Month: February 2017

With summer still going strong, Californians in the Bay Area are enjoying the many traditions associated with the season. That includes going to Disneyland, Six Flags and many other amusement parks across the state.

As recent history shows, improbable personal injuries can occur at amusement parks (like the measles outbreak at Disneyland earlier this year). But what about accidents and injuries related to dangerous/defective rides? Sadly, such incidents are not as rare or improbable as we would like to believe.

According to news sources, an accident at an amusement park in Kentucky injured at least 12 people late last month, including children. A children’s swing ride called the “Jitterbug” reportedly tipped over onto its side while in use.

About a dozen of the injured riders were treated at a local hospital. Thankfully, it seems as though most injuries were non-serious. This could have been due to the small size of the ride, however.

According to a park official, the Jitterbug has enjoyed a 15-year accident-free history and was inspected annually. It is still unclear what caused the ride to tip over.

In the grand scheme of things, this amusement park accident was minor and relatively inconsequential. That’s not to say that it was no big deal. Instead, it is a reminder that amusement park accidents can be – and often are – much more serious. Some are even fatal.

If you or a loved one has been seriously injured by a defective amusement park ride or some other unsafe condition on private property, you may be entitled to compensation in a premises liability lawsuit. If you want to better understand your rights and options, please share your story with an experienced Oakland personal injury attorney.

In the world of restaurant dining, one type of experience is theatrical as well as delicious. Japanese restaurants featuring hibachi grills (also called teppanyaki grills) are very popular in large cities across California and throughout the United States. The trained chefs manning the grills often perform tricks, including interesting stacking of food ingredients and flipping pieces of food toward the guests seated around each station.

But even though hibachi restaurants often serve delicious food along with fun, having open grills near dining patrons can be dangerous. Recently, the best-known hibachi restaurant chain, Benihana, was sued by actress Tori Spelling, who was burned earlier this year on a trip to the Encino location.

According to news sources, Spelling and her family were dining at a Benihana on Easter weekend. When getting up to leave, Spelling reportedly slipped and fell onto one of the grills. In doing so, she suffered “deep second- and third-degree burn injuries requiring hospitalization and surgery.”

Other news reports say that her injuries were severe enough to require skin grafts and that she now has a “large red scar.”

In her premises liability and negligence lawsuit, Tori Spelling is seeking more than $25,000 in compensatory damages. With burns so severe, her medical bills could have easily totaled more than that amount. It will be interesting to see if the case goes to trial, and whether it result in safety features being added around hibachi grills in restaurants.

premises liability cases can be tricky, but it seems safe to assume that Ms. Spelling is not the only person who has suffered burn injuries in a hibachi restaurant. If this type of injury is fairly commonplace, hopefully this high-profile lawsuit will lead to reasonable safety upgrades.

If there is one rule to live by with premises liability, it is the notion that if you enter someone else’s property, you have a reasonable expectation to safety. Now, there are circumstances where this doesn’t hold up, and thus it isn’t exactly a “rule.” For example, if you are trespassing on someone’s else’s property, then you don’t have the expectation to safety.

Still, this is an important notion, and lingers over all premises liability cases. If the property owner or person responsible for a premises did not do everything in his or her power to foster a safe environment, and if they failed to address issues in a timely and proper manner, then they can be held liable for any injuries or accidents that involve that issue.

The status of the victim is important, though. As we mentioned, a trespasser essentially waives his or her right to an expectation of safety on a premises. But two other types of people — the “invitee” and the “licensee” — do have this reasonable expectation to safety. These are people who are on the premises by consent of the owner or because they invited onto the property by a person or organization (i.e. a business).

Even when you have this expectation of safety, though, you actions matter. If you were acting in a reckless or irresponsible manner near the dangerous condition on the premises — or even if you were acting that way in the absence of any dangerous condition — then you may not have a case.

Source: FindLaw, “Premises Liability: Who Is Responsible?,” Accessed Sept. 29, 2015

As you might imagine, there are many liability issues with owning a bar. People often make bad decisions while intoxicated, which can lead to destruction of property or assault by customers. The loud atmosphere and poor lighting in many bars can also increase the risk of personal injury.

Moreover, bars have to be careful not to over-serve obviously intoxicated patrons. If they do, they could be held liable for what happens to those patrons (and others) when they leave the bar. And as one recent news story shows, even the decorative garnishes in some drinks can be a serious health hazard.

In 2012, a woman was celebrating her 18th birthday at a bar in Great Britain (where the drinking age is lower than in the United States). Because it was her birthday, the bartender gave her a free drink, which appeared to be giving off steam or smoke because it contained liquid nitrogen. This cocktail trick isn't new, but it does require some extra precautions.

Liquid nitrogen evaporates pretty quickly, and customers are typically warned to avoid drinking their cocktail until it does. But in this case, the bartender allegedly told the young woman to "drink it while it's still smoking." She followed those directions, and could tell immediately that something was wrong.

The woman said she felt an "explosion" in her stomach, followed by extreme pain. After being rushed to the hospital, she underwent emergency surgery to remove her stomach. She still suffers from chronic pain three years later.

Several small events and interactions that night could have gone slightly differently, ultimately changing the outcome. But perhaps the most glaring act of negligence was for the bar to include a cocktail ingredient which employees did not know how to use safely. Recently, the bar was fined the equivalent of about $156,000 after pleading guilty to a criminal charge related to the incident.

It is unclear if a separate civil lawsuit has been filed, will be filed or has already been settled. But after negligence on this scale, such a lawsuit would certainly seem appropriate.

Over the past decade or so, new businesses and new business models have allowed average people to put their property to work. These include ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft as well as temporary lodging services like Airbnb.

There is little debate about the fact that the "sharing economy" is a popular concept. It may even be here to stay. Unfortunately, however, these new business models raise difficult questions about who is ultimately liable when accidental injuries and deaths occur.

A recent article in the New York Times talks about an incident that occurred on Thanksgiving in 2014. While renting a Texas cottage with his family, a man decided to try a rope swing on the property – one that he had seen in a listing for the property on Airbnb. When he tried the swing, the tree broke and a large portion of it landed on the man's head. He later died.

In this particular case, the cottage owner had an insurance policy that covered commercial activity (renting out the property). But many homeowners have insurance policies stating clearly that commercial activity is not covered. The same is true for personal auto insurance policies, which many Uber and Lyft drivers may not realize.

Both Airbnb and Uber offer free insurance coverage for hosts/drivers that supposedly supplement their own coverage. But Airbnb's policy has a $10 million annual cap, which is miniscule in relation to the potential liability associated with the half-a-million rentals that occur each day. As for Uber, the company has tried to deny liability in the aftermath of at least one fatal accident here in California.

Traditional taxi services and hotels often charge more money than their equivalents in the sharing economy. But those costs are higher, in part, because the companies are usually compliant with all applicable safety laws and have insurance policies that will cover most any injury or death claim.

To be sure, this doesn't necessarily mean that the sharing economy is untenable. But questions of safety, liability and insurance coverage loom large. Until those questions are answered and concerns are addressed, users of these services need to know that they may not be getting such a great deal after all.