Personal Injury and Workers Compensation Law Victims Rights Harmed by New California Ruling
A new ruling recently handed down by the US District Court in California significantly limits the type of claims that plaintiffs can make in certain personal injury situations. The limitations are based on a person’s exposure to chemicals that are known to cause cancer.
Los Angeles, United States – March 30, 2015 /PressCable/ —
Proposition 65 Limits the Type of Claims That Individuals Can Make in Tort Reform Claims
March 27, 2015 – In “Tiva v. Pepsico, Inc.,” a worker’s compensation case, the plaintiff indicated that they were exposed to certain chemicals while on the job that increased a person’s risk of certain medical conditions. The court found that the plaintiff’s claim was ultimately speculative, as they failed to show a link between an increased chance of these conditions and their own exposure to them.
In the state of California, all employers are required to have an insurance policy that is set aside specifically to cover victims of work related accidents and illnesses. Under the law, all employees who are injured while on the job – regardless of who is at fault – are supposed to have this type of safety net set up to cover things like medical bills, rehabilitation costs and lost wages.
“Thanks to Proposition 65, it is now significantly more difficult for victims to bring about certain types of tort actions in California” said Alexander D. Napolin, Esq, a personal injury attorney. “Making the decision to obtain legal representation before bringing about a claim is now more important than ever for their success.”
Personal injury law is governed by the doctrine of negligence, which lays out very specific criteria that must be met to prove that someone is at fault in these types of situations. The person bringing about the lawsuit has the burden of proving that the person they are suing (like a careless employer, a reckless driver or a negligent doctor) was acting unreasonably given the circumstances.
In the case of Proposition 65, the court determined that the plaintiffs had not adequately shown that their employer was acting carelessly regarding their exposure to the chemicals.
Depending on the situation, they may also have to prove that the defendant ignored risk or acted with an intention to harm, which can be very difficult for a plaintiff to do without any type of legal aid.
Company Information: For more information about personal injury and worker’s compensation law in California and to learn about your rights in these situations, please visit the California Injury Lawyer website today at http://www.calinjurylawyer.com.
Learn More about the different California Injury Laws: http://www.calinjurylawyer.com/understanding-different-california-injury-laws
For more information about us, please visit http://www.calinjurylawyer.com
Name: Alexander D. Napolin
Address: 269 W Bonita Ave, Claremont, CA 91711
Release ID: 78228