and retailers accountable when a defective product causes harm. Under strict liability, a plaintiff need not prove negligence in the traditional sense; rather, they must demonstrate that the product was defective in a manner that directly caused their injury. A product may be considered defective if it contained a manufacturing defect, was defectively designed, or failed to include sufficient instructions or warnings regarding potential safety hazards.A comprehensive understanding of strict liability requires an examination of its essential factual elements. A plaintiff must establish that they were harmed by a product distributed, manufactured, or sold by the defendant, and that the defect in question falls within one of the recognized categories:Manufacturing Defect: The product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised during production and marketing. Design Defect: The foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or eliminated by adopting a reasonable alternative design. Warning Defect: The product is unsafe because it does not include adequate instructions or warnings that would have reduced or prevented the harm. As explained in Johnson v. United States Steel Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 30 [192 Cal.Rptr.3d 158], "products liability" encompasses the liability of those who supply goods to the public when defects in those products cause various types of losses. This view is further reinforced by Soule v. GM Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 560 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 882 P.2d 298], which states that a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer is liable in tort if a defect in the product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.The doctrine of strict liability has been specifically applied to three distinct types of defects. As set forth in Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995 [281 Cal.Rptr.528, 810 P.2d 549], strict liability encompasses manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects. This categorization is crucial because it underscores that liability does not hinge on proving the defendant's negligence but rather on the existence of a defect that renders the product unreasonably dangerous.Under the guidance of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, as cited in Brady v. Calsol, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1218–1219 [194 Cal.Rptr.3d 243], a product is defective if it (a) contains a manufacturing defect, (b) is defectively designed such that a reasonable alternative design could have mitigated foreseeable risks, or (c) is defectively marketed through inadequate instructions or warnings. This framework sets the stage for determining whether a product fails to meet the safety expectations that consumers reasonably have.A landmark case that has shaped strict liability in product cases is Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 62–63 [27 Cal.Rptr.697, 377 P.2d 897]. In Greenman, the court held that a manufacturer is strictly liable when an article they place on the market, with the expectation that it will be used without inspection for defects, causes injury due to a defect. The purpose of imposing strict liability is to ensure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by those who introduced the unsafe product into the market, rather than by injured consumers who are in a position to protect themselves.It is important to note that strict liability does not require a plaintiff to establish the classic elements of negligence—duty, breach, causation, and damages—as observed in Elsheref v. AppliedMaterials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451, 464 [167 Cal.Rptr.3d 257]. However, as clarified in Sanchez v. Hitachi Koki, Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 948, 956 [158 Cal.Rptr.3d 907], strict liability is not synonymous with absolute liability. Although the doctrine imposes significant responsibility on manufacturers and others in the distribution chain, it does not transform them into insurers of product safety. Instead, it seeks to distribute the burden of injury costs in a manner that encourages safer product designs and greater vigilance in manufacturing and marketing.The concept of strict liability extends beyond just manufacturers. As stated in Arriaga v. CitiCapital Commercial Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1527, 1534 [85 Cal.Rptr.3d 143], anyone who plays an integral role in the production and marketing of a product can be subject to strict liability. This is particularly relevant under the “stream-of-commerce” approach, which holds that a defendant’s liability depends on their connection to the market and the consumer demand for the product, rather than on a precise legal relationship with the manufacturer, as elucidated in Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady Co., Inc. