Strict Liability | Personal Injury

The damages recovered by a personal injury plaintiff may not be reduced in strict liability cases unless their is comparative fault attributed to the the plaintiff for their own injuries.

  • Continue to read and learn more about strict liability in personal injury claims and lawsuits.

About Ordaz Law, APC – A San Diego Personal Injury Attorney, and his Distinguished Case Results.

We have recovered millions on behalf of accident injury victims.

strict liability

Strict Liability | Personal Injury Lawsuits

There are certain types of injury producing events that trigger strict liability which include:

Strict Liability | Product Liability

Under strict liability, a party that was a link in the placement of the certain defective product into the stream of commerce may not ordinarily reduce its liability by asking that fault percentages be assigned to other links in the chain; all defendants share one single fault.  Learn More

Example Scenario 1: Beds-R-Us, a local Chula Vista furniture retailer sells a defective bunk bed to Maria, a single mother of 2 boys. One of her boys is injured when the ladder of the bunk bed splinters and severely cuts his leg and scars him permanently. The manufacturer is a Chinese company that will not allow itself to be served with the lawsuit. Under strict liability, Beds-R-Us may not point the blame to the Chinese manufacturer.

Strict Liability | Dog Bite

Under strict liability, a dog owner is liable for any injury their dog causes because of a bite irregardless of whether the dog was restrained, running loose, or if the dog had not exhibited any prior dangerous tendencies before the bite. Learn More

Example Scenario 2: Jessica invites her friend Molly and her toddler son over to her La Jolla house. Jessica keeps her small, cute Yorkie inside the house. Molly’s son begins to crawl all over the house while they are talking. The toddler finds the dog, pulls its fur and the dog bites his finger, nearly severing it. Jessica is strictly liable for the injuries her dog caused inside her home because of the bite.

Note: Strict liability is not imposed if the scope of an invitation into the dog owner’s home is exceeded (i.e. a burglar who gets bitten by a dog).

Strict Liability | Aviation Accidents on International Flights

Under strict liability, an airline may not reduce its liability for injury compensation that does not exceed $175,000.00 by pointing the finger at the acts of another passenger. Learn More

Example Scenario 3: Rosa is flying back to San Diego on an international flight. While disembarking, another passenger opens the overhead compartment hitting Rosa on the head when a heavy carry on falls out. Rosa is dazed and confused and suffers a concussion. She has horrendous residual affects which include headaches, nausea and irritability. She seeks $170,000 in damages. The airline is strictly liable and may not introduce evidence of the other passenger’s actions (negligent or not).

Ordaz Law, APC | Strict Liability

Juan J. Ordaz Jr. provides candid, hardworking and personal legal representation to individuals seeking a personal injury lawyer in San Diego County.  We help families suffering through unjust tragedies; we believe that it is necessary to represent people who have sustained ultimate losses.

Call (619) 550-3617 today so that we may schedule your free and discreet consultation with a premier San Diego personal injury lawyer.

We are for Justice no Matter Who it’s for or Against.

Learn More:

What is the Statute of Limitations for a Personal Injury Action?

What Should You Expect from Your Personal Injury Attorney?

What Should You Expect from Your Injury Lawsuit?

Will My Personal Injury Case Go To Trial or Be Settled?

Product Liability | Personal Injury

Dog Bite | Personal Injury

Aviation Accidents | International Flight

Blog: Personal Injury

Tumblr
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter 
Google+

Product Defect | Personal Injury

Product Defect | A manufacturer, distributor, or retailer is liable if a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way.  Soule v. GM Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 560 | #KnowYourInjuryRights | Ordaz Law, APC | (619) 550-3617.

  • Continue to read and learn more about product defect injury claims and lawsuits.

About Ordaz Law, APC – A San Diego Personal Injury Attorney, and his Distinguished Case Results.

We have recovered millions on behalf of accident injury victims.

product defect

Product Defect | Who is Liable?

Beyond manufacturers, anyone identifiable as ‘an integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise’ is subject to liability for a product defectArriaga v. Citi Capital Commercial Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1527, 1534.

