Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

A property owner hiring an independent contractor is not liable for injuries the contractor’s worker suffers as a result of the owner’s negligent failure to install safety features required by CalOSH regulations. Read More

A landowner who hired an independent contractor to work on the roof is not entitled to summary judgment in the contractor’s negligence suit; a question of fact remained as to whether the contractor could reasonably avoid the risk posed by the obvious hazard of an unprotected ledge from which he fell. Read More

Generally, a defendant owes no duty of care to avoid negligent conduct that results in solely economic injury; so a gas utility owed no duty of care to avoid a gas leak that caused neighborhood businesses to lose profits. Read More

A landowner who constructs a parking lot across a public street may increase his or her invitees’ exposure to harm, but that alone does not warrant the imposition of a duty of care because landowners generally have little or no control over a public street’s safety precautions, which are typically maintained by state and local government. Read More

A company the city hired to maintain backup batteries in traffic signals owed a duty of care to motorists in performing its work, and it cannot invoke Government Claims Act immunities to avoid liability. Read More

Plaintiff’s suit for physical injuries suffered when she tripped over a scale as she left a community health facility is governed by the two-year limitations period for ordinary negligence, not the shorter limitations period for claims against a health care provider’s negligent delivery of professional services.   Read More

Plaintiff, a rider in an endurance horse race who was injured when defendant’s horse bolted after being kicked by a tailgating horse, could not recover in negligence action because she had assumed the risk; horse tailgating and its dangerous aftermath are a normal part of that sport.   Read More

Lawsuit alleging that defendant had contaminated real property through its ordinary business operations on the site, which it had used as a bulk terminal for petroleum products, was barred by three-year statute of limitations applicable to injuries to real property.   Read More

Youth soccer league owes duty of care to child participants to perform criminal background checks on adult volunteers and employees, but no duty to warn or train the children or their parents about the risk of sexual misconduct.  Read More

In suit by fitness club member who slipped on shower room floor and broke his arm, summary judgment was properly entered in favor of fitness center since membership agreement contained a release of claims of ordinary negligence, and plaintiff did not plead or prove gross negligence.  Read More

Summary judgment for defendant casino is reversed as questions of fact exist about whether casino was a common carrier, subject to a stricter standard of care, in providing a van to transport gamblers to and from an adjoining town.  Read More

Employer was entitled to judgment NOV in a negligence case brought against a plaintiff injured by employee’s negligent driving of his own car on his way home from work, since the employee’s commute was subject to the “going and coming rule.”  Read More

Defendant church owed a duty of care to persons using its parking lot to avoid exposing them to an unreasonable risk of harm—even though the risk was from conditions on the busy road adjoining the parking lot, which the church did not own.  Read More

1 2 3 4