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 249, 258 [196 Cal.Rptr.3d 594]. Under this approach, no exact legal relationship is required for the imposition of strict liability; instead, the defendant’s role in placing the product into the consumer market is the key factor.Moreover, the application of strict liability is not without its limits. In Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261, 270 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 185], the court emphasized that liability under strict products liability is determined by policy considerations, such as enhancing product safety, maximizing protection for injured parties, and fairly apportioning costs among the various defendants involved in the manufacturing and distribution process. This policy-driven analysis helps ensure that strict liability serves its intended purpose without imposing undue burdens on parties that are only tangentially related to the production process.Another important facet of product liability is the "component parts doctrine," which was addressed in O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, 355 [135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987]. Under this doctrine, a manufacturer of a component part is not held strictly liable for injuries caused by the finished product into which the component is incorporated—unless the component itself was defective and directly caused harm. Exceptions to this rule occur when the defendant bears direct responsibility for the harm, either by contributing their own defective product to the mix or by participating substantially in creating a hazardous combination of products.In the context of service providers versus product sellers, distinctions in strict liability also emerge. As explained in Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 316 [213 Cal.Rptr.3d 82], hospitals and other service providers are generally not subject to strict liability for defective products provided during treatment, provided that their role is limited to offering services rather than selling a product. However, this limitation does not preclude claims based on negligence, ensuring that injured parties still have avenues for redress.Scholarly sources, including secondary authorities such as Witkin’s Summary of California Law and various practice guides, reinforce the case law in emphasizing that the imposition of strict liability is based on the defendant’s role in the overall production and marketing enterprise. In particular, as noted in Arriaga and further supported by analyses in the California Practice Guides, the defendant must have received a direct financial benefit from their activities, played an integral role in the business enterprise, and had control or substantial influence over the manufacturing or distribution process.In conclusion, strict liability in product liability cases is a multifaceted doctrine designed to protect consumers by shifting the burden of injury costs to those who place defective products into the market. By requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that a product was defective—whether through manufacturing, design, or inadequate warnings—and that this defect directly caused harm, the doctrine of strict liability incentivizes safer practices throughout the production and distribution chain. As illustrated by seminal cases such as Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., and Brady v. Calsol, Inc., among others, strict liability serves as a powerful tool for ensuring that manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are held accountable for the safety of their products. This comprehensive framework not only promotes consumer safety but also facilitates the fair apportionment of injury costs in a complex commercial environment.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.

