News & Articles

Under California law, a person or company that hires an independent contractor generally is not liable to the contractor’s injured employees. The California Supreme Court established this presumption in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, reasoning that the contractor, not the hirer bears responsibility for workplace safety. The hirer is presumed to have delegated […]

Workers’ compensation pays your medical bills and a portion of your lost wages when you are hurt on the job. What it does not pay is compensation for pain, suffering, emotional distress, full lost earnings, or future losses beyond what the statutory schedule allows. If a third party someone other than your direct employer was […]

Under California law, a wrongful death claim produces a single, unified recovery. That recovery is not divided by the same percentages that would govern an inheritance. Instead, each eligible heir receives a share that reflects the personal loss that heir actually sustained as a result of the death. The court has authority to determine the […]

When someone dies as a result of another party’s wrongful conduct, California law creates two separate civil claims. The wrongful death claim belongs to the surviving heirs for their own losses. The survival action belongs to the decedent’s estate and covers the losses the decedent personally suffered before death. Under California Code of Civil Procedure sections […]

California law limits who may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. Only the people specifically identified in Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 have legal standing to file. The statute places the surviving spouse or domestic partner and the decedent’s children at the top of the priority list. Other relatives and dependents may qualify under separate […]

Legal Snapshot Legal Topic: Product Liability E-Bike and Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Injuries Case Stage: Pre-litigation through civil litigation Primary Legal Issue: Strict products liability for manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn Primary Authority: California Vehicle Code § 312.5; California Civil Code §§ 1714 et seq.; Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d […]

Yes. Under California law, a vehicle manufacturer can be held responsible for injuries that were caused or worsened by a defect in the vehicle’s design or construction, even when a different driver caused the collision itself. This legal theory is called a crashworthiness claim, or an enhanced injury claim. The core idea is that a […]

When a product’s design rather than a manufacturing flaw or a missing warning is alleged to have caused an injury, California law gives an injured plaintiff a choice between two separate legal tests. Under the framework established in Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (1978), a plaintiff may prove a design defect by […]

A California property owner is not automatically liable when someone falls on their premises. Liability depends on whether the owner knew or reasonably should have known, that a dangerous condition existed and failed to fix it or warn about it in time. That knowledge requirement is called notice, and in most contested slip and fall claims […]

Legal Snapshot Legal Topic: Motorcycle accident fault allocation and the failure-to-see defence Case Stage: Pre-litigation, insurance negotiation, and civil trial Primary Legal Issue: Comparative negligence and duty to maintain a proper lookout Primary Authority: California Civil Code § 1714; Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975) Date Legal Authority Last Reviewed: 2025 A […]