How to comply with California's new paid sick leave.

Is there a way to comply with California’s new paid sick leave without violating this new law? Yes. (I probably would not ask the question if the answer was going to be no.)

One of the drawbacks (bad things for employers) with this new law is that the employer has to keep track of the hours worked by the employee and have the amount of accrued paid sick leave put on the paystub or some other writing to the employee. This can be too time consuming and confusing depending on a variety of things, such as the number of employees you have and when the employees started working for your company. For example, the more employees you have means more keeping track of hours worked and sick leave earned. And, when an employee started working for you affects the 90 day work requirement before paid sick leave can be earned.

The new law, however, does give an employer a chance to avoid these headaches in at least one way: by the employer offering paid sick leave (3 days or 24 hours) each year without the employee having to earn it every 30 hours as the new law requires. This way, the employer can be able to avoid having to keep track each pay period for sick leave earned and having to give the employee notice each pay period of how much paid sick leave has been earned because in theory in the employer has already complied with the new law and ensures its employees they have 3 days or 24 hours of paid sick leave available to them.

If you, as the employer, would like more information or assistance with putting together a policy to suit this new law, contact Attorney Angelo Campano at Campano Law Group at 661-945-5300 or by email: acampano@campanolaw.com.

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.