Strict Liability in Product Liability: Essential Factual Elements and Case Law Analysis

a woman sitting in a car with a steering wheel

In California, a claim for negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle arises when a plaintiff alleges harm due to a defendant’s decision to allow an unfit or incompetent driver to operate a vehicle. Essentially, the claim asserts that the defendant’s negligent act of entrusting the vehicle to someone known—or reasonably expected—to be unfit was a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.At the heart of such a claim, the plaintiff must establish several key elements, which are spelled out in <a data-mce-href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/700/724/" href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/700/724/">CACI No. 724.</a> First, it must be shown that the driver was negligent in operating the vehicle. This requirement is grounded in the basic principles of negligence as defined in <a data-mce-href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/401/" href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/401/">CACI No. 401</a>, Basic Standard of Care. Next, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant either owned the vehicle or had possession of it with the owner’s permission at the time of the incident. Establishing this relationship is critical because it links the defendant to the vehicle’s use when the harm occurred.A crucial element of the negligent entrustment claim is demonstrating that the defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that the driver was incompetent or unfit to drive safely. This duty of care is underscored in landmark cases. For example, in Flores v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1063 [116 Cal.Rptr.3d 71], the court held that liability arises when a defendant places a vehicle in the hands of someone whose incompetence is known or should be known. Similarly, Osborn v. Hertz Corp. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 703, 709 [252 Cal.Rptr.613] reinforces that a rental car company may be held liable for negligently entrusting a car to a customer when an ordinarily prudent person would have refrained from doing so.Furthermore, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant actually permitted the driver to operate the vehicle. This permission, whether explicit or implicit, forms the crucial link between the defendant’s actions and the subsequent harm. In Allen v. Toledo (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 415, 421 [167 Cal.Rptr.270], the court noted that liability for negligent entrustment is determined by applying general principles of negligence, emphasizing that it is the defendant’s independent negligence that is at issue.The final element requires the plaintiff to prove that the driver’s incompetence or unfitness was a substantial factor in causing the injury. This causation requirement ensures that the defendant’s negligence in entrusting the vehicle directly contributed to the harm. In McKenna v. Beesley (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 552, 566–567 [282 Cal.Rptr.3d 431], the court drew parallels between negligent entrustment and negligent hiring, underscoring that awareness of a driver’s incompetence is critical to establishing liability.Additional case law further elucidates these principles. For instance, Ghezavat v. Harris (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 555, 559 [252 Cal.Rptr.3d 887] illustrates that liability is imposed on a vehicle owner due to their own negligence in permitting an unfit driver to use the vehicle, independent of the driver’s actions. In Blake v. Moore (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 700, 706 [208 Cal.Rptr.703], the court clarified that entrustment to an intoxicated driver is not automatically negligence per se; rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant had actual knowledge of the driver’s incompetence.The importance of actual knowledge is further highlighted in Nault v. Smith (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 257, 267–268 [14 Cal.Rptr.889], where the court found that mere absence of a license does not suffice unless the owner knew, or should have known, of the driver’s inability to operate the vehicle safely. Similarly, Dodge Center v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 332, 341 [244 Cal.Rptr.789] supports the principle that negligence must be directly tied to the driver’s disqualification, inexperience, or recklessness.Moreover, cases such as Perez v. G &amp; W Chevrolet, Inc. (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 766, 768 [79 Cal.Rptr.287] and Syah v. Johnson (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 534, 545 [55 Cal.Rptr.741] illustrate that the mere sale or provision of a vehicle to an unlicensed or inexperienced person does not, by itself, constitute negligent entrustment. The determining factor remains whether the defendant had knowledge of the driver’s incompetence. In Richards v. Stanley (1954) 43 Cal.2d 60, 63 [271 P.2d 23], the court reaffirmed that absent a special relationship or notice, there is generally no duty to control a third party’s conduct merely because the defendant has relinquished control of their property. Finally, Mettelka v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1245, 1250 [219 Cal.Rptr.697] confirms that even co-owners may be held liable if one co-owner controls the use of the vehicle and permits an unfit driver to operate it.In summary, a claim for negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle in California requires a detailed analysis of the defendant’s conduct in relation to the driver’s competence. The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s decision to entrust the vehicle to an unfit driver was a substantial factor in causing the injury. By examining the statutory framework, along with seminal cases such as Flores, Osborn, Allen, McKenna, Ghezavat, Blake, Nault, Dodge Center, Perez, Syah, Richards, and Mettelka, legal practitioners and scholars can gain a comprehensive understanding of the intricacies of negligent entrustment. This careful analysis not only aids in constructing a robust legal argument but also ensures that defendants are held accountable for decisions that compromise the safety of others.

