Since its founding in 1978, Mason ● Thomas has represented plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury claims and employment law disputes. Our trial lawyers offer clients the personal attention of a small law office with the experience gained from nearly 200 jury trials in state and federal courts.
Any involvement in an automobile accident can be a traumatic and stressful situation to deal with. What starts as an uneventful trip to the store or to collect your kids from soccer practice, can result in a series of doctor's visits, meetings with your lawyer, and awkward conversations with your insurance provider.
The experienced personal injury attorneys at Mason · Thomas are here to help. After being involved in a collision, there are a number of important things to remember. Following the below checklist will ensure that your rights are protected, and that you are fully compensated for any injuries you suffer.
1. STOP! You are legally required to stop your vehicle, when it is safe to do so, after an automobile collision. Once you are in a safe location, call 911 and report the incident to the police.
2. INFORMATION The insurance details of the other driver(s) involved, the makes and models of the other vehicles, and the names and addresses of any witnesses, are all going to be needed if you choose to make a claim for your injuries.
3. PHOTOGRAPHS If you have a camera or a camera application on your cell phone, photographs of the scene and the damage caused are going to be very useful. Weather conditions, vehicle damage, and road layouts can all change after an accident, so recording the current information is important.
4. MEDICAL TREATMENT Do not delay if you believe that you might need medical treatment. Many people choose not to see their doctor immediately after an accident, believing that their symptoms will improve. We encourage you to visit your doctor as soon as possible to prevent any further injury, and to record your current symptoms for future reference if required.
5. CONSULT AN ATTORNEY The interests of insurance companies and medical providers are best served by settling your claim as quickly and as cheaply as possible. However, a brief consultation with a lawyer will provide you with enough information to properly assess your potential claims and will ensure that your rights are protected.
If you have been involved in a motor vehicle accident, please contact us for your free initial consultation at (530) 757 0883, or visit our website at www.masonthomas.com.
A couple of recent appellate court decisions provide hope to participants who are seriously injured while participating in potentially dangerous sporting activities and concern to coaches and event promoters who may face liability despite having signed releases from all participants.
As a broad legal proposition, participants in sporting activities that carry a recognized risk of danger often cannot bring a lawsuit against his/her coach, a fellow participant, or even the event organizer and promoter if the participant is injured. Typically, our courts in California decide that the participant knowingly assumes the risk of injury inherent in the sport and therefore others associated with the event do not have any duty to act carefully. In addition, the injured participant has often signed a “Release” that absolves the property owner, the event organizer, and the event promoter from all responsibility should injury occur.
However, there are significant exceptions to this broad proposition, two of which are demonstrated in the cases of Rosencrans v Dover Images, Ltd. (2011)and Eriksson v. Nunnink (2011) 191 Cal. App. 4th 826.
The facts in the Eriksson case are described by the court as follows:
Plaintiffs Karan and Stan Eriksson are the parents of Mia Erikkson. Mia was an avid horse rider and equestrian competitor. Defendant Kristi Nunnink was Mia's riding coach. In November 2006, Mia participated in an equestrian competition at Galway Downs (Galway) in Temecula. She was 17 years old at the time. Although Mia's horse was recently injured in another competition, Nunnink persuaded Mia's mother, Karan, that the horse was fit to ride in the Galway event. Based on Nunnink's representations, Karan allowed Mia to compete. During the cross-country portion of the competition, Mia's horse tripped over a hurdle. With the Erikssons looking on, Mia fell off the horse and the horse fell on Mia, causing Mia's death.
The Erikssons sued Nunnink for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress. They alleged that Nunnink “increased the risk [of harm] reasonably assumed by” Mia when she allowed Mia to ride a horse that “was unfit to ride because of prior falls and lack of practice” and concealed this condition from the Erikssons.
The coach argued that the risk of death or serious injury to the horse rider is inherent in the sport of cross-country jumping and, alternatively, that the horse rider/student signed a pre-accident release, releasing the coach from any and all liability. Based on these arguments, the coach contended that the facts “show that [she] neither owed nor breached any duty, legally causing” the accident involving her student.
The court explained that although defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, it is well established that defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport. As an example, a ski resort has no duty to remove moguls from a ski run but it does have a duty to use due care to maintain its towropes in a safe, working condition so as not to expose skiers to an increased risk of harm.
To the extent a duty is alleged against a coach for “pushing” and/or “challenging” a student to improve and advance, the plaintiff must show that the coach intended to cause the student's injury or engaged in reckless conduct—that is, conduct totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in teaching or coaching the sport. Furthermore, a coach has a duty of ordinary care not to increase the risk of injury to a student by encouraging or allowing the student to participate in the sport when he or she is physically unfit to participate or by allowing the student to use unsafe equipment or instruments.
As for the scope of the release signed by the rider, the court said it did not prevent the coach from being responsible for what it called “aggravated” misconduct.
The other case of interest is Rosencrass which involved injuries to a motorcycle rider that occurred on a race track but in a recreational non-race setting. The rider had signed a release before being allowed onto the track. The accident occurred because, allegedly, the owner did not provide flaggers with adequate training or in adequate numbers.
The court held that a release that gave up the participant’s right to sue the owner for any injury occurring on the track “whether caused by negligence or otherwise” was sufficient to release the owner for ordinary negligence but not for gross negligence which it defined as an extreme departure from ordinary care.
In addition, the court recognized that motocross racing presented inherent risks of personal injury for which the owner of the track had no duty to prevent. However, the owner did have a duty to minimize the risks without altering the nature of the sport.
So what impact might these two cases have on a claim for injuries sustained while participating in a sporting activity? The injured participant might be able to at least pursue a claim that the owner/promoter/coach/sponsor was grossly negligent by creating an increase to the inherent risk of danger in the sport, and perhaps simply failed to minimize the risk even though he/she signed a general release of liability. (Claims for gross negligence cannot be released.) From the perspective of the owner/promoter/coach who is sued in such a situation, prevailing on a motion for summary on the basis of either a signed release or assumption of the risk will be more difficult. However, in order for a jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, they would have to find from the evidence that the defendant either engaged in an extreme departure from ordinary care (ie., something more egregious than simple negligence) and/or failed to reasonable minimize the risks.
If you were injured as a result of an accident that was not your fault, call one of our experienced personal injury lawyers at (530) 757-0883, or visit our website at www.masonthomas.com.
