Understanding the Michael Jackson Wrongful Death Verdict

As reported by many media outlets yesterday afternoon, the civil jury in the Michael Jackson wrongful death action has found in favor of the Defendant, AEG Live, and against the Jackson family.  According to a CNN News report, the jury decided the first two questions on the verdict form, but were not required to answer the rest because they found Dr. Conrad Murray (already convicted of involuntary manslaughter in relation to Michael Jackson's death) was not "unfit" or "incompetent" to perform the work for which he was hired by AEG.

Legal Issues Surrounding The Jury Verdict Form

Under the law in California, an employer is generally liable for the negligence of their employee so long as the employee committed the acts in question while acting in the course and scope of their employment.  Here, it would seem if the jury decided AEG Live hired Dr. Murray (which they did in response to the first question on the verdict form) then AEG would automatically be liable for misconduct of Dr. Murray and the death of Michael Jackson.  However, it is conceivable the court ruled in a pre-verdict motion that Dr. Murray's criminal negligence was not something he did within the course and scope of his employment with AEG.  If that were the case, then the Jackson family would have to prove AEG Live was independently negligent in the manner in which they hired, retained and/or supervised Dr. Murray.

Assuming the Jackson family and their lawyers were obligated to prove AEG was negligent (separate and apart from Dr. Murray's neglect), it seems the second question on the verdict form ("Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?") would be insufficient to cover all theories of the Plaintiffs' case.  For example, if there was any reason for AEG to know Dr. Murray was prescribing large quantities of propofol (the drug involved in Michael Jackson's fatal overdose), then they could be  held liable for continuing to employ the doctor, thereby causing or contributing to the death.  This negligent retention/supervision theory does not appear to have been considered by the jury, and this may be grounds for an appeal.  It is important to note that at least one juror described that second question on the verdict form as "confusing".

If you or a loved one has been the victim of medical malpractice, contacting a malpractice attorney may be the most important step to determining whether yours is a valid claim.

SOURCE:  AEG not liable in Michael Jackson's death, jury finds, CNN, October 2, 2013, by Alan Duke

Pedestrian Killed While on Tustin in Orange

A pedestrian crossing Tustin Street in Orange was hit and killed Saturday night just before 11:00 p.m.  According to KABC News, the collision happened when the driver of a Subaru traveling northbound on Tustin stuck the 40-year-old man who was crossing outside of the marked crosswalk.  The accident happened near the Tustin and Mayfair Avenue intersection, and preliminary reports indicate that the driver was not impaired.  The driver of the vehicle is cooperating with the police department's investigation.

Scene and Reconstruction of the Accident

The area of northbound Tustin Street where the accident occurred is in a commercial area, and the roadway is flat and straight.  Street lights line Tustin, and it would be expected that lighting from local businesses might also illuminate at least part of the roadway.  The speed of the vehicle involved in the accident above will determine just how much time the driver might have had to see, perceive and react to the pedestrian in the roadway.  At slower speeds there would be more of an opportunity (depending on lighting conditions and the use of headlights) for the driver to take evasive action, in order to avoid the accident.  Other factors relevant to the reconstruction of the accident would include the color of clothing worn by the pedestrian, where in the roadway the impact occurred, and whether the pedestrian was running or walking just before the collision.

Crosswalk Safety

Anytime an auto versus pedestrian accident occurs outside of a marked crosswalk there will be some consideration given to whether the pedestrian was at least partially to blame.  Most people think only of marked crosswalks when considering whether a pedestrian has the right-of-way.  However, this is not actually the whole picture as California law allows a pedestrian to cross a roadway at unmarked crosswalks as well. Unmarked crosswalks are formed at most intersecting streets, and they generally follow the imaginary lines that would constitute a marked crosswalk, if the lines were actually painted.  Logically, however, the safest place to cross any street is at a marked crosswalk if one is available.  Drivers are alerted to the potential presence of pedestrians by those white lines painted on the asphalt.

If you or a loved one has been involved in a pedestrian accident, contacting an auto accident attorney in Orange County is perhaps the most important step to take in order to find out about your right to compensation for the injuries and damages suffered.

SOURCE:  Man struck, killed while crossing the street in Orange, KABC News, Orange County News, September 29, 2013

Crash Into Freeway Underpass Kills Five in Burbank

Early this morning a single vehicle crash in Burbank resulted in the tragic deaths of five people. According to KTLA News, the accident happened at about 4:15 a.m. near the southbound 5 Freeway and N. San Fernando Boulevard.  The vehicle apparently crashed into a bridge underpass and burst into flames.  A female passenger, 18-years-old, was ejected from the vehicle during the accident, and she suffered a broken leg as well as other injuries but is expected to survive.  According to authorities, speed was a factor in the collision, but the precise cause is still under investigation by both the CHP and the Burbank Police Department.  