Example Scenario 1:  Joe buys a glass table at Tables Unlimited in Santee, California.  The table was manufactured in China and distributed by ACME Tables out of Sacramento.  In a suit alleging a product defect in the glass table, a lawsuit would be filed by my office, in San Diego County, naming the Sacramento distributor and Santee retail shop as defendants.

Product Defect | Liability

Product defect liability generally falls into three categories: (1) manufacturing defects; (2) design defects, and; (3) failure to warn.

Product Defect | Manufacturing Defects

A product contains a manufacturing defect when it differs from the manufacturer’s intended result (or from other identical units of the same production line).  CACI 1202. Strict Liability—“Manufacturing Defect” Explained.  In other words, a manufacturing defect occurs when an item is manufactured in a substandard condition.  Gonzalez v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 780, 792Learn More

Product Defect | Design Defects

There are three theories of liability (1. Consumer Expectation Test; 2. Risk Benefit Analysis; and, 3. Failure to Warn) under which a manufacturer (distributor, retailer, etc.) may be held strictly liable for injuries (or death) caused by a design defect:

The rationale of the consumer expectations test is that the purposes, behaviors, and dangers of certain products are commonly understood by those who ordinarily use them.  Therefore, in some cases, ordinary knowledge of the product’s characteristics may permit an inference that the product did not perform as safely as it should.  Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1232.

Under the risk-benefit test, the plaintiff may establish the product is defective by showing that its design caused their injury and the defendant then fails to establish that on balance the benefits of the challenged design outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.  Saller at 1233.

Manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about the hazards inherent in their products.  The purpose of requiring adequate warnings is to inform consumers about a product’s hazards and faults of which they are unaware, so that the consumer may then either refrain from using the product altogether or avoid the danger by careful use.  Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, 577.

Product Defect | Strict Liability

A defendant is strictly liable when an article they place on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury.  The purpose of such liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.  Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 62–63.

product defect

Ordaz Law, APC | Product Defect

Juan J. Ordaz Jr. provides candid, hardworking and personal legal representation to individuals seeking a product defect lawyer in San Diego County.  We help victims suffering from a variety of injuries who have sustained their injuries through the use of different consumer products that have been placed into the “stream of commerce” by manufacturers, distributors and retailers.

We believe that it is a necessity to represent people who have sustained traumatic and debilitating injuries, and suffered ultimate losses.

Call (619) 550-3617 today so that we may schedule your free and discreet consultation with a premier San Diego product defect lawyer.

product defect

We are for Justice no Matter Who it’s for or Against.

Learn More:

What is the Statute of Limitations for a Personal Injury Action?

What Should You Expect from Your Personal Injury Attorney?

What Should You Expect from Your Injury Lawsuit?

Will My Personal Injury Case Go To Trial or Be Settled?

Product Liability | Personal Injury

Manufacturing Defect | Injuries

Design Defect | Consumer Expectation Test

Design Defect | Failure to Warn

Design Defect | Risk Benefit Test

Blog: Personal Injury

Strict Liability | Personal Injury

Tumblr
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter 
Google+

Lyft Car Accident | Personal Injury

Lyft car accident liability is generally based on a claim of negligence via vicarious liability. Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to others. Under the theory of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for an agent’s negligent acts that are committed within the scope of the agency.

  • Continue to read and learn about personal injury claims and lawsuits against Lyft.

About Ordaz Law, APC – A San Diego Personal Injury Attorney, and his Distinguished Case Results.

We have recovered millions on behalf of accident injury victims.

lyft | www.ordazlawapc.com

Lyft | Car Accident

A Lyft driver, just like any other driver out there, must use reasonable care in driving their vehicle. They must keep a lookout for pedestrians, obstacles, and other vehicles. They must also control the speed and movement of their vehicle. A failure to use reasonable care in driving a Lyft ride share car is negligence.

Example Scenario 1: Jacob is a Lyft driver. He picks up Kim in Banker’s Hill, on 6th and Laurel, for a Lyft fare. Kim is headed to SDSU to watch the Aztecs. While driving to the game, Jacob takes his eyes off the road to look at his phone’s GPS and slams into the back of a furniture delivery truck at 25-mph. Kim suffers severe whiplash and is knocked unconscious. She has a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and suffers from residual headaches.  She is unable return to work for 3-months and loses wages. Jacob is liable to Kim for failing to use reasonable care while driving his Lyft ride share car.

