Downtown Jury Finds 50/50 Liability in Rear-end Accident Involving Truck
On May 30, 2025, Scott Macdonald and Michael Moon secured a favorable verdict in Downtown Los Angeles. Our client was an appliance delivery company. Plaintiff claimed that they were rear-ended on the freeway without warning. Defendant driver claimed that plaintiffs swerved into his lane and stopped rapidly, thereby cutting off our client’s stopping distance. The plaintiffs had a witness that claimed that defendant was tailgating a vehicle, so the witness backed off on her speed and lost sight of the truck. The witness then came upon the accident and called 911. The EDR from plaintiffs’ vehicle was harvested. This allegedly showed a lack of braking and any turning movement by plaintiffs’ vehicle within five seconds of the accident. We established that defendant’s story had never changed, but plaintiffs had provided versions of the accident which were both inconsistent between stories and inconsistent with the EDR as well. We argued that defendant’s version of the facts was consistent with the EDR from his perspective.
Plaintiff driver claimed the need for extensive pain management and a three level cervical surgery which was a fusion at C5-6 and disc replacements above and below the fusion. Plaintiff sought past medical bills, future medical care and pain and suffering. Plaintiff driver sought between $2,400,000 and $5,400,000 from the jury.
Plaintiff passenger claimed that she sustained a traumatic brain injury and a thoracic outlet syndrome injury. She sought past medical bills, future medical care and pain and suffering. She sought between $790,000 and $1,900,000 from the jury.
The jury found both drivers were 50% at fault. The jury awarded past medical and future medical bills, and awarded the numbers we suggested for past and future pain and suffering. The total net verdict for plaintiffs was $659,000. The parties have agreed to resolve the case post-trial.
Read MoreProud Sponsor of the 18th Annual OC ABOTA Golf Classic
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, The American Board of Trial Advocates, Orange County Chapter and the upcoming event on May 19th, the 18th Annual OC ABOTA Golf Classic.
Proud Sponsor of the 8th Annual CRB Golf Tournament
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, The Alabaster Jar Project and the upcoming event on May 9th, the 8th Annual CRB Golf Tournament.
Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion in Defamation Case
Amy Akiyama and Megan K. Hawkins secured an appellate victory in a defamation case. On January 30, 2025, the California Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s Order granting Defendant’s anti-SLAPP Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 and striking the Plaintiff’s operative complaint without leave to amend.
In the operative complaint, Plaintiff alleged: (1) Plaintiff was the driver of a motor vehicle which came into contact with a bicyclist in Defendant’s neighborhood; (2) Defendant witnessed the incident; (3) Plaintiff left the scene without exchanging information with the bicyclist; and (4) Defendant colluded with his neighbors to make misrepresentations about the incident to responding police officers.
Within a couple of days of being represented by counsel, Defendant brought an ex parte application for leave of the Trial Court to file an anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (aka Anti-SLAPP) motion more than 60 days after the filing of the operative complaint. Defendant’s counsel argued that an anti-SLAPP motion had merit and that the purpose of an anti-SLAPP motion, i.e., early dismissal of a meritless lawsuit which threatens free speech, would be furthered by allowing such motion to proceed. The Trial Court agreed and granted leave to file the Anti-SLAPP motion.
Defendant then successfully obtained from the Trial Court an order striking the operative complaint, without leave to amend, pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP motion. The Trial Court agreed with Defendant that: (1) the litigation arises from protected communications that Defendant allegedly had with police officers; (2) Plaintiff was unable to meet her burden of establishing a probability of prevailing on the merits in light of the litigation/official proceeding privilege codified in Civil Code action 47, which recognizes the importance in providing citizens free and open access to governmental agencies for the reporting of suspected unlawful activity; and (3) Plaintiff could not prove that any alleged communication was made with actual malice given that Plaintiff had no evidence that any statement was made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s speculative opinion that Defendant colluded with his neighbors was not evidence. A judgment of dismissal was entered following the Trial Court’s granting of the anti-SLAPP motion.
Plaintiff pursued an appeal of the Trial Court’s ruling. The appeal was taken up by the Fourth Appellate District Court. On appeal, Plaintiff contended the Trial Court abused its discretion in allowing the Anti-SLAPP motion to be heard more than 60 days after the filing of the operative complaint and erred in granting the Anti-SLAPP motion.
