Our office remains open and serving clients during COVID-19. We also remain available 24/7 to answer questions about any potential personal injury claim toll free at 866-966-5240.

Slider
Hundreds of Millions Recovered in Verdicts & Settlements
Photo of Attorney
Justia Lawyer Rating for Steven M. Sweat
BBB Rating: A+
Avvo Rating 10.0
Top 100 Trial Lawyers
10 Best Attorney Client Satisfaction
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Super Lawyers
The State Bar of California
Client Champion Silver 2020
Lead Counsel
Published on:

fake-business-reviews-injury-attorneys-Los-AngelesTrying to find a reputable personal injury attorney in Los Angeles can seem overwhelming. You might notice there are a large number of solo practitioners and law firms advertising their services as personal injury attorneys. You might have heard that checking online reviews from past clients can be a great way to narrow down your search. Reading about others’ experiences when working with an attorney can give you a general idea of what you might expect.

However, like any other product or service advertised online, legal websites and review sites might also include fake reviews to attract customers. This is especially troublesome when hiring an attorney because posting of fake reviews is actually a violation of the ethical rules governing lawyers in California (California Rule of Professional Conduct 4-100 prohibits untrue statements in advertisements) and is a clear sign that you may be hiring a dishonest and unethical injury lawyer. Knowing what to look for to help you identify law firms that publish fake reviews can help you to find an attorney and firm that you can trust. A good personal injury law firm will never post fake reviews to try to drive business. Here are some telltale signs that a Los Angeles personal injury law firm might be relying on fake reviews to sell their services.

1. Reviews that are generic

Published on:

Los-Angeles-Freeway-Accident-Attorneys-LawyersIn some California personal injury accidents, multiple parties may share fault. When several parties are at fault for an accident, each party’s percentage of the fault must be determined. All parties that are found to share fault will then be responsible for paying the percentages allocated to them. An individual defendant will not have to pay more than the percentage of fault that he or she has. In Plascencia v. Deese, Cal. Ct. App. 2d Crim. No. B299142, the appeals court considered a case in which the court excluded evidence of the comparative fault of several defendants who had settled before trial so that the jury could not consider their comparative fault when it apportioned an award of damages in the plaintiffs’ favor.[1]

Factual and procedural background

Jocelyn Plascencia was a 20-year-old woman who was driving on SR-126 on April 19, 2014. A woman named Anita Newcomb was leaving a fruit stand that was located on the highway’s south side. She made an illegal U-turn to enter SR-126 in Plascencia’s path. Plascencia was driving a Toyota Camry. She swerved to avoid colliding with Newcomb’s vehicle, lost control of her car, and crashed into the rear of a tractor-trailer truck that had been parked on the south side of the highway close to the fruit stand by a man named Charles Deese.

Published on:

Los-Angeles-Car-Accident-AttorneysAfter an injury accident in California, a victim may be entitled to recover damages from every party that contributed to the accident’s cause. In some cases, several parties may share liability. If a plaintiff cannot prove one of the elements of a cause of action, the trial court can grant a defendant’s summary judgment motion and dismiss the case. In Luebke v. Automobile Club of Southern California, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B302782, the appeals court considered a case in which the trial court granted a summary judgment motion based on the plaintiff’s admission in an interrogatory.[1]

Factual and procedural background

On June 4, 2015, Brett Luebke was driving his car on northbound Interstate 405 when his vehicle’s engine died. He coasted onto the shoulder and called the Automobile Club of Southern California to ask for roadside assistance. Luebke remained sitting inside of his vehicle for two hours as he waited for a tow truck to arrive. While he was still there, an unlicensed driver named Tong Yin lost control of his car and ran off the road, striking Luebke’s vehicle in its rear.