Lyft | Vicariously Liability

Lyft is responsible for the harm caused by the wrongful conduct of its drivers while acting within the scope of their employment, agency or authority). This is called vicarious liability. Vicarious liability flows from the responsibility that a business entity (such as Lyft) has for the acts of its employees under the principle of respondeat superior. Respondeat superior is based on a deeply rooted sentiment that it would be unjust for a business enterprise to disclaim responsibility for injuries occurring in the course of operating its business.

Example Scenario 1 (cont’d): Kim suffers $30,000 in medical bills, loses $7,000 in lost wages and is still receiving neurological, medical follow-up treatment for her TBI. She is seeking well over $100,000 for her injuries, medical bills and lost wages. Jacob has no car insurance because he let it lapsed.  This means that Jacob’s does not have personal car insurance from which Kim may recover. This is a prime example where an injury claim against Lyft would be made.

lyft | www.ordazlawapc.com

Ordaz Law, APC | Lyft

Juan J. Ordaz Jr. provides candid, hardworking and personal legal representation to individuals seeking a personal injury lawyer in San Diego County.  We help victims suffering from a variety of injuries, who have sustained their injuries through different types of injury producing events.  We believe that it is a necessity to represent people who have sustained traumatic and debilitating injuries, and suffered ultimate losses.

Call (619) 550-3617 today so that we may schedule your free and discreet consultation with a premier San Diego personal injury lawyer.

We are for Justice no Matter Who it’s for or Against.

Learn More:

What is the Statute of Limitations for a Personal Injury Action?

What Should You Expect from Your Personal Injury Attorney?

What Should You Expect from Your Injury Lawsuit?

Will My Personal Injury Case Go To Trial or Be Settled?

Blog: Personal Injury

Blog: Car Accidents

Ride Share Liability | Personal Injury

Uber Car Accident | Personal Injury

Tumbler
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter 
Google+

Uber Car Accident | Personal Injury

Uber car accident liability is generally based on a claim of negligence via vicarious liability. Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to others. Under the theory of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for an agent’s negligent acts that are committed within the scope of the agency.

  • Continue to read and learn about personal injury claims and lawsuits against Uber.

About Ordaz Law, APC – A San Diego Personal Injury Attorney, and his Distinguished Case Results.

We have recovered millions on behalf of accident injury victims.

uber | www.ordazlawapc.com

Uber | Car Accident

An Uber driver, just like any other driver, must use reasonable care in driving their vehicle. They must keep a lookout for pedestrians, obstacles, and other vehicles. They must also control the speed and movement of their vehicle. A failure to use reasonable care in driving an Uber ride share vehicle is negligence.

Example Scenario 1: Johnny is an Uber driver. He picks up Katie in Golden Hill, on 24th and Broadway, for an Uber fare. Katie is headed to Petco to watch the Padres. While driving to the game Johnny takes his eyes off the road to look at his phone’s GPS and slams into the back of a food delivery truck at 20-mph. Katie suffers severe whiplash and is knocked unconscious. She has a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and suffers from residual headaches.  She is unable return to work for 2-months and loses wages. Johnny is liable to Katie for failing to use reasonable care while driving his Uber car.

Uber | Vicariously Liability

Ride share (taxi) companies are responsible for the harm caused by the wrongful conduct of its drivers while acting within the scope of their employment (or authority). This is called vicarious liability. Vicarious liability flows from the responsibility that a business entity (such as Uber) has for the acts of its employees under the principle of respondeat superior. Respondeat superior is based on a deeply rooted sentiment that it would be unjust for a business enterprise to disclaim responsibility for injuries occurring in the course of its business.

