Recent Cases

Pasadena, California, Business Litigation Lawyer

Personal Injury/Premises Liability - Assumption of risk provision in health club member's agreement did not insulate club from liability for its own negligence.

An assumption of risk provision in a health club's agreement with its member, in which the member agreed to exculpate the club from injuries to the member caused by others and to indemnify the club for injuries to others caused by the member, did not explicitly exculpate the club from its own negligence so as to bar the member's negligence action against the club for personal injuries sustained when her foot became stuck to sticky substance on a treadmill. Zipusch v. LA Workout, Inc.

Insurance - Intentional act of self-defense could be an "accident," giving rise to insurer's duty to defend.

An insured garage manager's intentional act of hitting a customer in self- defense in an altercation with the customer on business premises could be considered an "accident" within the meaning of the insurance policy under governing case law, thereby triggering the liability insurer's duty to defend. Thus, summary judgment for the insurer was precluded in the insured's coverage action against the insurer that refused tender of defense of the customer's assault and battery claim. Jafari v. EMC Ins. Companies

Insurance - Insurance Company liable for bad faith for undervaluing home following fire.

Affirming a $1.6 million punitive damage award, a California appellate court has found that an insurer acted in bad faith when it undervalued damage to a home damaged by wildfire. The plaintiffs were able to show that Fidelity National Insurance Co. knowingly undervalued their home for a seven-month period and conducted an inadequate investigation, the court said. The verdict resulted in recovery of general damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees. Stone v. Fidelity National Ins. Co.

Personal Injury - Primary Assumption of Risk applies to Golf.

The primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to golf. Thus, golfers have a limited duty of care to other players, breached only if they intentionally injure them or engage in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport. Many factors will bear on whether a golfer's conduct was reasonable, negligent, or reckless, including the golfer's skill level, whether topographical undulations, trees, or other impediments obscure his view, what steps he took to determine whether anyone was within range, and the distance and angle between an injured coparticipant and the golfer. Shin v. Ahn

For more information regarding these cases or any other case of interest to you, please contact Leon A. Victor & Associates, PC. We offer free consultations.