We Hit the Trifecta!

Football: Traumatic Brain Injury
Chris Beeman and Paulo Kline Simon recently prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on behalf of their clients in a contentious traumatic brain injury involving a youth football player. The plaintiffs alleged that our clients, a football league and the opposing coach, were responsible for the cognitive injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff during the course of playing football in the league. Chris and Paulo successfully argued that, in the addition to the fact that the plaintiff had signed a bodily injury waiver prior to participating in the league, as a matter of law, the evidence showed that our clients’ conduct was within the bounds of normal play, and that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury so long as our clients did not increase the normal risks associated with playing tackle football.

Construction Site Injury
In a construction accident case in which the plaintiff suffered a significant knee injury, Chris Beeman and Paulo Kline Simon accepted a voluntary dismissal with prejudice from the plaintiff after the plaintiff received our motion for summary judgment. The motion, made under the Privette doctrine, established that there was no evidence which could possibly allow a jury to find that our general contractor client was responsible for creating the dangerous condition that injured the plaintiff. After serving the motion for summary judgment and supporting evidence, the plaintiff immediately offered to dismiss the complaint against our client for a waiver of costs.

Social Host Immunity
After extensive oral argument, Chris Beeman and Adrianne Duncan prevailed on motions for summary judgment on behalf of their clients, who organized and hosted a Halloween Party for a group of mostly college-age guests at a private residence. A twenty year-old guest at the party consumed alcohol at the gathering and, hours after leaving the party, was involved in a drunk driving accident that killed one Caltrans worker and badly injured another.

Plaintiffs argued that the party hosts were liable because the driver became intoxicated at the party they hosted. Chris and Adrienne successfully argued that the party hosts were immune from liability pursuant to Civil Code§ 1714, and that their clients could not be stripped of this immunity because they did not sell alcohol to anyone at the party. The court found that the social hosts met their burden and proved that they were immune from liability. Conversely, Plaintiffs failed to prove that either of the statutory exceptions to civil immunity found in Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25602.1 applied.