California Lawyer | California Attorney | Los Angeles Lawyer

Employers May be Liable for Sexual Harassment by 3rd Party

2006-06-09T10:25:00.000-07:00

In 2003, the Legislature amended the Califormnia Fair Employment and Housing Act [Cal. Gov. Code §12900 et seq. (FEHA)) to state that employers are potentially liable when third party nonemployees (e.g., the employer’s client's or customers) sexually harass their employees. (Stats. 2003, ch. 671, § 2, amending § 12940, subd. (j)(1).)

A California Appellate Court has now found that the 2003 amendment to Section 12940, subdivision (j)(1), simply clarified existing law by providing explicit standards to govern employer liability for sexual harassment of employees that nonemployees commit. Therefore, §12940(J)(1) may be properly applied to an action which was already in court at the time the Legislature amended the statute. [See Carter v. California Dep't of Veterans Affairs, No S127921 (Cal. June 08, 2006)].

Google-Yahoo Lawyer & Attorney

2005-08-19T17:55:00.000-07:00

The major search engines, like Google and Yahoo, have played a very important role in allowing the general public to find lawyers nationwide. This is especially true in the Los Angeles area and throughout the State of California.

Therefore, if you need a California Lawyer or a Los Angeles Lawyer, it is recommended that you use the search engines to find someone who is qualified to assist you with your legal matter.

California Lawyer
http://www.rosensteinlaw.com

California Lawyer - Los Angeles Lawyer

2005-08-12T08:10:00.000-07:00

We will make an effort to post relevant case information as it is published by the California Appellate Courts and by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, if you need a lawyer or attorney in the State of California or throughout the Los Angeles area, you should contact a licensed California Attorney or Los Angeles Lawyer for advice.

We recommend http://www.rosensteinlaw.com for legal advice and representation in California or Los Angeles matters. They handle personal injury matters (car, auto, truck, motorcycle, pedestrian and dog bite accident cases), as well as business litigation matters, insurance bad faith litigation, pharmaceutical defect claims and condominium homeowner association law.

RTR

Amusement Park Operators as Common Carriers

2005-08-10T07:37:00.001-07:00

JUNE 2006 - CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that an operator of an amusement park ride may be classified as a common carrier subject to heightened duties of care to protect patrons from harm. In so ruling, the justices of the California Supreme Court reinstated two causes of action which were based on common carrier statutes. [Cal. Civ. Code §§2100 & 2101]. Section 2100 provides that a carrier of persons for reward is required to use the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage of patrons. Section 2101 requires common carriers to provide vehicles safe and fit for the purpose to which they are put and further states that a common carrier is not excused for default in this respect by any degree of care.

The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that the Legislature did not intend for either of the common carrier statutes to apply to amusement park rides offered for the purpose of entertainment rather than transportation. The Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court overruled the lower court's decision.

If you have sustained personal injury on an amusement park ride in the State of California, you should contact a California Personal Injury Attorney, a California Amusement Park Lawyer, a Los Angeles Amusement Park Lawyer, or an Anaheim Amusement Park Accident Lawyer for a free telephone consultation (http://www.rosensteinlaw.com).

RTR

2 year Statute of Limitation for California Personal Injury Claims

2005-08-09T11:12:00.000-07:00

Section 335.1 Does Not Apply Retroactively to All Personal Injury Claims

Former section 340, subdivision (3), provided a one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. The one-year limitations period expired on January 26, 2002.

In 2002 the Legislature amended section 340, subdivision (3), to delete the one-year limitations period for personal injury actions. At the same time, it added section 335.1, which now provides a two-year statute of limitations for such actions (Stats. 2002, c. 448, §§ 2-3.). The changes were made during the Legislature's 2001-2002 Regular Session and therefore became effective on January 1, 2003. (Gov. Code, §9600, subd. (a) ).

"Generally, statutes operate prospectively only." Indeed, Section 335.1 does not expressly provide that it applies retroactively to claims already time-barred under former section 340, subdivision (3).

On the other hand, the same act that added section 335.1 also added section 340.10, which expressly provides that the two year limitations period shall apply retroactively to "any action brought for injury to, or for the death of, " any victim of the "terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001 . . . ." (Stats. 2002, c. 448, § 4.). In an uncodified portion of the act, the legislature explained why "9/11" terrorist victims were deserving of special treatment: "A prime example of the inequity caused by the one-year statute of limitations is that residents of California who were victims of the terrorist actions of September 11, 2001, must prematurely choose between litigation and federal remedies, while residents of other states have more than twice as long to pursue their remedies. Extending the statute of limitations will reduce litigation in these cases as well, because terrorist victims will have the opportunity to fully evaluate and use other alternatives, rather than being forced to litigate prematurely . . . The special injustice worked against victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist actions justifies applying the two-year statute of limitations retroactively to those victims." (Stats. 2002, c. 448, § 1, subds. (c), (d).) {Slip Opn. Page 4} fn. 3. Thus, the Legislature expressly singled out only one class of plaintiffs - "9/11" terrorist victims - as entitled to retrocative application of the 2 year statute.

This blog contains general legal information and is not intended as legal advice in any particular matter. If you need legal advice, please contact a qualified lawyer to discuss your particular matter.

We recommend that you contact the Los Angeles California Lawyers at http://www.rosensteinlaw.com to obtain legal advice in California or Los Angeles California matters.

RTR

California Personal Injury Attorney - Los Angeles, CA

2005-08-09T09:17:00.000-07:00

We have noticed that there are many people in the State of California who are in need of a California Lawyer or Los Angeles Attorney to handle a wide variety of legal matters. However, the clear fact of the matter is that most people simply cannot afford to hire an attorney or lawyer on a hourly basis. This is why people should be aware that some lawyers and attorneys are willing to handle personal injury matters (e.g., automobile, car, truck, motorcycle, pedestrian and dog bite accident cases, etc.) on a contingency fee basis. This means that the lawyer only gets paid attorney's fees as a percentage of your gross recovery if you win your case and collect money. This method of paying lawyers for legal services allows all people to have access to the court system irrespective of their financial status.

Therefore, if you have been involved in an auto, car, truck, motorcycle, pedestrian or dog bite accident and you have sustained personal injury in California or the Los Angeles area, we recommend that you hire a licensed/qualified attorney to handle your matter. For more information, go to http://www.rosensteinlaw.com for legal information and advice. The Los Angeles Attorneys and the California Personal Injury Attorneys at http://www.rosensteinlaw.com even offer a free telephone consultation to potential clients.

RTR
http://www.rosensteinlaw.com