Call 800.921.1776 to speak to an attorney. There is no obligation. No recovery, no charges.

Personal Injury Law Frequently Asked Questions - WHAT IS THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE IN CALIFORNIA?

By Richard Alexander

PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHEN IS A PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER?

A. A plaintiff who was injured as as result of some negligent conduct on the part of a defendant is entitled to recover compensation for such injury from that defendant.A plaintiff is entitled to a verdict if jury finds1. That a defendant was negligent, and2. That such negligence was a cause of injury to the plaintiff.

PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE?

Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use in order to avoid injury to themselves or others under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The person whose conduct we set up as a standard is not the extraordinarily cautious individual, nor the exceptionally skillful one, but a person of reasonable and ordinary prudence.One test that is helpful in determining whether or not a person was negligent is to ask and answer the question whether or not, if a person of ordinary prudence had been in the same situation and possessed of the same knowledge, he or she would have foreseen or anticipated that someone might have been injured by or as a result of his or her action or inaction. If the answer to that question is "yes", and if the action or inaction reasonably could have been avoided, then not to avoid it would be negligence.

PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. HOW CAUTIOUS MUST SOMEONE BE?

A. The amount of caution required of a person in the exercise of ordinary care depends upon the conditions that are apparent or that should be apparent to a reasonably prudent person under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.

PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. CAN I ASSUME OTHER PEOPLE WILL BE CAREFUL AND FOLLOW THE LAW?

A. Every person who, himself, is exercising ordinary care, has a right to assume that every other person will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of reasonable cause for thinking otherwise, it is not negligence for such a person to fail to anticipate an accident which can occur only as a result of a violation of law or duty by another person.

PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHAT ROLE DOES A LOCAL CUSTOM PLAY IN DETERMINING IF SOMEONE IS CAREFUL?

A. Evidence as to whether or not a person conformed to a custom that had grown up in a given locality or business is relevant and ought to be considered, but is not necessarily controlling on the question whether or not he exercised ordinary care.

PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. IS A CHILD HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD AS AN ADULT?

A. A minor is not held to the same standard of conduct as an adult. He/she is only required to exercise the degree of care which ordinarily is exercised by minors of like maturity, intelligence and capacity under similar circumstances. It is for the jury to determine whether the conduct of plaintiff was such as might reasonably have been expected of a minor of her maturity, intelligence and capacity, acting under similar circumstances.

PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A PERSON MUST WORK IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION?

A. When a person's lawful employment requires that he work in a dangerous location or a place that involves unusual possibilities of injury, or requires that in the line of his duty he/she take risks which ordinarily a reasonably prudent person would avoid, the necessities of such a situation, insofar as they limit the caution that he/she can take for his/her own safety, lessen the amount of caution required of him by law in the exercise of ordinary care.

PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. IF AN INJURED PERSON IS AT FAULT, CAN HE/SHE STILL COLLECT?

A. Contributory negligence is negligence on the part of a plaintiff which, combining with the negligence of a defendant, contributes as a cause in bringing about the injury.Contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the plaintiff does not bar a recovery by the plaintiff against the defendant but the total amount of damages to which the plaintiff would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the plaintiff.

PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHAT IS A LEGAL CAUSE?

A. The law defines cause in its own particular way. A cause of injury, damage, loss or harm is something that is a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, damage, loss or harm.

PERSONAL INJURY LAW
Q. WHAT IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE CAUSE OF AN INJURY?

A. There may be more than one cause of an injury. When the negligent conduct of two or more persons or negligent acts and a defective produce contributes concurrently as causes of an injury, the conduct of each is a cause of the injury regardless of the extent to which each contributes to the injury. A cause is concurrent if it was operative at the moment of injury and acted with another cause to produce the injury. It is not a defense that the wrongful act of a person not joined as a party was also a cause of the injury.

Richard Alexander is a specialist in personal injury litigation with 30 years in-depth experience. Emphasizing working relationships with clients has led to an exceptional record of success. He has served as a member of the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California, President of the Santa Clara County Bar Association and the Board of Governors of Consumer Attorneys of California. He is a founding member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, and heads Alexander Hawes, LLP.

