This accident occurred while Plaintiff was shopping at Defendant’s supermarket for produce. Plaintiff was walking towards the store rack where bananas are shelved, when
he tripped and fell over a box that had been left on the floor. The box had been left on the corner of the aisle extending out into the walkway leading to the racks.

At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was looking at Defendant’s merchandise when without any warning he tripped and fell onto the ground landing on his right side sustaining
a bruise to his hip. The warehouse manager was notified of the accident. Not only was Plaintiff in a state of shock but since Plaintiff was unable to move, he remained on the floor
for about fifteen (15) minutes to see if he could stand up on his own. Plaintiff was unable to stand up on his own and the paramedics were called by the Defendant to render
emergency care to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was taken to UCLA hospital for emergency care and he was diagnosed to have a fractured femur bone. Plaintiff was operated on twice on different dates and
hospitalized. After being discharged from the hospital, Plaintiff sought rehabilitation therapy which did not assist in recovery of his injuries.

Plaintiff contended that storekeepers are under duty to use ordinary care to keep the floors of their premises reasonably safe for the business invitees who must pass over
them. Tuttle v. Crawford, 8 Cal.2d 126, 130.

Although obviousness of a danger may relieve property owner of duty to warn of its existence, it will not necessarily relieve him of duty to remedy danger if property owner can
foresee that, despite its obviousness, danger may cause injury, as when necessity requires persons to encounter it. Osborn v. Missions Ready Mix, 224 Cal. App.3d 104.

Moreover, when an unsafe condition in premises causes injury to business invitee, and has been created by owner of property or by employee within scope of his
employment, knowledge of dangerous condition is imputed to owner and invitee need not prove owner's notice or knowledge of it. Sanders v. MacFarlanes Candies, 119 Cal.App.2d 497 (1953).

If owner operates a self-service grocery store, where customers are invited to inspect, remove, and replace goods on shelves, the exercise of ordinary care may require
the owner to take greater precautions and make more frequent inspections than would otherwise be needed to safeguard against the possibility that such a customer may create
a dangerous condition by disarranging the merchandise and creating potentially hazardous conditions. Oretega v. Kmart Corportion, 26 Cal.4th 1200.

Defendant did not have any documentation or evidence to show that inspection of the premises was made to remedy any dangerous conditions.

Evidence that an inspection has not been made within a particular period of time prior to an accident may warrant an inference in premises liability action that the defective
condition existed long enough so that a person exercising reasonable care would have discovered it. Id. Evidence that supermarket operator had not inspected aisle where
patron slipped on puddle of milk for at least 15 to 30 minutes, and that milk could have been on floor for as long as two hours, permitted reasonable inference in patron's premises
liability action that the dangerous condition existed long enough for it to be discovered by the owner. Id.

As a child Plaintiff suffered from polio resulting in a limp in his left leg rendering him partially disabled. Despite the limp, prior to the accident, Plaintiff was able to engage in
his daily life activities without restrictions. Although Plaintiff had a limp in his left leg, he did not need the assistance of a walker, cane, and/or wheelchair. After the accident, however,
Plaintiff’s daily life activities were adversely affected.

This accident involved a car vs car accident.

At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was completely stopped with the vehicle’s flashers on at a railroad crossing when suddenly without any warning, Defendant rearended
Plaintiff’s vehicle at a high rate of speed, 40-50 mph causing his van to be pushed over the tracks. Plaintiff’s van displayed a yellow and black sign stating “STOPS AT
RAILROAD CROSSING.” Plaintiff’s van displayed the forgoing sign since his job involved transportation of kids and Plaintiff was required by law to stop at Rail Road crossings.

Despite wearing their seat belts, as a result of the severe impact, Plaintiffs’ bodies were jolted forward and backward. The force of the impact caused Plaintiff’s seat to break
causing him to fall backwards. As a result of the subject accident, Plaintiff had to undergo spinal cord surgery at the C6-C7 level to gain relief from the disc rupture caused by the car accident.