Negligent Entrustment of Motor Vehicles: A Legal Analysis

Book on personal injury law with a judge's gavel

Introduction In California personal injury cases, plaintiffs commonly invoke the concept of negligence per se to establish liability. This doctrine, codified in<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 § 669,</a> provides that violating a statute, regulation, or ordinance intended to protect against the type of harm suffered can create a presumption of negligence. Once established, this presumption can significantly bolster a plaintiff’s case. However, it is not automatically conclusive—defendants may rebut the presumption by showing they had a valid excuse or that their violation did not substantially cause the injury in question.California’s Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”) provide guidance on how courts instruct juries regarding negligence per se. <a data-mce-href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/418/" href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/418/">CACI No. 418</a> outlines what a plaintiff (or defendant, in certain contexts) must prove to establish this presumption, while additional instructions, such as CACI Nos. 420 and 421, address rebuttal scenarios.In this blog post, we will break down CACI No. 418 in detail, tracing its statutory basis, providing examples of how courts interpret it, and offering practical insights for plaintiffs and defendants alike. Our goal is to clarify the role of negligence per se, highlight key legal authorities, and showcase how these principles are applied in California courts.&nbsp; What Is Negligence Per Se? Negligence per se is not a standalone cause of action; rather, it is a legal doctrine that a plaintiff may use within a standard negligence claim. At its core, negligence per se means:If a defendant violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation intended to protect against the type of harm that occurred—and that violation was a substantial factor in causing the harm—the defendant is presumed negligent. This principle is grounded in the idea that the legislature (and sometimes regulatory bodies) has already set a standard of care for certain activities. Therefore, if someone violates that standard, it is fair to presume they acted unreasonably.Legal Basis: Evidence Code § 669 Evidence Code § 669(a) states that negligence is presumed if:The defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation; The violation proximately caused death or injury to a person or property; The harm resulted from an occurrence the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and The injured party was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted. The “first two elements are normally questions for the trier of fact and the last two are determined by the trial court as a matter of law.”(Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1526 [119 Cal.Rptr.3d 529]) (Cal. Law Revision Com. com. to Evid. Code, § 669) &nbsp; CACI No. 418: Presumption of Negligence Per Se CACI No. 418, titled “Presumption of Negligence Per Se (Violation of Statute, Ordinance, or Regulation)”, provides the standard jury instruction on how to determine whether the presumption of negligence applies. It states:That the party in question (the defendant, in a typical scenario) violated a law, statute, regulation, or ordinance; and That the violation was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, “then you must find that [the defendant] was negligent [unless you also find that the violation was excused].” If, however, the jury finds that there was no violation, or that the violation did not substantially factor into the harm, or that the violation was excused, the presumption does not apply. The jury must still decide whether the defendant was negligent under other legal standards.Key Takeaways from CACI No. 418 This instruction focuses on the factual components of the presumption of negligence. Even if the presumption is defeated, plaintiffs can still try to prove negligence by other means.(See Nunneley v. Edgar Hotel (1950) 36 Cal.2d 493, 500-501 [225 P.2d 497]) If the defendant offers a rebuttal on the ground that the violation was excused, then the bracketed sections in the instruction should be read to the jury.(See also CACI No. 420, “Negligence per se: Rebuttal of the Presumption of Negligence—Violation Excused”) &nbsp; Rebuttal of the Presumption: Excuse and Other Defenses Negligence per se sets up a presumption, meaning it shifts the burden to the defendant to produce evidence that either:No violation occurred, or The alleged violation did not substantially cause the plaintiff’s harm, or There was a legally recognized excuse or justification for violating the statute. A common ground for rebuttal is that compliance was impossible, or that a justified emergency necessitated the violation. CACI Nos. 420 and 421 detail scenarios and criteria under which the presumption may be successfully rebutted.“In negligence per se actions, the plaintiff must produce evidence of a violation of a statute and a substantial probability that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the violation of the statute before the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.” (Toste v. CalPortland Construction (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 362, 371 [199 Cal.Rptr.3d 522]) &nbsp; Statutes and Regulations as the Standard of Care When a legislative or regulatory body sets standards aimed at protecting a specific class of persons from a particular type of harm, courts often adopt those standards in civil litigation to define the duty and standard of care.Federal Regulations: “There is no doubt in this state that a federal statute or regulation may be adopted as a standard of care.”