Wildomar Lawyer - Legal Issues that are important to you and your business
Wildomar Lawyer is a blog written by a Southern California Lawyer located in the inland empire who blogs about legal happenings in or around Wildomar, California. The law office is near Wildomar, California and provides legal services to Wildomar, Canyon Lake, Perris, Menifee, and Murrieta.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Introduction Video
Thursday, January 3, 2013
California Supreme Court rejects lawsuit against Great America over bumper car rides
California Supreme Court rejects lawsuit against Great America over bumper car rides
By Howard Mintz
hmintz@mercurynews.commercurynews.com
Posted: 01/01/2013 08:55:46 AM PST
January 1, 2013 4:55 PM
GMTUpdated: 01/01/2013 08:55:51 AM PST
Fans of those popular bumper car rides at amusement parks such
as Great America or Santa Cruz's Boardwalk take heed -- you can't sue if that
extra bumping leaves you with a bump on the noggin or some other injury.
The California Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Great America and other
amusement parks cannot be sued for injuries that occur in the jostling of rides
such as bumper cars, finding that such thrill-seeking carries an "inherent risk"
akin to playing a sport.In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of a South Bay doctor who sued Santa Clara's Great America theme park after she broke her wrist while riding the "Rue Le Dodge" bumper car ride with her son in 2005. The ruling overturned
"The risk of injuries from bumping was inherent in the Rue le Dodge ride, and under our precedents (the park) had no duty of ordinary care to prevent injuries from such an inherent risk of the activity," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the court.
The Supreme Court in the past has barred lawsuits that occur when people take ordinary risks in sports such as football and skiing, under the legal theory that there is "an assumption of risk" in such activities. Great America's lawyers argued that a bumper car ride falls in a similar legal category, and the Supreme Court agreed.
The Supreme Court has found roller coaster operators have a substantial obligation to ensure safety, but the bumper car case presented different legal circumstances that would have made park owners more vulnerable to lawsuits. A host of recreation businesses, from the ski industry to health clubs, backed Great America in the case.
Justice Joyce Kennard dissented, agreeing with the lower court's finding that a jury should decide whether Great America was negligent in failing to take steps to prevent bumper car head-on collisions.
The lawsuit was filed by Smriti Nalwa, identified in court papers as a San Jose doctor who took her young son and daughter to Great America in July 2005. Court papers show that Nalwa was one of 55 people injured on the bumper car ride among hundreds of thousands of riders over a two-year period, although she was the only patron to suffer a fracture.
In 2006, a year after the accident, Cedar Fair Entertainment, Great America's owners, added an island in the middle to keep bumper car drivers headed in the same direction and minimize head-on collisions, as was done at other parks around the country.
Mark Rosenberg, Nalwa's lawyer, said amusement park owners are now "off the hook" if they operate bumper car rides negligently, even though he insisted consumer safety advocates would try to limit the effect of the Supreme Court's decision.
"Amusement park patrons are less safe today than they were yesterday," he warned.
But Stephen Renick, the park's lawyers, said the Supreme Court established needed legal guidance on whether participating in recreational activities such as amusement park rides should be treated the same as playing a sport.
"It definitely provides clarity," he said. "The courts had gone all over the place on this."
Monday, November 19, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
Denied Life Insurance?
Life Insurance Denial
When you purchased life insuranc you purcahsed is as a safety net (honestly, you hoped you never had to claim it). We hope that nothing will happen to us or our loved ones, but in the event that it does, we want those near us not suffer financial hardship.
But when an insurance company sells you a policy, it as a gamble. They have a system called an actuarial table, that virtually guarantees they will win overall. Just take a look at the record profits posted by major insurance companies in recent years and you will notice thier system works (works very well, to be honest). However, insurance companies are not satisfied with just winning—they want to win big, which they do by looking for an excuse to deny every claim, including yours.
One of the most common tactics life insurance companies use to deny your claim is accusing you or your loved one of making a "material misrepresentation" on your application for the policy. Often they will claim your loved one misrepresented his or her:
In these cases, the material misrepresentation is ripe for legal argument. As an experienced life insurance attorney I can make sure the policy is honored even in the face of such claims by the insurance company.
With a lawyer on your side, the insurance company must follow all the rules (both legally and contained within the policy) thereby assuring you will not have to suffer from a "blanket denial."