Example Scenario 1 (cont’d): Katie suffers $35,000 in medical bills, loses $6,000 in lost wages and is still receiving neurological, medical follow-up treatment for her TBI. She is seeking well over $100,000 for her injuries, medical bills and lost wages. Johnny has only a limited $15,000 / $30,000 car insurance policy.  This means that the most Katie can recover from Johnny’s personal insurance is $15,000. This is a prime example where a claim against Uber would be made.

uber | www.ordazlawapc.com

Ordaz Law, APC | Uber

Juan J. Ordaz Jr. provides candid, hardworking and personal legal representation to individuals seeking a personal injury lawyer in San Diego County.  We help victims suffering from a variety of injuries, who have sustained their injuries through different types of injury producing events.  We believe that it is a necessity to represent people who have sustained traumatic and debilitating injuries, and suffered ultimate losses.

Call (619) 550-3617 today so that we may schedule your free and discreet consultation with a premier San Diego personal injury lawyer.

We are for Justice no Matter Who it’s for or Against.

Learn More:

What is the Statute of Limitations for a Personal Injury Action?

What Should You Expect from Your Personal Injury Attorney?

What Should You Expect from Your Injury Lawsuit?

Will My Personal Injury Case Go To Trial or Be Settled?

Blog: Personal Injury

Blog: Car Accidents

Ride Share Liability | Personal Injury

Lyft Car Accident | Personal Injury

Tumbler
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter 
Google+

Res Ipsa Loquitor | Personal Injury

 Res ipsa loquitor is a California evidentiary rule for determining whether circumstantial evidence of negligence is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove a defendant liable for their injuries.

  • Continue to read about the application of res ipsa loquitor in personal injury claims and lawsuits.

About Ordaz Law, APC – A San Diego Personal Injury Attorney, and his Distinguished Case Results.

We have recovered millions on behalf of accident injury victims.

res ipsa loquitor

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Under the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, in a personal injury lawsuit where an injury victim has suffered harm but there is no direct evidence of the defendant's negligent conduct (such as in an airplane crash) a defendant may be found negligent (liable) if:

  • The plaintiff's harm ordinarily would not have happened unless the defendant was negligent;
  • The harm to the plaintiff was caused by something that only the defendant controlled; and
  • That the plaintiff's voluntary actions did not cause or contribute to the negligent events that harmed them.

Res Ipsa Loquitor | Circumstantial Negligence

If a jury finds that the plaintiff proved all three elements of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, they may but are not required to find that the defendant was negligent or that the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm, or both.

Example Scenario 1: Julio books a private jet flight from San Diego to San Francisco, California. During the flight the plane experiences trouble and is forced to crash land over the Pacific Ocean. The plane explodes and Julio sustains fatal injuries. The jet is lost at sea along with the black box recorder. Airplane crashes are perfect examples where res ipsa loquitor is plead because of the unavailability or destruction of evidence.

Example Scenario 1 (cont'd):  The defendant private jet company contends that they were not negligent for the plane's crash or Julio's death. If after weighing all of the evidence, a jury believes that is its more probable than not that the defendant was negligent and that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing the Julio's death, then a jury must decide in favor of Julio's heirs.

Res Ipsa Loquitor | General Negligence

If a jury decides that an injury plaintiff did not prove one or more of the three elements of the res ipsa loquitor doctrine, they may still find the defendant negligent in light of other causes of action (likely on theories of liability based on negligence or negligence per se).

Res Ipsa Loquitor | Personal Injury Lawsuits

The res ipsa loquitor doctrine may be used in personal injury cases to prove that a defendant car owner or property owner are liable for injuries suffered on their property or by people driving their vehicle.

res ipsa loquitor

Ordaz Law, APC | Res Ipsa Loquitor

Juan J. Ordaz Jr. provides candid, hardworking and personal legal representation to individuals seeking a personal injury lawyer in San Diego County.  We help victims suffering from a variety of injuries, who have sustained their injuries through different types of injury producing events.  We believe that it is a necessity to represent people who have sustained traumatic and debilitating injuries, and suffered ultimate losses.

Call (619) 550-3617 today so that we may schedule your free and discreet consultation with a premier San Diego personal injury lawyer.

res ipsa loquitor

We are for Justice no Matter Who it’s for or Against.

Blog: Personal Injury

Tumbler
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter 
Google+

Negligence Per Se | Personal Injury

In a personal injury lawsuit, alleging that the defendant violated a law or statute raises the presumption that the defendant was negligent. This is called negligence per se.
  • Continue to read about the application of negligence per se in injury claims and lawsuits.