Published on:

lyft-accident-attorneys-injury-lawyersMany Californians rely on the gig economy to supplement their incomes, and some people earn all of their income through driving for ride-share companies. To drive for Lyft, drivers must meet a number of different requirements. Many potential Lyft drivers are disqualified because they cannot meet the minimum standards. While it is good that Lyft has basic requirements that its drivers must meet, some Lyft drivers are still unsafe. Each year, a number of Lyft drivers are involved in motor vehicle accidents. If you suffer injuries in an accident caused by a negligent Lyft driver, you may be entitled to recover damages for your losses. An experienced Lyft accident attorney at the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers might help you to recover compensation for your losses. Here is some information about the requirements for drivers who want to drive for Lyft.

License and age requirements

To drive for Lyft, you must be at least the minimum age for the area in which you live. The minimum age to drive for Lyft varies from state to state. Some cities also have different minimum age requirements. In general, Lyft drivers in California must be a minimum of 25 years old. Several cities and counties have a lower minimum age of 21 for Lyft drivers, however. You can search your city to see the minimum age requirement on Lyft’s website.

Published on:

Los-Angeles-Traffic-Accidents-AttorneysIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Los Angeles implemented the Slow Streets program in May 2020.[1] This program allowed more people to get fresh air and enjoy their neighborhoods while large portions of the city were shut down in response to the spread of the virus. While people were under stay-at-home orders, the Slow Streets program allowed them to have more room to exercise outdoors. The program proved to be popular with residents of many neighborhoods throughout the city, prompting the City Council to consider implementing it as a permanent option instead of a temporary measure. In addition to drawing more people outdoors to enjoy their neighborhoods, the Slow Streets program may also help to reduce the number of traffic injuries and fatalities caused by vehicles speeding through neighborhoods.

What is the Slow Streets program?

With many people ordered to stay at home during the pandemic, Los Angeles implemented a temporary measure to allow people to exercise outdoors in their neighborhoods called the Slow Streets program. This program allowed neighborhoods with sponsoring organizations to apply to have their areas designated for slow streets. Neighborhoods that have been approved for the program are blocked off with signs that prohibit cutting through and only allow local traffic. The signs also call for drivers to slow down and safely share the roads. After the program was implemented, a few hundred neighborhoods submitted applications. The program allows people who live in affected neighborhoods to enjoy cycling, jogging, and walking in a safer environment free from speeding cars.[2]

Published on:

Parking-Lot-Accident-LawyerProperty owners and occupiers in Los Angeles have a duty to maintain their premises in reasonably safe conditions to protect lawful visitors from being injured. This duty can sometimes extend to the adjacent, publicly-owned property when the property owner has exercised control over it in some way and has created or contributed to the dangerous condition. In Lopez v. City of Los Angeles, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B288396, the appeals court considered a case in which it was unclear whether a property owner had exerted control over a portion of a city-owned sidewalk that abutted against its driveway and caused the plaintiff to suffer serious injuries.[1]

Factual and procedural background

Jose Luis Lopez, Jr. was walking in the rain in Feb. 2014. When he came to the driveway leading to Wally’s Wine & Spirits, Lopez stepped in a pothole that was filled with rainwater. This caused his ankle to dislocate, and he tore three ligaments and broke two bones. Wally’s Wine & Spirits leases the facility to store wine for restaurants and a liquor store. Traffic in the parking lot is limited to delivery vans and vehicles of customers who pay to store wine in a temperature-controlled room. The property is managed by the Northern Trust Bank of California and is owned by the Marvin A. Kahn Deceased Trust.

Published on:

wrongful-death-traffic-accident-claims-Los-AngelesMany people in Los Angeles are killed or seriously injured in automobile accidents every year. To try to lower the high rates of traffic fatalities, the city implemented the Vision Zero policy in 2016. This policy’s goal is to reduce traffic fatalities in the city to zero by 2025. However, the number of accidents and traffic deaths have continued to increase despite the policy. When people are killed in accidents in Los Angeles, their family members have a right to file lawsuits to recover monetary damages when the accidents are caused by other people or entities. While these types of accidents may be caused by many things, the following are the top five causes of fatal collisions in Los Angeles as revealed by Vision Zero’s Safety Study for Los Angeles in 2017.