The subject car accident drastically affected Plaintiff’s daily life activities.

This action involved an incident wherein Plaintiffs, both minors, were severely burned as a result of an explosion caused by Defendant’s water heater.

Defendant negligently designed and manufactured its products in a manner wherein the water heater sucked the flammable vapors from a nearby gasoline container and causing the container to explode.

Since the mid 1970s, Defendant had been aware that the fires/explosions similar to the case at hand often start after a common household product like gasoline, paint thinner, or some other cleaning solvent is spilled. The flammable vapors are heavier than air and tend to hug the floor and flow across it like a liquid. The fumes, which can travel long distances, ten (10) or more feet, get sucked into the air intake of the water heater’s pilot light and burner, and then burst into flames.

Prior to Plaintiffs severe burn injuries, Defendant have been aware of a simple solution that would simply involve retrofitting or recalling the subject heater and having the subject water heater raised 18 inches off the floor so that the pilot is moved away from the ground-hugging vapors to prevent ignitions. Despite being aware of the subject defect, and thousands of severe burn injuries, Defendant failed to remedy or sufficiently warn of the subject defect.

Also, during the mid 1990’s the water heater industry conducted research and development that lead to a flame retarding design that used a sealed combustion chamber,
a limited combustion air intake and a flame trap. The design traps flammable vapors, which are then burned inside the heater’s combustion chamber in a controlled process so
as to prevent a flash back. Other less technical designs were available such as using a direct vent water heater approach such that the combustion chamber is sealed and
combustion air is drawn into the combustion chamber from a higher elevation. Either of these designs, if implemented and marketed would have significantly reduced the
flammable vapor hazard and would have prevented the fire and serious burns that occurred. The subject water heater was defectively designed and manufactured since
subject water heater could ignite flammable vapors that were produced by inadvertently spilling a flammable liquid near it. The explosion was preventable.

This action involved a slip and fall incident wherein Plaintiff sustained severe injuries, requiring back surgery, as a result of Defendants’ negligence in failing to place floor mats in the lobby area, on a rainy day, knowing that the floor was slippery when wet.

Plaintiff’s expert conducted an inspection of the entry and lobby to the office building in which the accident occurred. When water was added to the unsealed tile surface, the
amount of available traction was 0.20, a traction level which is dangerously low. On the day of the incident, Defendants had failed to place a floor mat in the lobby area of the subject
building where Plaintiff slipped and fell. The only floor mat that existed was a built in floor mat immediately outside the lobby entrance doors leading into the lobby area. Inspection
revealed that the strips on the exterior mat were not absorbent and would not have removed moisture from the shoe. The nature and texture of exterior mat would
actually allow water to transfer from the exterior strips unto the sole and heel of ones shoes.

The testimony of Plaintiff was that it was generally wet and misty on the day of the incident since it had been raining. Plaintiff further testified that he remembers using his
windshield wipers on his way to work. In addition to the premises being wet and misty, Plaintiff testified that prior to walking into the lobby area, he had to walk on the exterior mat
and momentarily pause on the exterior mat to open the door. Therefore, the strips on the exterior mat were not absorbent and would not remove moisture from the shoe. In fact,
the strips actually allow water to transfer from the exterior strips to the sole and heel of Plaintiff’s shoe. As a result, Plaintiff slipped and fell after taking his first or second step into
the lobby area. Plaintiff testified that upon taking his first or second step he felt slipping really fast and fell to the ground.

This action involved a claim against Defendant City of Los Angeles for maintaining a dangerous crosswalk at the intersection of Abbot Kinney Boulevard and Rialto Avenue
as well as a claim against Defendant car driver for colliding into Plaintiff, a pedestrian, while she was crossing the crosswalk.

 Plaintiff was crossing at the subject intersection in a marked crosswalk, crossing from the east to west. As a result of the brain injury sustained as a result of the car
accident collision, Plaintiff had no memory of the accident. However, Plaintiff’s had crossed at the subject location many times before and was aware of her custom and habit
in crossing the intersection. Witness accounts of the accident confirmed that Plaintiff followed her standard custom and practice when crossing on the day of the accident.