Scene of the Accident and Its Cause

The area of the accident on San Fernando Blvd. travels through a freeway underpass that is in the middle of a curve in the road, with a slight decline.  It may be a little confusing for drivers traveling southbound in the number two lane (closest to the curb) as that lane is especially wide but then narrows suddenly, right before the underpass.  A driver could be caught unawares, especially if traveling at a high rate of speed, and might have a hard time moving from the right hand portion of the lane toward the center.  A driver could have a hard time maneuvering their vehicle in time to avoid the guardrail and then the concrete wall, if not paying careful attention.  Perhaps adding to this potential problem is that fact this accident happened while it was still dark outside.

Undoubtedly, given the horrific nature of this crash, the CHP and Burbank Police Department will conduct a thorough reconstruction of the accident in oder to determine its precise cause.  Given the age of the ejected passenger, it would not be surprising to find the driver of the vehicle involved in this crash was under 20 years of age.  Statistically, drivers in this age group are more likely to be involved in an injury accident, and automobile accident are actually the number one cause of death for teens, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

If you or a loved one has been involved in a motor vehicle accident, a consultation with an auto accident attorney may be the best way to find out about your rights and whether you may be entitled to compensation for the injuries and damages sustained.

SOURCE:  5 Killed; 1 Injured in Fiery Crash Near 5 Freeway in Burbank, KTAL News, September 28, 2013, by Ann Pride

Inland Empire Third-Party Civil Claims Make the News

Two third-party criminal assault claims have made the news recently.  In each case, the injured party or their family is seeking compensation in a civil court after a crime was committed against them or their family member by an unknown third party.  According to the Press Enterprise, the mother of a 14-year-old boy killed in a drive-by shooting is seeking compensation from the City of Riverside for failing to warn of or prevent the shooting and/or prosecute the criminals.  In the second case, a family is suing an Inland Empire school district for failing to prevent a violent assault against them that took place after a high school football game.

The Law In California - The Post-Game Assault

In the case of a property owner or someone in control of certain property, there is a legal duty to protect people on the property from a violent attack when the owner/occupier knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur.  In the case of the post-game fight referenced above, the school district would only be liable if they knew or had reason to know the attack was likely to occur.  For example, if the district knew that after these two schools had played in the past there had been multiple fights, then there may well have been a duty to provide more security than was present at the time of the assault on the family.  It must also be shown, however, that the additional security likely would have prevented the attack from occurring in the first place.  Generally, in order to successfully pursue such a claim an expert would have to be hired to testify about the need for security and the likelihood or preventing the assault.

The Law in California - Obligations of the Police

Under the law in California, the general rule is that although the government may assume responsibility for providing adequate police protection against third party violence, this does not create a legal duty that normally will give rise to civil liability.  In other words, public entities (such as police departments) generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime.  In most instances, these general rules prevent the victims of violent crimes and their families  from recovering compensation based on a claim that their injuries and losses could have been prevented by timely assistance from a law enforcement officer.  In the case above, it seems doubtful any one of the exceptions to these general rules would apply.  If that proves to be true, the only civil recourse the family would have then would be directly against the perpetrator(s) of the drive by shooting.

In both of the cases above, what appears to be missing from these cases is some action or inaction by security or the police that created a "special relationship" with the victim(s) and therefore a duty to take action.  Liability may be imposed if a security or police officer voluntarily assumes a duty to provide a particular level of protection, and then fails to do so, or if an officer undertakes affirmative acts that increase the risk of harm to the plaintiff.  For example, if a security officer had agreed to escort the family in the post-game fight to their car and was then careless in the manner in which he did it, liability could be imposed and damages awarded.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of a third-party criminal assault, a free consultation with an experienced injury attorney may be the most important step to take in terms of understanding your right to compensation.

SOURCE:  RIVERSIDE: Mother of slain teen seeks $7 million from city (12:30 P.M. UPDATE), the Press Enterprise, September 26, 2013, by Brian Rokos
SOURCE:  MENIFEE: Post-game fight prompts lawsuit, the Press Enterprise, September 25, 2013, by Sarah Burge

Toddler Killed by Pit Bulls in Colton - Two Arrested

Monday afternoon a two-year-old boy was killed by as many as five pit bulls in a Colton backyard.  According to KTLA news, police were called to the home of the boy's uncle in the 700 block of West Citrus Avenue after receiving a report that someone had been killed by dogs.  Police arrived to find the victim, Samuel "Eli" Zamudio, with extensive injuries to his upper body, clinging to life.  The boy was rushed to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center where he succumbed to his injuries.  Two of the child's relatives, Eusulia Zamudio, 42, and Marco Zamudio, 23, were booked on charges of child endangerment leading to death, police said. The toddler had apparently climbed out a window and into the backyard where the tragic attack occurred.  The police investigation has begun, and anyone with information should call Detective S. McFarland at (909) 370-5000.