(DiRosa v. Showa Denko K. K. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 799, 808 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 128]) State Regulations: California courts frequently adopt state-level administrative regulations, such as Cal-OSHA provisions, to establish the standard of care in negligence cases.(Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, 928 [22 Cal.Rptr.3d 530, 102 P.3d 915]) Building Codes: “While courts have applied negligence per se to building code violations, it has only been applied in limited situations.”(Jones v. Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1212 [252 Cal.Rptr.3d 596]) &nbsp; Not a Separate Cause of Action It is critical to note that negligence per se does not stand alone as an independent cause of action. Rather, it acts as a method of proving the elements of duty and breach in an ordinary negligence claim.“The doctrine of negligence per se is not a separate cause of action, but creates an evidentiary presumption that affects the standard of care in a cause of action for negligence.” (Turner v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 516, 534 [238 Cal.Rptr.3d 528]) The plaintiff still bears the burden of establishing causation—namely, that the statutory violation actually led to the harm they suffered.&nbsp; Practical Implications for Litigants For Plaintiffs:Identify the Right Statute or Regulation: Ensure the law allegedly violated was intended to protect against the specific kind of harm that occurred. Establish Proximate Cause: Be prepared to present solid evidence showing the statutory breach was a substantial factor in causing the injury. Anticipate Rebuttals: Defendants may argue compliance was impossible or that they had a valid excuse. For Defendants:Refute Violation: Present evidence that no violation of the law occurred in the first place. Challenge Causation: Even if there was a violation, show it was not a substantial factor in causing the harm. Assert Excuses: Prove that the violation was legally excused (e.g., unexpected emergency, necessity, or impossibility). &nbsp; Key Authorities and Secondary Sources Statutory Authority:Evidence Code § 669 Case Law:Nunneley v. Edgar Hotel (1950) 36 Cal.2d 493, 500-501 [225 P.2d 497] Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1526 [119 Cal.Rptr.3d 529] Taulbee v. EJ Distribution Corp. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 590, 596 [247 Cal.Rptr.3d 538] Turner v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 516, 534 [238 Cal.Rptr.3d 528] David v. Hernandez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 578, 584 [172 Cal.Rptr.3d 204] Spriesterbach v. Holland (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 255, 263 [155 Cal.Rptr.3d 306] Toste v. CalPortland Construction (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 362, 371 [199 Cal.Rptr.3d 522] Ramirez v. Plough, Inc. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 539, 547 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 97, 863 P.2d 167] DiRosa v. Showa Denko K. K. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 799, 808 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 128] Cal. Serv. Station Etc. Ass’n v. Am. Home Assur. Co. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1175 [73 Cal.Rptr.2d 182] Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, 928 [22 Cal.Rptr.3d 530, 102 P.3d 915] Jones v. Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1212 [252 Cal.Rptr.3d 596] Secondary Sources:6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, §§ 1002-1028 Haning et al., California Practice Guide: Personal Injury, Ch. 2(II)-H, “Negligence Predicated On Statutory Violation (‘Negligence Per Se’),” ¶ 2:1845 (The Rutter Group) Wegner et al., California Practice Guide: Civil Trials &amp; Evidence, Ch. 8G-C, “Procedural Considerations—Presumptions,” ¶ 8:3604 (The Rutter Group) California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.) §§ 1.28-1.31 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 3, “Proof of Negligence,” §§ 3.10, 3.13 (Matthew Bender) 4 California Trial Guide, Unit 90, “Closing Argument,” §§ 90.88, 90.89 (Matthew Bender) California Products Liability Actions, Ch. 7, “Proof,” § 7.04 (Matthew Bender) 33 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 380, “Negligence,” § 380.50 (Matthew Bender) 16 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 165, “Negligence,” §§ 165.70, 165.80, 165.81 (Matthew Bender) &nbsp; Conclusion Negligence per se can be a powerful tool in California personal injury litigation, as it simplifies the plaintiff’s path to establishing a breach of duty. Nevertheless, defendants retain multiple avenues to refute or excuse the alleged violation. Ultimately, the jury decides whether the defendant violated the relevant statute or regulation and whether that violation was a substantial factor in causing the harm.Whether you are a plaintiff considering a negligence per se argument or a defendant facing such a claim, understanding the nuances of CACI No. 418 and the broader statutory and case law framework is essential. Skilled legal counsel can help navigate the complexities, gather the evidence necessary to meet or rebut the presumption, and present the strongest possible case in court.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.

