Victim of Hit & Run?

Victim of Hit & Run? Even if you never find out who caused the accident, you may have a right to have your medical bills paid and also be compensated by your own insurance company. In order to protect that right, many insurance companies (maybe even your own) requires that you report the hit and run to the police within 24 hours and then contact your insurance company and report the accident within 30 days. Contact Campano Law Group, at acampano@campanolaw.com or call 661-945-5300 for more information.

Employment law update

Employment law update: california fair employment laws now protect unpaid interns and volunteers from harassment at work.

For more information, contact Attorney Angelo Campano at 661-945-5300 or email us at acampano@campanolaw.com.

Questions and answers about bike riding and car accidents in California:

Questions and answers about bike riding and car accidents in California:

Question: When I am riding a bicycle, and if hit by a car with no insurance, can my own car insurance help me? help pay my medical bills?

Answer: Yes, if you have under-insured (“UIM”) or uninsured motorist coverage (“UM”).
____________________________________
Another question: What if I miss time from work because I am hurt? Can my own car insurance company help me get back the money I missed from working?

Another Answer: Yes, if you have under-insured (“UIM”) or uninsured motorist coverage (“UM”).
____________________________________
Last question: Does this UIM / UM insurance help compensate me for my personal pain and suffering?

Last, but not least, answer: Yes, if you have this UIM / UM type of car insurance.

Putting up a sign that reserves the right to refuse service to anyone? Think twice.

A business putting up a sign that says the business can refuse service to anyone should think twice who that business means by “anyone”. California state law prohibits a business from refusing service to just anyone they choose. See Unruh Civil Rights Act.

What is the Unruh Civil Rights Act, you ask? It’s California Civil Code Section 51 that states: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Civil Code section 51(b).

But, what does that mean in plain English? Basically this law prevents people from being discriminated against in housing and public accommodations based on their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition. This law is also meant to cover arbitrary discrimination on the basis of characteristics of a person that appear to be one of the specified.

What’s considered a “public accommodation”? This includes but not limited to hotels/motels, non-profit organizations, restaurants, theaters, beauty shops, retail establishments. This is not an exhaustive list, so just because your business does not fall under these categories does not give your business the right to refuse service to anyone protected under this law.

Who can a business refuse service to, if anyone? Well, the right to refuse has to generally serve a legitimate business interest. Some examples are when a customer is not dressed properly; a customer is disruptive; a customer harasses customers or employees; or when there are legitimate safety concerns. Like the public accommodation list, this list is also not limited to what has been mentioned here.

Overall, it is clear that the law is meant to protect people based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition but the law does allow the business to protect itself based on the conduct of customers.

Car driver’s beware: California State law does not require bicycle riders to ride in the same direction as traffic.

          In the recent California Appellate Court case of Micheal Spriesterbach v. Janice Holland, the Appellate Court held that there is no California State law that requires people riding bicycles to ride in the same direction as traffic. But, if the county or city laws require it, then the bicycle rider has to ride in the same direction as traffic.

          So, whether or not a bicycle rider is at fault, if they are riding against traffic and get hurt, will depend on the county laws where the accident happened, and the city ordinances, if any, concerning bicycle riders. In one case our firm had that involved  a bicycle rider hit by a car, our investigation required us to go to city hall and pull out the zoning and any variances for that particular street where the accident happened because the county and city laws were not clear and the city was rezoning certain neighborhoods near where the accident happened.

Amusement parks rides aren’t so amusing anymore.

            When we go to an amusement park, we expect to have fun and not get hurt. But if you take a ride on a bumper car and if you get hurt, you may be assuming the risk of that injury, according to a recent California Supreme Court case.

            In the recent California Supreme Case of Smiriti  Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, LP, a person brok her wrist while riding on a bumper car at an amusement park. She sued the amusement park for various causes of action. The trial court ruled the amusement park was not liable. The Appellate Court reversed and found the amusement park was liable. The case went all the way to the California Supreme Court which ruled recently the amusement park was not liable for an injury while riding on a bumper car. After reviewing a long line of cases where a person was hurt while participating in some form of physical activity, the Supreme Court ruled that when riding a bumper car, the rider is assuming the risk of getting hurt.

           

            Assuming the risk is a defense to a lawsuit that is often used when a person is hurt in sport type related activities. For example, a batter getting hit by a baseball pitch is a risk that one assumes when playing the sport. Riding a bumper car, however, would not be considered to be a sport to many people. The California Supreme Court, however, referred to riding a bumper car as “active recreation”, which is an activity that one voluntarily participated in when hurt. Therefore, when the hurt person got into the bumper car and drove the bumper car around, that person was voluntarily assuming the risk of getting hurt.

