Tag Archives: plaintiffs
Who Is Legally Liable For Dangerous Conditions on Property?
PREMISES LIABILITY LAW DOES NOT APPLY ONLY TO OWNERS OF PROPERTY. Premises liability law creates duties, rights, and remedies relating to real property and improvements on real property, like buildings, recreational equipment (e.g., swimming pools), and certain kinds of landscaping. The potential liability associated with premises liability applies to any person (including corporations and other legal… Read More »
“Assumption of the Risk” in Recreational Activities
PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE IN RISKY RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES MAY “ACCEPT THE RISK” OF CERTAIN INJURIES “Assumption of the risk” is a legal doctrine that, in proper circumstances, negates a defendant’s duty of care to an injured plaintiff. In practical terms, this means the defendant generally will not be held legally liable (on a standard negligence… Read More »
Why Are Legal Malpractice Cases Difficult?
Many times, non-lawyers believe that any mistake a lawyer makes is grounds for a legal malpractice claim, or that legal malpractice lawsuits should be “easy” to prove. However, in most cases, legal malpractice actions are difficult, costly, and time-consuming, for several important reasons: Not every legal loss results from malpractice. Distinguishing actionable malpractice (professional… Read More »
Malpractice Liability to Non-Clients in Situations Involving Foreseeable Harm
Although as a general rule attorneys have no legally recognized duty (and thus, have no liability for malpractice) to non-client plaintiffs, California law does recognize an exception where the foreseeability of harm to a non-client outweighs “other policy considerations”–including the rule that attorneys should not be liable for malpractice in the absence of an attorney-client relationship. Whether or… Read More »
Who Can Be Sued For Malicious Prosecution?
The law says that liability ultimately lies with those “responsible” for engaging in malicious prosecution. However, liability does not necessarily attach to everyone involved in the relevant legal action or proceeding. PARTIES TO LEGAL ACTIONS MAY BE HELD LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. Individuals (or entities) that unsuccessfully prosecute a legal action or engage in legal processes under inappropriate circumstances… Read More »
Proceedings That Do Not Support Malicious Prosecution Claims
NOT ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS SUPPORT MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS Although many legal proceedings, civil and criminal, can support a claim for malicious prosecution when the elements of the claim are present, there are some types of proceedings which cannot form the basis of a malicious prosecution action. For various reasons, the law and California courts have placed… Read More »
What Kinds of Cases Can Support A Claim For Malicious Prosecution?
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN ALL LEGAL CASES People are often confused by the difference between “malice,” as used in a layperson’s context, and malicious prosecution, which is a legal cause of action (a claim that can be brought before a court in proper circumstances). While people may act “maliciously” in a… Read More »
Proving Fault in Suits For Injuries on Public Lands
PLAINTIFFS MUST PROVE THAT PUBLIC ENTITY DEFENDANTS WERE AT FAULT FOR INJURIES OCCURRING ON PUBLIC LANDS. A mandatory element of an injured plaintiff’s claims against a government defendant for injuries occurring on public lands is the defendant’s “fault.” Plaintiffs can prove fault by proving either: (a) the public entity created the dangerous condition; or (b)… Read More »
Understanding Damages in Legal Malpratice Cases (Part 1)
DAMAGES ARE A MANDATORY ELEMENT OF A PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE. If the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that (s)he has actually suffered damage (as a result of the attorney’s breach of a legally recognized duty), the plaintiff cannot prevail, even if the attorney did actually breach a legally recognized duty to the plaintiff. This is true… Read More »
Evaluating “Probable Cause” in Malicious Prosecution Cases
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION REQUIRES FILING A LAWSUIT WHICH LACKS “PROBABLE CAUSE.” The “probable cause” required to support a lawsuit, and avoid a claim of malicious prosecution, is measured under an objective standard. The California Supreme Court established an objective test for frivolous lawsuits, which also applies to probable cause for purposes of malicious prosecution. The… Read More »