Analyzing Negligence Per Se in California

Elder neglect is a serious legal issue that can have devastating consequences for some of society’s most vulnerable individuals. Under California law, the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA) (<a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=15610.07.&amp;lawCode=WIC" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=15610.07.&amp;lawCode=WIC" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Welf. &amp; Inst. Code, § 15610.07</a>), elder neglect is a distinct cause of action that allows victims or their survivors to seek damages for harm caused by caregivers who fail to meet their obligations. This post explores the legal framework surrounding neglect claims, key legal precedents, and how individuals can seek justice under the law.What Constitutes Neglect? Under <a data-mce-href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/3100/3103/" href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/3100/3103/">California Civil Jury Instruction (CACI) No. 3103</a>, neglect occurs when a defendant has a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship with an elder (age 65 or older) or dependent adult and fails to use reasonable care in providing for their basic needs. This includes:1. Assisting in personal hygiene, providing food, clothing, or shelter. 2. Providing necessary medical care for physical and mental health. 3. Protecting the individual from health and safety hazards. 4. Preventing malnutrition or dehydration. To establish a claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s failure to provide care was a substantial factor in causing harm to the elder or dependent adult. These failures can be deliberate or arise from systemic deficiencies, such as understaffing in a nursing home or the lack of appropriate medical oversight.Legal Framework and Case Law 1. Distinguishing Neglect from Medical Malpractice Not every act of negligence by a healthcare provider constitutes elder abuse. The California Supreme Court in Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, 152 clarified that the Elder Abuse Act does not apply to all treatment provided to elderly patients. Instead, there must be a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship beyond professional medical care. The Act is designed to protect against gross mistreatment, not simply medical negligence. This means that a doctor or hospital treating an elder does not automatically fall under the EADACPA unless they assume a broader caretaking role.2. Duties of Caregivers and Institutions Neglect is not limited to individuals but also extends to institutions such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. In Oroville Hospital v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 382, 405, the court reinforced that liability under EADACPA is determined by the scope of care provided. Even if multiple caregivers contribute to an elder’s well-being, any entity assuming substantial responsibility for basic needs can be liable.Another key case, Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 783, emphasized that elder neglect claims focus on failure to provide essential care, rather than the quality of professional medical services rendered. This means that if a facility fails to provide necessary medical attention, clean living conditions, or proper nutrition, they may be liable under the Elder Abuse Act.3. Enhanced Remedies for Elder Neglect If a plaintiff can demonstrate that neglect was reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious, enhanced remedies become available under Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657. These remedies include:1. Attorney fees and costs. 2. Damages for the decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering (in wrongful death cases). 3. Enhanced remedies were established to provide stronger incentives for accountability in elder care. The legislative intent behind these heightened penalties is to prevent caregivers from cutting corners when it comes to the well-being of elders and dependent adults.4. The Role of Elder Neglect Laws in Preventing Systemic Abuse Beyond individual lawsuits, the Elder Abuse Act serves a broader purpose: preventing systemic neglect and abuse in elder care facilities. Many nursing homes and assisted living centers operate under profit-driven models that may prioritize cost-cutting over patient care. Systemic neglect may involve:- Chronic understaffing that leaves residents without proper hygiene assistance.- Failure to provide adequate nutrition or hydration. - Ignoring signs of declining health or medical conditions. Cases like Fenimore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348-1349 illustrate how neglect can result from institutional failings, such as failing to follow staffing regulations or care protocols. When these failures result in harm, affected families have the right to seek legal recourse.Filing an Elder Neglect Claim Bringing a claim under the Elder Abuse Act requires substantial evidence of neglect, including:- Medical records showing deterioration due to inadequate care. - Testimony from caregivers, other residents, or family members. - Photographic or video evidence documenting unsafe or unsanitary conditions. - Records of prior violations or complaints against the facility or caregiver. If you believe a loved one is experiencing neglect, documenting these conditions as soon as possible is critical. Reporting suspected neglect to Adult Protective Services (APS) or the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) can also help build a case.Holding Defendants Accountable The Elder Abuse Act recognizes that elders and dependent adults are particularly vulnerable to neglect, which can have life-threatening consequences. Legal actions under EADACPA ensure that individuals and institutions entrusted with caregiving responsibilities are held accountable when they fail to meet their duties.If you or a loved one has suffered from elder neglect, legal options are available to seek justice. Consulting with an experienced elder law attorney can help you determine whether you have a valid claim and guide you through the legal process.Conclusion California law provides strong protections for elders and dependent adults against neglect. With legal precedents reinforcing the importance of caretaking responsibilities, victims and their families have avenues for recourse under EADACPA. If you believe neglect has occurred, seeking legal assistance promptly can be crucial to protecting your rights and securing appropriate remedies.If you suspect elder neglect, don’t wait to take action. Contact our firm today to discuss your legal options and hold negligent caregivers accountable for their failures.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

How to Choose a Personal Injury Attorney

Duties of Care for Pedestrians and Drivers in Crosswalks:...

Strict Liability in Product Liability: Essential Factual ...

Negligent Entrustment of Motor Vehicles: A Legal Analysis

Analyzing Negligence Per Se in California

Neglect Under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil P...