Case studies and results details

Summary Judgment Granted in Burn Injury Case

/in ,

A manufacturing company represented by our firm has secured summary judgment in a product liability case involving burn injuries, decided in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Senior Partner Guy R. Gruppie, Partner Matthew E. Voss, and Associate Partner Julie E. Esposito of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented the defendant.

The plaintiff suffered burn injuries while using a crock pot/slow cooker and brought suit, alleging product liability. At issue was whether the celebrity endorser of the product could be considered part of the chain of distribution. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the court took the matter under submission for several months before issuing its ruling in favor of the defense.

Since the plaintiff had previously rejected a Statutory Offer to Compromise under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, the defendant is now entitled to recover prevailing party costs and expert witness fees. This marks the second summary judgment victory for a Murchison & Cumming client in a product liability burn injury case this year.

M&C Team Obtain Summary Judgment in Product Defect Case

/in ,

Congratulations to Senior Partner Guy R. Gruppie, Partner Matthew E. Voss, and Associate Partner Julie A. Esposito on their summary judgment victory in the Van Nuys branch of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The team successfully defended a pharmaceutical company in a case alleging product defect/failure to warn.

The lawsuit stemmed from a claim by the plaintiff, who alleged permanent burns from using a popular heat patch for pain relief. After careful legal strategy, the court granted summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff failed to adequately establish a failure to warn as the legal cause of the injuries. The plaintiff previously rejected the defendant’s Statutory Offer to Compromise, enabling our client to recover expert expenses in addition to prevailing party costs.

This marks the second major dispositive motion victory in as many years for Mr. Gruppie and Mr. Voss on behalf of our insurance client, following a prior partial dismissal secured for an international entertainment company. Ms. Esposito played a pivotal role in shaping and implementing the early discovery strategy, which included obtaining records from the plaintiff’s primary care physician confirming the heat patches were used in a manner inconsistent with the product’s instructions.

Summary Judgment and Indemnity Claim Granted to Landlord in Premises Liability Case with $5 Million Demand

/in

In a case involving ADA-compliance renovations, Murchison & Cumming, LLP attorney Robert M. Scherk successfully defended Aero Properties and its principal, William Gibbs, against a $5 million demand for alleged negligence and premises liability. The plaintiff, a manager at a Midas shop in San Diego, argued that restroom upgrades led to unsafe conditions, which he claimed caused him injury.

Aero Properties, however, argued that as landlords, they had no duty to the plaintiff since they had leased the property to his employer. According to Garcia vs. Holt, landlords are only liable for injuries on leased property if they are aware of a hazard and can address it. Aero Properties asserted that they did not know of any dangerous conditions nor had control over the dangerous conditions once the lease was in place.

The court examined these points and found that the landlord had relinquished responsibility through the lease, which placed safety obligations with the tenant. The evidence showed no indication that Aero Properties had knowledge of or control over any alleged hazards.

Additionally, while the plaintiff attempted to argue that Aero Properties might have implicitly approved dangerous modifications, the court found that the contractor’s work was outside the approved scope of the Building Plans. Ultimately, Aero Properties and William Gibbs were granted summary judgment, successfully defending against the plaintiff’s claims and resolving the $5 million demand in their favor.

This victory was complemented by a successful cross-complaint for indemnity against VB MDS Auto Services, the tenant. Despite VB MDS’s initial refusal to uphold its contractual obligation for defense and indemnity, the court upheld Aero’s position, enforcing their right to indemnity under California Civil Code Section 2778. Aero was awarded summary adjudication on the duty to defend and duty to indemnify, resulting in approximately $165,000 in fees and costs to be reimbursed, marking a significant double victory.

Trial Victory in Medical Malpractice Case

/in

Dan L. Longo and Kelsey L. Maxwell of Murchison & Cumming LLP successfully defended a Physician’s Assistant in a case where the plaintiff claimed medical negligence and medical battery following a gym injury. The jury found in favor of the defense, determining that the Physician’s Assistant was not negligent and had acted within the standard of care.

The case began when the plaintiff tripped while walking up a flight of stairs at a gym, causing her glass water bottle to break, resulting in two cuts on her palm. Seeking immediate medical attention, she went to a nearby hospital, where the Physician’s Assistant provided treatment, including examination and imaging. The lacerations were repaired, and before discharge, the Physician’s Assistant coordinated a follow-up consultation with a hand surgeon. Three days after the incident, the plaintiff underwent surgery where two small pieces of glass were removed from her wound, followed by nerve and tendon repairs.