First if you have lost a loved one, let me be the first to state that I am sorry for your loss. Second, if you have received a denial from your life insurance carrier, or expect one, call the Attorney at RAXTER LAW at (951) 226-5294.
The consulation is FREE and most cases are accepted on a contingency basis - which means no recovery no fee. We represent client in all of southern california.
But when an insurance company sells you a policy, it as a gamble. They have a system called an actuarial table, that virtually guarantees they will win overall. Just take a look at the record profits posted by major insurance companies in recent years and you will notice thier system works (works very well, to be honest). However, insurance companies are not satisfied with just winning—they want to win big, which they do by looking for an excuse to deny every claim, including yours.
One of the most common tactics life insurance companies use to deny your claim is accusing you or your loved one of making a "material misrepresentation" on your application for the policy. Often they will claim your loved one misrepresented his or her:
- Age
- Alcohol, drug, or tobacco use
- Occupation
- Employment history
- Dangerous hobbies, pastimes, or behavioral traits
- Ownership of other life insurance policies
In these cases, the material misrepresentation is ripe for legal argument. As an experienced life insurance attorney I can make sure the policy is honored even in the face of such claims by the insurance company.
With a lawyer on your side, the insurance company must follow all the rules (both legally and contained within the policy) thereby assuring you will not have to suffer from a "blanket denial."
First if you have lost a loved one, let me be the first to state that I am sorry for your loss. Second, if you have received a denial from your life insurance carrier, or expect one, call the Attorney at RAXTER LAW at (951) 226-5294.
The consulation is FREE and most cases are accepted on a contingency basis - which means no recovery no fee. We represent client in all of southern california.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Estate and Lifetime Gift Tax set to expire
If Congress doesn’t act, the estate and lifetime gift tax exemptions, which are currently $5.12 million per person and $10.24 million per married couple, will expire at the end of 2012 and return to $1 million per person and $2 million per married couple in 2013...
Monday, October 29, 2012
School District can be sued for negligent hiring when employee abused a student
Recently the California Supreme Court decided in C.A. v. William S. Hart
Union High School District (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861.
In this Case the court held that a school district under Section 815.2 of the Government Code could be held liable for negligent hiring and/or supervision which resulted in the plaintiff being sexually harassed and abused by a counselor. Factually, the case involved a high school counselor who harassed and abused a student. The student sued, and the superior court and Court of Appeal held that the school district could not be held vicariously liable for the counselor’s misconduct, which was outside the scope of her employment, and also could not be held liable under a negligent hiring or supervision claim. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, permitting the plaintiff to move forward with his claim that the district can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of supervisory or administrative personnel who allegedly knew, or should have known, of the counselor’s propensities and nevertheless hired, retained and inadequately supervised her. The court reasoned that because school personnel owe students under their supervision a protective duty of ordinary care, if a supervisory or administrative employee of the district is proven to have breached that duty by negligently exposing the plaintiff to a foreseeable danger of molestation by his guidance counselor, liability may be imposed.
The Government Code does not protect school districts when they negligently hire a employee who harasses and abuses a child.
Contact RAXTER LAW today for a confidential free consultation at (951) 226-5294.
In this Case the court held that a school district under Section 815.2 of the Government Code could be held liable for negligent hiring and/or supervision which resulted in the plaintiff being sexually harassed and abused by a counselor. Factually, the case involved a high school counselor who harassed and abused a student. The student sued, and the superior court and Court of Appeal held that the school district could not be held vicariously liable for the counselor’s misconduct, which was outside the scope of her employment, and also could not be held liable under a negligent hiring or supervision claim. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, permitting the plaintiff to move forward with his claim that the district can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of supervisory or administrative personnel who allegedly knew, or should have known, of the counselor’s propensities and nevertheless hired, retained and inadequately supervised her. The court reasoned that because school personnel owe students under their supervision a protective duty of ordinary care, if a supervisory or administrative employee of the district is proven to have breached that duty by negligently exposing the plaintiff to a foreseeable danger of molestation by his guidance counselor, liability may be imposed.
The Government Code does not protect school districts when they negligently hire a employee who harasses and abuses a child.
Contact RAXTER LAW today for a confidential free consultation at (951) 226-5294.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)