Call Or Email For a
Free Consultation
(800) 994-4442 • (818) 986-2407
No Recovery, No Fee
in contingency cases
Free Consultation
(800) 994-4442 • (818) 986-2407
No Recovery, No Fee
in contingency cases
April is National Distracted Driving Awareness Month. This month is dedicated to raise awareness of the dangers associated with distracted driving and to encourage drivers to not talk on cell phones or text while driving. Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shows the proportion of fatalities reportedly associated with driver distraction increased from 10 percent in 2005…read more →
March isn’t all about college basketball. In fact, March is also Brain Injury Awareness Month. With approximately 1.7 million traumatic brain injuries occurring in the United States each year, access to medical treatment and disease management is critical. Millions of families live with the challenges that come along with brain injuries, and March is about recognizing and honoring their successes…read more →
After filing a claim with your insurance agency after an accident, you will typically be contacted by a claims adjuster to discuss details on your insurance policy and accident claim. The adjuster assesses your plan’s deductibles, coverage, and other details along with details from the crash and repair expenses to determine your compensation. Adjuster’s often attempt to minimize the amount…read more →
Taking the appropriate actions to collect evidence in the event of an accident can add significant value to your legal case Once those in the accident are safe and any other dangers around the scene are extinguished, start collecting as much evidence as possible. While evidence collection is typically the last thing on your mind in the event of an…read more →
On April 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). Concepcion held, 5-4, that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts California’s “Discover Bank rule,” which, according to the Court, would invalidate a class action ban in an arbitration clause whenever the term is imposed in a consumer contract of adhesion; the plaintiffs’ claims involve predictably…read more →
CACI 3710. Ratification [Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] is responsible for the harm caused by [name of agent]’s conduct because [he/ she/it] approved that conduct after it occurred. If you find that [name of agent] harmed [name of plaintiff], you must decide whether [name of defendant] approved that conduct. To establish [his/her] claim, [name of plaintiff] must…read more →
A failure to warn or repair the condition constitutes negligence. Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal 2d 108, Fitch v. Le Beau (1969) 1 Cal App 3d 320. The landowner has an affirmative duty to use ordinary care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition and is liable for injuries caused by uncorrected condition that would have been…read more →
For many years California has recognized and encouraged the doctrine of joint and several liability. American Motorcycle Assoc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 578 (1978) reaffirmed the commitment to this basic principle: “First, we conclude that our adoption of comparative negligence to ameliorate the inequitable consequences of the contributory negligence rule does not warrant the abolition or contraction of…read more →
“The rule of respondeat superior is familiar and simply stated: an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed within the scope of the employment. Equally well established, if somewhat surprising on first encounter, is the principle that an employee’s willful, malicious and even criminal torts may fall within the scope of his or her employment for…read more →
“Agency and independent contractorship are not necessarily mutually exclusive legal categories as independent contractor and servant or employee are. . . . One who contracts to act on behalf of another and subject to the other’s control, except with respect to his physical conduct, is both an agent and an independent contractor.” [emphais added] (City of Los Angeles v. Meyers…read more →
For over 33 years, Frederick S. Schwartz has used his knowledge and experience as a former insurance company attorney to the advantage of his clients in getting them the outcome they deserve. View Full Profile
