Tag Archives: plaintiff’s lawyer
The Effect of Illegal Activities on Negligence Liability
IN SOME CASES, ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES MAY CONSTITUTE “NEGLIGENCE PER SE” When a defendant’s actions violate an applicable ordinance, law, or regulation, and the violation results in harm or damage to persons or property, the violation may constitute “negligence per se.” Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that creates a presumption of negligence–though the doctrine… Read More »
When is an Injury “Foreseeable”?
FORESEEABILITY IS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING A DEFENDANT’S DUTY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES When evaluating whether or not a defendant owed a duty of care to an injured plainitff, courts will often evaluate the foreseeability of the harm or injury. Where the plaintiff suffers only economic harm, foreseeability generally plays a lesser role than it does in… Read More »
Property Owners’ Legal Liability For Negligent Hiring Decisions
PROPERTY OWNERS MAY BE LIABLE FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM IMPROPER HIRING DECISIONS. People who own, manage, or control property in California may be legally liable for injuries resulting from the actions of negligently-selected, trained, or supervised employees. Land owners–and remember, that term includes not only actual “owners” but people who manage and control land, too–have… Read More »
When is a Lawyer Liable for Breach of Fiduciary Duty to a Client?
IS BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY THE SAME AS LEGAL MALPRACTICE? Breach of fiduciary duty is not the same as legal malpractice or professional negligence. While both are legally recognized wrongs that fall within the scope of tort law, breach of fiduciary duty is a separate tort, with separate remedies, than those available for professional negligence. WHAT… Read More »
Why is Malicious Prosecution a “Disfavored” Claim?
WHAT IS A “DISFAVORED CLAIM”? “Disfavored claim” or “disfavored cause of action” is a legal term most commonly used to describe or refer to claims which might have a “chilling effect” on an ordinary person’s willingness or ability to bring a lawsuit against another person. For example: the threat of being sued for malicious… Read More »
The Importance of “Causation” in Products Liability Cases
THE PLAINTIFF HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING CAUSATION Generally speaking, the plaintiff in a product liability/strict liability action must prove that a defect in the defendant’s product caused the injury. The plaintiff does not have to prove that the defendant was negligent (unless, of course, negligence is also being pled). THE PRODUCT’S DEFECT MUST BE… Read More »
“Secondary Assumption of Risk” in Comparative Negligence
WHAT IS SECONDARY ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK? “Secondary assumption of the risk” is a legal doctrine which applies when a defendant’s actions violate a duty of care to the injured plaintiff, but the plaintiff knowingly proceeds with an activity despite an awareness of the inherent (or increased) risk. In California, secondary assumption of the risk… Read More »
