Hennessey adv Perry
Jun 15, 2013OUTCOME: resolved
Mediation of View Right matter, View Restoration Law, View Preservation Law, Tree Ordinance, View Ordinance Law Arbitrator, View Ordinance Expertise, View Law Expertise, View Protection, View Rights
Charles F. Peterson's Legal Cases (6)
Rolling Hills, CA
Litigation Lawyer at Rolling Hills, CA
Practice Areas: Litigation, Real Estate
Trahan adv Kinschuker
Jun 01, 2013OUTCOME: resolved
Design of legal strategy to restore and protect residential property owner's ocean views. Provide Legal Counsel re view obstruction, view restoration, restrictive covenants and view ordinance. Mediati ... on, View Ordinance Expertise, View Law Expertise, View Protection, Tree Ordinance, View Rights
Farr adv Smith
May 01, 2013OUTCOME: resolved
View Ordinance Expertise, View Law, View Protection, Land Use, Restrictive Covenants, View Rights
Anderson v Jack in the Box Inc.
Jan 28, 2013OUTCOME: JURY TRIAL: Length, six days; Poll, 9-3 Defendant’s negligence; 11-1 Plaintiff’s comparative negligence; Deliberation, five hours JURY AWARD: 32.5% Jack in the Box’s fault 67.5% Plaintiff’s fault RESULT: Plaintiff’s verdict, total amount $57,000.00
Plaintiff Rebecca Anderson, age 30, had undergone a right knee patellofemoral arthroplasty with associated tibial tubercle osteotomy on January 10, 2011. On January 29, 2011, she entered the Jack in th ... e Box restaurant on crutches, but she was not wearing the Ossur knee brace prescribed by her surgeon. The restaurant had just completed mopping the floor. Disputed as to whether and where the wet floor warning signs were posted. As she was ambulating toward the drink station, plaintiff’s right crutch slipped and she fell. The surgical sutures burst and she incurred an open right tibial tubercle osteotomy site fracture and exposure of her patellofemoral arthroplasty. Plaintiff claimed that Jack in the Box was negligent and that the restaurant floor was dangerously unsafe. The restaurant’s video system did not record the incident. Defendant claimed that it was not negligent and that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by her failure to wear the knee brace. SPECIALS IN EVIDENCE: Medical expenses: $48,000.00 Future medical expenses: $400,000.00 Plaintiff asked jury to award: $1,400,00.00
VILLAREAL v JACK IN THE BOX INC
Aug 06, 2010OUTCOME: Defense Verdict. 10-2. Defendant awarded costs.
Ricardo Villareal v. Jack in the Box Inc. (37-2009-00091534-CU-PO-CTL) 10-JV_1601 Hon. Yuri Hofmann San Diego Superior TOPIC: Personal Injury SUB TOPIC: Premises Liability FURTHER DESCR ... IPTION: Slip and Fall VERDICT: Defense ATTORNEY: Plaintiff - Charles A. Bleiler, Diane E. Bond (Bleiler & Bond, APC, San Diego). Defendant - Charles F. Peterson (Law Offices of Charles F. Peterson, Rolling Hills Estates). MEDICAL: Plaintiff - Bruce R. Lasker, M.D., neurology, San Diego. Defendant - Kendall S. Wagner, M.D., orthopedic surgery, Fullerton. TECHNICAL: Plaintiff - Zachary Moore, safety engineering, Marina del Rey. Defendant - Alex Balian, MBA, retail custom and practice, West Hills. FACTS: On June 14, 2007, plaintiff Ricardo Villareal, a 68-year-old self-employed printer, slipped and fell inside the Jack in the Box restaurant in El Cajon. PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the the maintenance procedures used by the restaurant employee resulted in an unsafe condition causing plaintiff's injuries and damages. DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant introduced into evidence the videotape from the restaurant's closed circuit television system. It showed the dining room floor being mopped and dried 15 minutes before plaintiff fell. Plaintiff and six other customers had walked safely on the floor after it had been mopped and dried. The floor was perfectly safe for people to walk on. INJURIES: Conservative care failed. MRI in January 2009 showed L3-4-5 herniations. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress and is a candidate for spinal surgery. SPECIALS IN EVIDENCE: MEDS: $12,450 Future MEDS: $60,000 JURY TRIAL: Length, four days; Poll, 10-2 (no negligence); Deliberation, two hours SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS: Plaintiff demanded $600,000 at mediation, reduced to $39,999 via CCP 998 prior to trial. Defendant offered $6,500 at mediation, increased to $10,000 via CCP 998 prior to trial. RESULT: Defense Verdict. 10-2.
CHUDE v JACK IN THE BOX INC. 185 Cal. App. 4th 37; 109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 773; 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 776
N/AOUTCOME: Trial court's grant of summary adjudication upheld
Appellate Court affirmed trial court's grant of summary adjudication as to plaintiff's claim for non-economic damages. Proposition 213 (Civil Code sec. 3333.4) bars recovery of non-economic damages by ... an uninsured driver burned in a hot coffee spill at a fast-food restaurant drive-through.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