About Ordaz Law, APC – A San Diego Personal Injury Attorney, and his Distinguished Case Results.

We have recovered millions on behalf of accident injury victims.negligence per se

Negligence Per Se

In personal injury claims and lawsuits where the injuries suffered by the plaintiff are allege to have occurred in a negligence cause of action such as in a car accident, slip and fall, dog bite, aviation accident, wrongful death, etc., the defendant is presumed negligent if:
  • They violated the law (either a statute, ordinance, or regulation);
  • The violation caused the plaintiff's injuries or death;
  • The death or injury resulted from the kind of occurrence the law was designed to prevent; and
  • The plaintiff was one of the class of persons that the law was intended to protect.

Example Scenario 1: Jane sustained neck and low back injuries when she was rear-ended by Bill on the 5-freeway heading south near National City. At the time of the crash Bill was driving over the speed limit in violation of California Vehicle Code (VC) sec. 22350. Bill's violation of California's Basic Speed Law can be used against him to prove that he was acting below the reasonable standard of care while driving his vehicle.

Negligence Per Se | Standard of Care

The application of the doctrine of negligence per se by California courts means that in certain circumstances the courts have adopted the conduct prescribed by statute or regulation as the standard of care for a reasonable person in that situation.

Example Scenario 1 (cont'd): VC sec. 22350 states that no person shall drive a vehicle at a speed which endangers the safety of other drivers. Its application by the courts means that they have adopted this speed law as the standard of care for all drivers and thus, no driver may speed.

Negligence Per Se | Application of State and Federal Laws

State and Federal statutes and or regulations may be alleged to be the standard of care in any injury case, whether the case is brought in State or Federal Court.

Negligence Per Se | Liability

If a jury finds that a defendant violated a law (statute, code or regulation), and that, that violation was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's harm, then a jury must find that the defendant was negligent (unless they find that the violation was excused).

Example Scenario 2: Bill steals a red Honda Civic in National City. He is driving the stolen car to a chop shop in Clairemont Mesa. On the drive up the 163 freeway, Bill carelessly rear-ends Stephanie causing her whiplash and neck injuries.  He was not speeding at the time of the crash nor breaking any other laws (other than having stolen a car). Stephanie may allege that Bill's violation of the penal code amounts to negligence per se but it is unlikely that the presumption would be accepted by the jury. Bill did not crash into Stephanie because he stole a car. He rear-ended Stephanie because he was inattentive.

Negligence Per Se | Rebuttable Presumption

The violation of a law by a defendant may be excused by a jury if:
  • The violation was reasonable;
  • Despite using reasonable care, the defendant was unable to obey the law;
  • The defendant faced an emergency that was not caused by his own conduct;
  • Obeying the law would have involved a greater risk of harm to other; or
  • Any other reason excusing the non-compliance.

Example Scenario 3: Seth is speeding to get to the hospital because he badly inured his hand in a power saw accident. He was cutting some wood for a table he was making when he nearly severed his finger.  He is bleeding profusely while speeding to get to Sharp Hospital. On the way to the hospital, Seth runs a red light and crashes into Lety. Lety suffers injuries and sues Seth alleging negligence per se for the violations of the speed and stop light laws. It will be up to the jury to decide whether Seth's violations are excused and the plaintiff has to prove negligence through other theories of liability namely common law negligence.

Ordaz Law, APC | Negligence Per Se

Juan J. Ordaz Jr. provides candid, hardworking and personal legal representation to individuals seeking a personal injury lawyer in San Diego County.  We help victims suffering from a variety of injuries, who have sustained their injuries through different types of injury producing events.  We believe that it is a necessity to represent people who have sustained traumatic and debilitating injuries, and suffered ultimate losses.Call (619) 550-3617 today so that we may schedule your free and discreet consultation with a premier San Diego personal injury lawyer.

We are for Justice no Matter Who it’s for or Against.

Sources and Useful Links:

CACI 418. The Presumption of Negligence Per Se.

CACI 420. Negligence Per Se: Rebuttal Presumption of Negligence (Violation Excused).Tumbler Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter  Google+