1. Speeding

Driving at high speeds was the leading cause of traffic deaths in Los Angeles in 2017. When drivers drive at high speeds, their visual fields narrow. This makes it more difficult for drivers to see others in their peripheral vision. Driving at high speeds also makes it more difficult to stop in time to avoid an accident. When a car’s speed is doubled, its braking distance increases by four times. The combination of a reduced visual field and a longer distance for braking makes speeding the most common cause of fatal accidents.

Published on:

Los-Angeles-Slumlord-Injury-AttorneysIn urban areas of California like Los Angeles, slumlords take advantage of tenants by failing to keep their properties in a reasonably safe condition. When landlords fail to make repairs or to maintain their properties, tenants who are left to live in uninhabitable conditions may have grounds to file lawsuits. In Williams v. 3620 W. 102nd Street, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B297824, the appeals court considered whether an arbitration clause contained in a residential lease should compel the parties to arbitration rather than allowing the tenants to pursue their rights through litigation.[1]

Factual and procedural background

Keisa Williams signed a lease in March 2014 to rent an apartment located at 3620 W. 102nd Street in Los Angeles with Rubin Womack. The two lived in the apartment with Williams’ two children and another person. In 2015, the lease was renewed. The tenants filed a lawsuit against the owners in Oct. 2016 claiming that they had violated the warranty of habitability and had engaged in negligence because of a lack of pest control in their apartment and in the building’s common areas. The tenants alleged that their apartment was infested with bed bugs and had several other problems that the owners had failed to correct. Because of the bed bugs, the tenants alleged that they had suffered personal injuries and property damages.

Published on:

https://i2.wp.com/www.victimslawyer.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Amazon.com-Injury-Lawyers-California.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1In California, the manufacturers of defective products are strictly liable for injuries that are caused by the defects to people who use the products in the manner in which they were intended. The state extended strict liability to retailers of products in 1964. However, online retailers, including Amazon, eBay, Etsy, and others, have relied on a loophole to escape strict liability. If passed and enacted, a new assembly bill would erase the loophole and expose online retailers to liability when defective projects that are sold on their platforms by third-party sellers injure consumers.[1]

Proposed legislation to end defective products loophole

California AB 3262 was introduced by Assemblyman Mark Stone (D-Santa Cruz) on Feb. 21, 2020.[2] This law would extend strict liability for defective products to online retailers. Currently, product designers and manufacturers are strictly liable for injuries caused by their products. Brick-and-mortar retailers are also liable when they sell products to consumers that are defective and cause injuries. While laws have been in place to hold retailers accountable when they sell defective products that injure consumers, online retailers, including Amazon, Etsy, and eBay have been able to rely on a loophole to escape liability.

Published on:

million-dollar-lawyer-Los-AngelesIn California, landlords owe a duty of care to their tenants to correct hazards that they know about or reasonably should discover on their property. However, this duty does not extend to hazards created by the tenants that the landlords do not know about and could not have reasonably discovered. In Lin Joon Oh v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Assn. of America, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B297567, the court considered a case involving a tenant’s handling and storage of hazardous chemicals on its leased premises and whether the landlord was liable to pay damages.

Factual and procedural background

Ji Hoon Oh was employed by I.B.S. Beauty Co., which leased the property from Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America. The property was managed by Cushman & Wakefield Management Corporation and consisted of part of a building in an industrial complex in Santa Fe Springs, California. IBS initially leased the property from TIAA in Oct. 2017 and subsequently renewed the lease multiple times. The last renewal of the lease occurred in Oct. 2015. IBS sold a hair product called MOA Oil and stored it in 55-gallon drums in the facility. The drums did not have markings to indicate that the chemicals were hazardous or volatile.

Contact Information