This action involved a trip and fall accident that occurred in the evening when
Plaintiff, his wife and his friends were patrons of Defendant’s restaurant in Santa Barbara.

At approximately 9:30 p.m. Plaintiff left the restaurant exiting the side entrance-exit
doorway leading to the parking lot. It was dark, the light fixture on top of the doorway was
burned out and there were no lights in the parking lot. According to witnesses the light had
been out for several days. In addition to the lack of lighting, the landing for the subject
doorway was uneven. The right side of the landing extended out only 38 inches while the
left side extended out 5 feet and 6 inches.

As a result of the insufficient lighting and unevenness in the landing, Plaintiff’s right
leg first stepped down unto the parking lot while his left leg remained on the landing
causing him to lose his balance and fall sustaining severe injuries.

Plaintiff maintained that Defendant created a dangerous condition at its premises
by installing the subject side entrance-exit doorway where the landing was uneven. The
dangerous condition was made worse when Defendants failed to provide sufficient lighting
at the subject doorway.

When the subject premises was built, the landing was even in size and the exit did
not exist. The landing was later modified into its current condition when the parking lot
design was changed from diagonal parking spaces to straight parking spaces. Thereafter,
the subject exit doorway was constructed without obtaining a permit. A permit for the
subject exit doorway would have required the landing for such doorway to be at least five
(5) feet. Additionally, the Uniform Building Code required that there be at least 44 inches
of landing when the door opens. When the door to the side entrance/exit opened, it took
over half of the landing to where the next step on the right side was the parking lot while
on the left side there is more landing creating a trip and fall accident hazard.

In regard to illumination, the Uniform Building Code (hereinafter UBC) required that
one (1) foot candle of lighting be provided. An inspection of the subject premises
conducted under similar circumstances revealed that the measure of light for the subject
doorway and the parking lot was in the range of 0.06 to 0.13. The measure of lighting for
the subject doorway was only 0.06. However, on another inspection, the measure of light
was higher, because Defendant had installed light fixtures in the patio leading to the
subject doorway and rope lighting around the building.

The light measurements taken by Defendant’s expert revealed that the light source
was less than one (1) foot candle of lighting required by Uniform Building Code. Even
assuming any light source existed at the doorway, it would be blocked by the human body
upon exiting the doorway especially when reaching the curb at the landing.

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).
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 a 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.

This accident involved a tragic car versus pedestrian accident, wherein Defendant
recklessly ran through the crosswalk, at a residential intersection, and struck Plaintiffs in
the middle of the crosswalk. As a result of the collision, the entire family sustained severe
injuries.

At the time of the accident, all four (4) plaintiffs were crossing the intersection in a
marked crosswalk. Defendant was traveling southbound delivering pizza for his employer,
and claimed that he did not see any of the plaintiffs. A witness was traveling northbound
and approaching the subject intersection when he noticed the Plaintiff’s family entering the
crosswalk from the northeast corner and walk westbound. The witness noticed that
Defendant did not appear to see the Plaintiffs so he began to honk his horn to warn of the
accident. Defendant nevertheless failed to notice the entire family and struck the entire
family in the crosswalk.

Plaintiffs’ minor daughter testified that her parents had taught her to always look
both ways whenever crossing the street. Plaintiff’s daughter further testified that on the day
of the accident prior to entering the crosswalk, she looked both ways and only saw a
vehicle at a far distance. Plaintiff’s daughter further testified that she had no warning
whatsoever prior to being struck.

Defendant was traveling at the rate of speed of 30-35 mph through a residential
intersection with a speed limit of 25 mph when he struck the entire family. Defendant
admitted to the reporting officer that prior to reaching the subject residential intersection,
he noticed another vehicle traveling the opposite direction with its high beams on which
caused him to “squint and reduce his vision”. Defendant further admitted that as he
approached the intersection, traveling at 30-35 mph, he then heard something strike the
front of his vehicle and then shatter his windshield.

California Vehicle Code § 21950. Right-of-way at crosswalks provides:
(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the
roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his
or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and
walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate
hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or
unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked
crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or
take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to
safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising
due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any
unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

 Defendant blamed the witness for flashing his high beams to alert him and also tried
to blame the City claiming an unsafe crosswalk.

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.