Alexander Hawes, LLP is a California law firm that specializes in personal injury, wrongful death, and financial losses caused by negligence, defective products, toxic chemicals, corporate misconduct or insurance fraud on behalf of consumers, small investors, injured workers and small businesses. In addition to individual cases the firm prosecutes class actions for large groups of individuals who have suffered financial loss as a result of corporate fraud, defective consumer products, and environmental pollution. The firm holds Martindale-Hubbell's highest rating and is recognized in the List of Preeminent Law Firms in the U. S.

Here are just a few of our personal injury and wrongful death cases. Contact us for more information. Or see our complete list.

$4,000,000. Lead attorney for Donald Coca, a passenger in a car stopped for a Vehicle Code violation, whose face was destroyed by a shotgun which had been placed on his shoulder by a San Jose Police Officer who was riding along with the California Highway Patrol. Cash settlement of $4,000,000 believed to be the highest dollar award in the history of the California Highway Patrol and the City of San Jose.

$5,000,000. Toyota Camry rollover caused a C-7 quadriplegia. Defendant alleged plaintiff's comparative fault in failing to secure the manual lap belt in this 1989 seatbelt system which employed an automatic shoulder restraint. Lap belt use is low with this system because of a false sense of security created when the upper torso belt is in place, which is why the this type of seatbelt system is no longer used. Under Oregon law a finding of 51% comparative fault on the plaintiff is a complete defense and reduces any verdict to zero. Holden v. Holman Distribution, Multnomah County, Oregon.

$7,500,000. Represented five families in wrongful death actions against PG&E arising from a defectively designed scaffolding system in a 500' vertical shaft which failed at PG&E's Helm's Creek Hydroelectric Facility in Fresno resulting in structured settlements providing in excess of $25 million in benefits to the surviving families over their lifetimes.

$1,680,000 recovery for Dr. Paul Chin who was rear-ended in his 1969 BMW 1600 by a convicted felon who was intoxicated and traveling at 90 miles per hour. The BMW exploded into a fireball and caused third degree burns to 65% of Dr. Chin's body. Following the collision, the BMW wreckage mysteriously disappeared near the time BMW's investigators photographed the scene and the bullet vehicle. An identical vehicle was lost in a nearly identical case arising in New York which was defensed by BMW . Crash testing of two full size BMW's proved the fuel system failed at low speeds in rear end collisions. This settlement was the first known occasion of a settlement by BMW in a case alleging a design defect.

$1,000,000. Plaintiff, a 51 year old computer executive, suffered a skull fracture and brain injury when he fainted and fell to the deck of a WWII military cargo ship while it was in port preparing for a Saturday cruise. Passengers freely climbed onto hatch covers which were used for seating. This tragically serious injury case settled because even though there were no reports of previous injuries from similar falls, a sister ship berthed in Baltimore, Maryland did not allow passengers on its cargo hatches during cruises because of the risk of falls. Following surgery and two weeks of intensive care at San Francisco General, plaintiff received a month's rehabilitation at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and eventually returned to work with his former employer. San Francisco Superior Court number 301570.

Confidential. Ingvardsen v. Lucky Stores, Santa Clara County No. 705350. June Ingvardsen, a 56 year old, Los Altos mother of three boys and paralegal assistant of 18 years, consumed one bottle of the contaminated L-tryptophan, an essential amino acid and food supplement. She began experiencing symptoms and was diagnosed with EMS. EMS is a painful and progressive, multi-system disease which causes permanent scarring and fibrosis to nerve and muscle tissues, continuing inflammation, and provokes a permanent change in the body's immune system. Showa Denko was sued by Lucky Stores and joined as a cross-defendant. Showa Denko's plan to delay Ms. Ingvardsen's case by consolidating all California L-tryptophan cases in Los Angeles was successfully opposed and discovery was actively pursued to bring the case to trial. The case settled immediately prior to trial in a day long settlement conference before the Hon. David Leahy. Pursuant to the demand of Lucky Stores and Showa Denko K.K. the settlement sum is confidential and neither counsel or plaintiffs are allowed to comment on the adequacy of the recovery.

Another confidential recovery in Wyatt v. Longs Drugs for EMS injuries caused by L-tryptophan.

More >>