The plaintiff contended that the Physician’s Assistant’s treatment fell below the standard of care, alleging that the wound was closed despite the suspicion of retained glass. She also claimed that the nerve and tendon damage resulted from the retained glass, not the initial fall. Additionally, the plaintiff accused the Physician’s Assistant of closing the wound against her wishes, which she labeled as medical battery, and later asserted that she now suffers from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome due to the injuries.

The Physician’s Assistant served a C.C.P. 998 offer in January of 2024 to encourage settlement, but the offer was rejected.

The trial was bifurcated between liability and damages. The jury ultimately concluded that the Physician’s Assistant was not negligent in the care provided and confirmed that all medical procedures were performed with the plaintiff’s consent, leading to a favorable verdict for the defense.

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Breach of Contract Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted in San Diego County Superior Court in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract case. Robert M. Scherk and Lisa M. Allen of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented the defendants.

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 17, 2022 which alleged three causes of against the defendants: 1) Negligence (Legal Malpractice); 2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and 3) Breach of Contract. The defendants represented the plaintiffs in a creditor action in Probate Court. The plaintiffs contended that a friend who had died, Dr. Habib, had promised to leave them certain properties, make a trust naming them as beneficiaries, and pay them money to care for Dr. Habib, among other things.

The plaintiff contends that defendants committed legal malpractice by: (a) failing to file any creditor claims for the plaintiffs despite working with the plaintiffs collecting detailed information from them; (b) missing the 120-day Statute of Limitation filing date deadline which is required from creditors to submit timely claims; and (c) incorrectly advising the plaintiffs that their deadline to file claims in the probate court was one year from the date of death of the Decedent. The defendants argued that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Further, the plaintiff could not prove the necessary elements of causation and damages.

The court agreed there were multiple different dates which reflect “actual injury” to the plaintiff, each many years before the Complaint was filed, and even assuming, that the statute of limitations was tolled to October 14, 2021, the plaintiff, by her own admission, still failed to file this action within the one (1) year timeline, as this action was not filed until October 17, 2022, three (3) days after the statutory deadline.

The Court agreed that “In the legal malpractice context, the elements of causation and damage are particularly closely linked. The plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that but for the attorney’s negligent acts of omissions, she would have obtained a more favorable judgment or settlement in the action which the malpractice allegedly occurred.” In this case, the plaintiff admitted in responses to Requests for Admissions that she lacked evidence.

The Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on both of the grounds argued: Statute of Limitations, and the lack of causation.

Jury Awards $1.6 Million Verdict After $37 Million Demand

/in

After a 17 day trial, a Los Angeles County jury reached a verdict in a case involving a self-employed compound pharmacist who was injured during a yoga class when a stretch band detached from the wall and some metal pieces of the band struck the base of her skull. Scott L. Hengesbach of Murchison & Cumming represented the yoga studio.

The yoga studio admitted it was negligent and, that its negligence was a cause of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. The studio contended that the yoga band was defectively manufactured, defectively designed and, that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions to the studio and users about the prospect of the bands coming apart.

This incident caused the band to act like a slingshot, leading to a seizure lasting about 30 seconds. The plaintiff experienced three more seizures, with the last one observed by EMTs who labeled the events as tonic-clonic seizures. The plaintiff spent two days at Northridge Hospital where she experienced a couple more seizures, one of which was observed by the attending neurologist.

Five months after the incident, the plaintiff returned to the neurologist at Cedars Sinai, still experiencing seizures, headaches, neck pain, post-concussive symptoms, anxiety, depression, irritability, and insomnia. Approximately six months post-accident, the plaintiff returned to work and suffered a seizure captured by a security camera in her pharmacy, leading to her taking another few months off work.

In March 2018, she was diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, post-concussive syndrome, post-traumatic headaches, and likely non-epileptic, psychogenic seizures. Brain MRIs in 2018 and 2020 again revealed two small infarcts in the plaintiff’s right frontal lobe, which her experts later described as gliosis (scarring) due to the subject head trauma. The plaintiff next saw a neurologist at UCLA, who diagnosed her with a frontal lobe seizure disorder, also known as partial seizures, which he correlated with the abnormal MRI findings.

After two days of deliberations, the jury entered a verdict of 65% responsibility for the yoga studio in the amount of $1.6 million, a positive result after the plaintiff’s closing demand of $37 million.

Jury Rejects $12 Million Demand Against M&C Client

/in

Following a five-week trial in plaintiff-friendly San Bernardino County Superior Court, a defense verdict was reached in a case involving a boat crash on the Colorado River. Partners Russell S. Wollman and Todd A. Chamberlain of Murchison & Cumming represented the boat manufacturer. Congratulations also to Darin W. Flagg, Senior Associate, for his law and motion contributions to the trial victory.