At the time of the accident, Plaintiff had stopped and waited for traffic to stop. A car had stopped in the number one (1) southbound lane of Abbot Kinney Boulevard preparing
to negotiate a left turn. Plaintiff then proceeded into the intersection at the same time the defendant car driver was traveling southbound on Abbot Kinney Boulevard at approximately 30 mph. As Defendant car driver came around a blind curve on Abbot Kinney immediately before the subject crosswalk at Rialto, he swerved to avoid the left
turning vehicle and accidentally struck Plaintiff in the crosswalk. The impact threw Plaintiff approximately 30 feet.

Plaintiff contended that the intersection at question had been the subject of numerous prior complaints and eighteen reported accidents. The City’s internal records
only reflect eighteen prior accidents. However, the City’s records were fatally flawed. Numerous witnesses that worked adjacent to the subject accident have stated under
penalty of perjury that there aware of approximately twelve accident every year and near misses occurring everyday. The Defendant’s records did not reflect any fatal accidents,
however, independent investigation revealed at least three fatal accidents at the location.

The problem with the intersection was that the cross-walk was placed immediately after a “blind” corner. A driver traveling southbound on Abbot Kinney had only 165 feet of
travel from the time they see the intersection until the time they cross the intersection. The posted speed limit was 30 mph and most drivers travel at a speed in excess of 30 mph
through this location. If you assume an average speed of 40 mph and a standard perception reaction time of 2.5 seconds, the intersection was fatally dangerous. The
average driver will travel approximately 150 feet if they break immediately upon seeing the crosswalk. If there was any hesitation, the pedestrian would be involved in a pedestrian
vs car accident. The major problem was seeing the pedestrian in the crosswalk soon enough to begin braking. The speed and time ratios did not satisfy the City of Los Angeles’
own internal standards for a safe crosswalk. Numerous letters were obtained in discovery from the City’s own files where citizens had written letters to warn the City the subject
intersection was extremely dangerous and that people would be seriously hurt or killed if changes were not made. The city’s response was to paint a higher visibility crosswalk.
The visibility of the crosswalk had nothing to do with the blind corner and short lines of sight. The issue never was the inability see the painted lines of the crosswalk, the problem
always was the inability to perceive a person crossing the street within sufficient time to avoid an impact. Plaintiff contended that the City should have installed a flashing indicator
to warn motorist prior to the corner when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. This type of warning system was used throughout the adjacent City of Santa Monica with success. In
fact blinking pedestrian warning signals were used successfully at numerous locations less than a mile from this one.

This action involved a tragic incident wherein Plaintiff, a minor, sustained severe injuries, amputation of his big toe, when his right shoe became entrapped between the moving step and the stationary skirt panel of the escalator at one of the major shopping malls. The escalator was equipped with brushes which were attached to the skirt just above the nose of the steps and they were designed to force people toward the center of the step.

At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was wearing standard Nike style rubber soled tennis shoes. While standing on the escalator step and descending from the second floor to the first floor, the rubber sole on Plaintiff’s right foot came in contact with the metal skirt panel. The increased friction between the shoe and the panel turned Plaintiff’s foot clockwise and his foot was grabbed and pulled down into the gap between the step and the skirt panel.

Step or skirt panel entrapments are the second most common cause of escalator accidents and are the most common cause of serious injury accidents. Despite prior knowledge of entrapments accidents, the Defendant Shopping Mall Store failed to install any safety devices on their escalators prior Plaintiff’s injury.

