Some Common Personal Injury Claims

The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917.)

Premises liability is merely a form of negligence which “ ‘is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises’ ”; accordingly, “ ‘mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.’” (Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 108, 118.)

Causation

Under California law, causation in a personal injury action must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 402-403.

Personal Jurisdiction

As noted in Snowney v. Harrah’s Entertainment (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1054, in the context of a personal injury action, a California plaintiff cannot subject an out-of-state hotel to personal jurisdiction in California based on its advertising in California. The reason is that the advertising in California does not bear a sufficient relationship to the personal injuries sustained. This is true even if the hotel allegedly causes the injuries, through its own negligence, problems with its premises, etc. (Id.)

In Snowney, the Court was asked to consider whether an out-of-state hotel chain was subject to special jurisdiction in the State of California for claims arising out of the hotel chain’s failure to comply with California’s fair advertising laws when specifically targeting California residents. The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction was properly exercised, and distinguished the situation from one where a California plaintiff is injured in an out-of-state hotel. (Id. )The Court noted:

“Cases holding that claims for injuries suffered during a plaintiff's stay at a hotel or resort are not related to and do not arise from that hotel's or resort's advertising in the forum state are inapposite.” (Id. at 1069) As an initial matter, most, if not all, of these cases did not apply the substantial connection test established in Vons. In any event, even if we agree with the holdings in these cases, they are distinguishable. Unlike the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs in those cases, the injury allegedly suffered by plaintiff in this case relates directly to the content of defendants' advertising in California. As such, the connection between plaintiff's claims and defendants' contacts is far closer than the connection between the claims and contacts alleged in the cases cited above. Indeed, some courts that have refused to exercise jurisdiction where a plaintiff suffered an injury during a stay at a hotel or resort acknowledge that they would have reached a different conclusion if that plaintiff had alleged false advertising or fraud. (Id. at 1069-1070).

Statute of Limitations

CCP section 335.1 provides that an action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another must be brought within two years. CCP section 338(c) provides that an action for injury to goods or chattel must be brought within three years.

“Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.... [T]he limitations period begins once the plaintiff has notice or information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry.” (Rivas v. Safety-Kleen Corp. (2002) 98 Cal. App. 4th 218, 225.)