The incident occurred when the driver of the power boat lost control at speeds between 60 and 80 miles per hour, resulting in the loss of control upon hitting a wave. Subsequently, the boat nosedived, causing it to come apart in the front and eject the plaintiff into the water, resulting in a fracture to his thoracic spine.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit citing negligence on the part of the boat driver and alleging negligence and certain product liability against the boat itself. The plaintiff sought substantial compensation, totaling $12 million dollars.

After a thorough deliberation period lasting five days, the jury returned with a defense verdict, finding no fault on the part of either defendant. The plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed, and no damages have been awarded.

Motion of Summary Judgment Granted in Trip and Fall Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted by Judge James L. Crandall from the Orange County Superior court in favor of Defendant’s Gym located in Fullerton, California in a premises liability case. Lisa D. Angelo, Scott J. Loeding, and Katie M. Trinh of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented defendant.

Plaintiff was a member of a local gym in Fullerton, California. When she initially became a member, she signed an agreement which included a Waiver and Release of Liability as well as Indemnity Agreement. On October 16, 2019 at approximately 6:30 in the morning, plaintiff walked into the lobby of the gym and tripped over a yellow wet floor caution sign. The sign had been placed on the floor by a janitor after he mopped the floor in the morning. Plaintiff sustained personal injuries including a upper humerus fracture on the right side. Plaintiff claimed damages in the low six figure range. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds the waiver and release of liability provision contained in the gym membership agreement barred her claims against the gym.

On August 3, 2022, Judge James L. Crandall from the Orange County Superior Court granted defendant’s motion and found plaintiff waived her rights to sue for personal injuries when she signed her membership agreement, which included the liability waiver. The court further held that even though plaintiff spoke a different language, claimed to not understand the agreement or know what she was signing, that did not bar enforcement of the agreement.

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for New Trial pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 657 and on grounds the court’s order granting summary judgment was improperly issued because the court did not have a tentative ruling or Order noting the basis for the court’s ruling ahead of the hearing and/or because the ruling amounted to an error in law because a warning sign was excluded by the release as a known risk and because the evidence before the court on the MSJ was insufficient to justify the court’s decision.

On January 24, 2023, Judge Martha K. Gooding from the Orange County Superior Court denied Plaintiff’s motion on both grounds. First, the court found that a trial court need not have a detailed order reflecting his or her decision to grant an MSJ ahead of the hearing and there is nothing improper about adopting the reasoning recited in the moving party’s proposed order. Second, the court found that Defendant has shown with undisputed evidence that it was not negligent as a matter of law by having the wet floor caution sign displayed when plaintiff tripped over it.

In denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, the court effectively found in favor of Defendant for a second time and on a second ground—the merits. Thus, Defendant prevailed twice by way of moving papers, first based upon the waiver/release and second, based upon the fact that a wet floor sign does not constitute a dangerous condition.

Motion of Summary Judgement Granted in Slip and Fall Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted in the Los Angeles Superior Court in a premises liability case. Lisa D. Angelo, Gregory G. Brezovec, and Scott J. Loeding of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented defendant.

This case involved a customer slipping and falling upon liquid that was believed to have come from a cup that another customer was holding and drinking from. According to video surveillance, which was 11 minutes in length, the footage showed Plaintiff walking behind the customer with the cup and all of a sudden, falling to the ground after the customer with the cup drank from his cup. The Court found this evidence to be sufficient for Defendant to meet its initial burden as “the liquid likely was spilled six seconds prior to the incident when a man carrying a cup walked through the exact location.” In her opposition, Plaintiff failed to present additional evidence to show the liquid she slipped upon came from another source and/or that the liquid was on the floor before the man with the cup walked through the area where Plaintiff fell.

Granting of Motion for Summary Judgment Affirmed in Wrongful Death Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment granted in favor of Hollywood producer Joel Silver in a wrongful death case was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. Corine Zygelman and Matthew E. Voss of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented the defendant.

This case involved allegations of liability for wrongful death against Hollywood producer, Joel Silver, brought by the parents of his deceased personal assistant. The personal assistant died during Silver’s family vacation to Bora Bora with his family, friends, and his family’s personal chef in 2015. The decedent’s parents’ multi-million dollar lawsuit sought to hold Silver, two of his companies, and his family’s personal chef, Martin Herold, liable for decedent’s death. Silver prevailed on a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the parents of the decedent appealed the judgment in favor of Silver.

After briefing and oral argument, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, issued a 30-page opinion on August 25, 2022, certified for publication, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Silver.