            The California Supreme Court, did, however, consider situations where a person may not be assuming the risk of getting hurt on a bumper ride. One way to avoid such a defense to your case is to raise the “negligence per se” argument, which means that as a matter of law, someone was presumed negligent. See Evidence Code 669; See Cheong v. Antablin (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1063.  That argument prevents a defendant from using the assumption of risk defense to defeat your lawsuit. To make the negligence per se argument, you need find a safety regulation that the amusement park may have violated. In California, the safety regulations for amusement type rides can be found in Cal. Code. Regs. Title 8, §3900.

            Another way to avoid the assumption of risk defense is to argue that the amusement ride was a common carrier. The common carrier argument applies typically when you are paying for a ride. This argument is typically used when people are hurt in cabs, taxis, buses, etc., but California courts do recognize that amusement park rides can be common carriers. See

 Gomez v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 2 1125, 1241. This type of argument will boil down to the specific type of ride you were in when you were hurt. The less control you have over your amusement park ride, the more likely the amusement park ride would be a common carrier.

            In a case where I represented a person hurt on a bumper car ride we raised the common carrier argument. The insurance defense law firm tried to have my client’s case dismissed arguing that the amusement park had no control over the bumper car. The insurance company compared the bumper ride to someone renting a car; once a person got into the car, that person was on their own without any interference from the amusement park. I argued just the opposite; that the bumper car never leaves the track, it goes in one direction, the car is maintained (fixed, repaired, etc.) by the amusement park. Interestingly, when I personally investigated the amusement ride site, I saw there were buttons right by the attendant that he/she could push in a moment’s notice to stop the bumper cars in their tracks. That push of a button gave the amusement park even more control over the ride. The trial court agreed with my client, and the case was not dismissed.

With this recent California Supreme Court ruling, it would be more difficult, but not impossible, to hold an amusement park company liable for your injuries caused by the ride. One will need to know specifics of the type of ride; the control one had over that ride, and if there are any safety regulations that govern the ride. If you were hurt on an amusement park ride, it is suggested for you to consult with an attorney experienced in amusement park ride injuries to know and protect your rights.

Victims of employment harassment/discrimination are not alone. Recent “Me too” evidence case gives victims of harassment/discrimination a helping hand in employment cases. Pantoja v. Anton (August, 2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87.

             “Me too” evidence is a type of evidence used in employment cases. Typically, a victim of harassment/discrimination may come to learn that others have also been the victim of harassment/discrimination and will want to use that evidence to help them prove their case. That is where the phrase “me too” evidence comes into play. See Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 740. Having others who experienced harassment/discrimination at the same place of work can be very helpful to your case because as they say, “where there is smoke, there is fire.” But, like any evidence, there is always a question of whether it will be admitted into the court by the judge.

Defense lawyers, representing employers, do not like me too evidence, and they will do as much as possible to keep it out. Defense lawyers take the position that the victim of harassment/discrimination had to know that others were also experiencing harassment/discrimination at the time it was going on in order for me too evidence to be admitted into court. See Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590.

If a judge or jury hears that others at work experienced the same harassment/discrimination that you did, then that me too evidence will likely convince the judge/jury that you are not making up or exaggerating your claim. And, when it comes time for the judge/jury to decide if you are right or wrong, having another person also experiencing the same problems can make that crucial difference in your case.

                Generally, in order to have me too evidence admitted into evidence (allow the judge/jury to see/hear it), the victim needs to show that the victim knew that this other victim was or had experienced the same harassment/discrimination that you experienced. Sounds simple, but like many employment cases, victims do not always complain or voice their concerns out of fear of retaliation, losing their jobs in an already weak economy or just plain humiliation. Therefore, a lot of times, a victim of harassment/discrimination may never know of the other victims until well into after a lawsuit was filed, if at all. By then, courts may not admit that me too evidence because you did not know of the other victim while you yourself were going through the harassment/discrimination. Luckily, for employees, that no longer has to be the case.

                In Pantoja v. Anton (August, 2011) 198 Cal.App.4^th 87, the California Appellate Court ruled that a victim seeking to admit me too evidence did not need to know of the other victim’s harassment/discrimination in order to have me too evidence admitted into court. Instead, the Appellate Court ruled that a victim of harassment/discrimination can use recently discovered me too evidence to (1) impeach the defendant who denies ever committing harassment/discrimination before or (2) to show intent of the defendant to harass/discriminate against others in the same way.

Based on a reading of this ruling, the Appellate Court has provided victims of harassment more opportunities to prove they were a victim of harassment/discrimination. It no longer has to be a “he said, she said” type case. This ruling undoubtedly expands the rights of victims of harassment/discrimination in proving they were the unfortunate victims of harassment/discrimination.

Posted by: Attorney Angelo F. Campano at acampano@campanolaw.com; Tel: 661-945-5300.