Step entrapments occur when there is an excessive gap between the steps and theskirt panel, when the skirt panel is not adequately lubricated and the strength of the skirt allows for deflection. An entrapment occurs when the soft soled shoe is heated and softened by the friction against the stationary skirt. If the gap is sufficient to allow for rotation of the foot back and down as the step moves forward, the shoe with the foot is pulled into the gap. The movement forward wedges the shoe deeper into the crevice. The
skirt panels are attached with metal brackets every four to six feet. Plaintiff’s foot apparently was pulled in mid span between brackets. Once solidly in the gap, Plaintiff’s foot
headed at about 18 inches a second toward one of the brackets. When the shoe and foot reached and passed the bracket, the foot was crushed. Plaintiff’s foot had reached the
bottom of the escalator when his foot was finally extricated.

Failure to Warn

Defendant Shopping Mall relied upon the posted warning signs to insulate itself from liability. The signs however did not provide adequate notice of the potential catastrophe that awaited the unsuspecting child like Plaintiff.

The sign simply had a depiction of a Mother and a child holding hands which showed them standing adjacent with arms held out at 45 degree angles. However, the steps for the subject escalator were only 24 inches wide. There was no physical way that the method of riding depicted in the warning could occur on a 24 inch step without forcing
the child to stand on the side. Additionally, the sign instructed the rider to hold the handrail and avoid the sides. A child such as the Plaintiff would have to stand at or near the side of the escalator in order to hold onto the handrail.

Negligent Maintenance

In addition to the lack of warning, records relating to the subject escalator, painted a picture of shoddy maintenance. The subject accident was waiting to happen. Interestingly, after Plaintiff’s accident, Defendant contracted to spend a large sum of money install skirt brushes.

Defendant maintained no records that measured the skirt stiffness or the gap clearance on the subject escalator and the maintenance records lacked detail as to the specific condition of their escalators.

A review of Defendant’s records revealed that there were continuous problems with the subject escalator in the months leading up to the accident, including multiple entrapments and scraping and tracking problems.

The success of your case may depend on your actions.  The following is a list of suggestions:

 Seek Immediate Medical Attention:  If you have suffered injuries, seek immediate medical care so that a physician can begin treating you for your injuries.  It is important to describe to the doctor the intensity and location of your injury(s).  You should be open and honest with the physician by informing the doctor of any previously related injuries.  It is important for you to follow your doctor’s advice and attend your medical appointments.  If any new injury(s) develop, immediately advise your physician. 

Have An Attorney Present If You Are Asked to Provide A Statement:  Adjusters or attorneys for the opposite side may request information from you.   It is best that you refer them to your attorneys office to arrange any discussion. Any request by either your own or the opposing insurance company to fill out an accident report should first be cleared by and through your attorney.

Take Photographs/Video:  If possible, it is important to document the incident/injury(s) with photographs-videotape. For example:  If you have been involved in an auto accident, take photographs-videotape of the vehicle(s), scene-location of the accident etc.  If you have been injured as a result of a defective product, photograph-videotape the defective product etc.  If you have suffered injury as a result of a dangerous property, photograph-videotape the condition on the property that caused your injury etc.  

Pain and suffering: Keep a log of all your pains and aches.   This log will be a good way to refresh your memory and it will keep your lawyer informed of the status of your medical progress.

a.  Document any new pains, no matter how slight, that occur in your body.  You should also report such pains to your doctor so that he/she may properly evaluate and treat your injuries.

b.  If your treating doctor refers you to other doctors, inform your lawyer of the name(s) and address(es) of such doctor(s). 

      I.  All information which you have, including the names of your doctors, is confidential and should not be given out.

      II.  If you have been treated in the past by any doctor for any condition, it is important that your lawyer have the information.

Document your Expenses:  Keep a record of all expenses connected with your case.  Save bills and receipts: doctors bills, medication bills, repair estimates, etc. and promptly mail them to your attorney.  If you miss time from work, you are entitled to be compensated for your loss of income.  You MUST keep track of the time you have lost.

 Keep your attorney notified of all new developments:   Inform your lawyer of any new information that comes to your attention, regardless of whether you feel the information would help or harm your case.

 Should you have any further questions, you can speak directly to an experienced Lawyer at the Law Offices of David Azizi.  Contact us for immediate assistance at (800) 991-LAW2.