The Owner's Responsibility

There is nothing more sickening and senseless than the accidental death of a child, a tragic loss that could have been prevented.  The owners of these vicious dogs and those responsible for the welfare of this toddler may very well find themselves in serious trouble with the law.  It seems likely these dogs were either trained to be aggressive or were not trained at all to be around small children.  Either way, when you choose to have such potentially dangerous animals on your property, your duty of care is heightened.  An owner or anyone else in control of vicious animals has an obligation to use the utmost care to prevent "great bodily harm or death" to a child.  Not only can an owner be held civilly liable, but they can also be found guilty of a felony for child endangerment.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of a vicious dog attack, contacting a dog bite lawyer might be the most important step toward to obtaining compensation for the injuries and damages sustained.

SOURCE:  Boy, 2, Fatally Mauled by Pit Bulls in Colton; 2 Arrested, KTLA News, September 24, 2013, by John A. Moreno

Tragic Accident in Temecula Takes the Life of 7-Year-Old

A second-grader was killed on Tuesday in Temecula as he was crossing the street to reach an ice cream truck.  According to KABC News, the 7-year-old boy, Diyarbek Uzakbaev, was crossing the 29000 block of Pujol Road when he was struck.  The driver of vehicle, 25-year-old Bradley Megginson, was arrested on suspicious of gross vehicular manslaughter, and investigators suspect alcohol was a factor.  Megginson was booked into the Southwest Detention Center in French Valley, and his bail has been set at $75,000.  A fund has been setup to help Uzakbaev's family with burial costs, and donors can make deposits at any Wells Fargo Bank branch.  For cash donations, use account No. 3451570190, and for checks, deposit to account No. 6451481763 under the name Nuratdin Amankulov.

Scene of the Accident

The stretch of roadway where the accident occurred is in a residential and fairly rural area.  Any driver traveling through the area should reasonably expect children playing along the side and perhaps even in the road.  The posted speed limit in on Pujol Road is 30 miles per hour which is slow enough to give a driver a sufficient opportunity to see and potential danger and react in time to avoid an accident.  Assuming that Megginson was indeed impaired, that could explain a slower perception and reaction time.  In such a tragic accident, especially where a criminal prosecution is contemplated, you would expect a full accident reconstruction, which might include the opinion of experts relative to driving while impaired and engineering/accident reconstruction.  

Wrongful Death Claims

Under California law, the parents of a child killed in an accident caused by someone else's negligence have the right to bring a wrongful death claim against the negligent party.  The damages recoverable can never adequately compensate a parent for the loss of their child, but they are the only thing our civil justice system can provide.  Generally, the measure of damages is based on the loss of the child's love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support.  Additionally, economic losses to the parents such as funeral and burial expenses incurred, as well as financial support the child would have provided to the family, can be recovered.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in a DUI accident, contacting an experienced injury attorney can be the most important step taken toward obtaining civil justice for you and your family.

SOURCE:  7-year-old boy struck, killed in Temecula heading to ice cream truck, KABC News, September 18, 2013, Inland Empire News

Westminster Crash Leaves One Dead and One Hospitalized

An early morning accident in Orange County has left one driver dead and the other under investigation for DUI.  According to KTLA News, the accident happened this morning at about 1:10 a.m. at the corner of Brookhurst Street and McFadden Avenue in the City of Westminster.  A white pickup truck collided with a red Honda Civic, and it was the driver of the truck who was later described by police as smelling of alcohol.  Both drivers were alone in their vehicles at the time of the collision.  After the driver of the Honda was finally extricated from his vehicle by emergency crew workers, he was transported to the hospital where he ultimately died of his injuries.  The driver of the truck remains hospitalized in unknown condition.

Scene of the Accident

The intersection where the collision occurred is controlled by traffic signals, and it appears to be relatively flat and straight.  While the speed and direction of the two vehicles is currently unknown, there would appear to be at least some indication this accident may have been caused by an impaired driver.  Like so many DUI-related accidents, this tragic collision occurred in the early morning hours when the risk of being involved in a DUI accident is at its highest.  According to the news story above, there were no witnesses to the crash, and the cameras at the intersection do not often record.  Consequently, this may prove to be a very difficult reconstruction, and the determination of responsibility may rest on the word of the truck's driver.

If you or a loved one have been injured in an intersection accident, contacting an Orange County auto accident attorney is likely the best way to explore your right to compensation for any injuries and damages sustained.

SOURCE:  1 Dead, 1 Injured in Westminster Crash, KTLA News, September 17, 2013, by John A. Moreno