Defense Counsel prepared a detailed appellate response brief. Defendant argued that evidence was provided to the Trial Court in support of Defendant’s ex parte application for leave to file the anti-SLAPP motion such that its decision to grant leave could not be deemed whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious. Defense Counsel further distinguished all of Plaintiff’s authorities which had been cited by Plaintiff in an attempt to show the Trial Court erred in granting the Anti-SLAPP motion.
Read MoreChristmas Defense Verdict
On December 24, 2024, Scott Macdonald and Jorge Lopez Herrera secured a defense verdict in Van Nuys, California. Plaintiff was a tenant of our client. She claimed that a shower door failed and came off of its tracks. The door hit plaintiff in the head and caused her head to be pushed back into a wall. She fell to the floor and lost consciousness. She was found by a family member that had been staying with her. Plaintiff claimed that the shower door was dangerous and that defendant had been put on notice that the door was “dangerous” roughly six months before the incident and did not properly repair the door. Defendant denied that he had ever been put on notice of anything being wrong with the door and disputed that it was dangerous. It was established that the plaintiff used the shower door for six months and between 150-180 times after the alleged notice of the door being dangerous. We argued that no one could say why the door came off the track, and that defendant could not have been put on notice of a dangerous condition because no one could identify what the dangerous condition was.
Plaintiff claimed a traumatic brain injury and sought between $5,000,000 to $7,000,000 from the jury. Defendant conceded a minor concussion by history and sought to establish that any healing occurred immediately or very shortly thereafter.
The Jury deliberated and issued a defense verdict on liability. Post-Trial motions at the trial Court level were denied.
Read MoreHappy Holidays from Macdonald & Cody
Macdonald & Cody LLP celebrated the holidays by coming together for their annual holiday luncheon. We are thankful for our incredible team and send warm wishes to all for a joyful holiday season!
Proud Sponsor of the Childhelp Rich Saul Memorial Golf Classic 2025
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to help contribute to organizations like, Childhelp and their upcoming event on April 28th, the Rich Saul Memorial Golf Classic 2025.
California Supreme Court Denies Plaintiff’s Petition to Reverse Order Sustaining Demurer in Defendant Homeowner’s Favor in Criminal Home-Invader Case
Scott L. Macdonald and Edye A. Hill secured an appellate victory in a homeowner personal injury case. On November 13, 2024, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s petition to review the Appellate Court’s order affirming the Trial Court’s Order that sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. Both higher courts approved and affirmed the ruling in Defendant’s favor.
Plaintiff was a social, overnight guest at Defendant’s residential home. During Plaintiff’s stay, a criminal trespassed into the house, killed Defendant’s spouse and child in their beds, and stabbed Plaintiff multiple times. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was liable for the personal injuries that she suffered from the attack by a third-party criminal because Defendant was the last adult to arrive home the night before; Defendant failed to ensure the sliding glass door and windows were locked; and Defendant failed to set the house alarm. The uninvited third-party admitted to law enforcement that he would not have entered the home if the sliding glass door was locked. Defendant has no pre-existing relationship with the third-party trespasser. There were no prior instances of criminal activity or violence at the residential home prior to the subject incident. The operative complaint alleged that Defendant discussed his prior purchase of a gun during dinner with Plaintiff because Defendant was aware of increasing crime rates; that Defendant’s Chinese heritage made the house a target for robbery due to the stereotype of Asians keeping their jewelry and valuables at home; and the rise of Anti-Asian hate in the community, State, and nationwide.
Defense Counsel successfully obtained a demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against the sole cause of action for negligence and persuaded the Trial Court to deny leave to amend to Plaintiff. The Trial Court agreed that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts showing that Defendant homeowner owed a legal duty to prevent the criminal actions of a third-party and in particular the lack of factual allegations that Defendant had any notice or warning about impending criminal activity at the residence was detrimental to Plaintiff’s case. The Trial Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
Plaintiff pursued an appeal of the Trial Court’s ruling. The appeal was taken up by the Fourth Appellate District Court. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the burden on the homeowner Defendant was zero because the sliding glass door already had a lock; a house alarm was already installed; and Defendant would have incurred no additional financial costs to simply turn the lock on the door and to push the alarm button “on”.
Defense Counsel prepared a detailed appellate response brief. Defendant argued that Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff to protect Plaintiff from the criminal actions of a third-party. Defendant’s appellate brief argued that: heightened foreseeability is required for third-party criminal conduct; that judicial precedent in homeowner cases required actual knowledge of crimes before imposing a duty for to protect against third-party conduct; there were no facts of prior crime at Defendant’s residence alleged in the operative complaint; Plaintiff’s citation to statistical reports, government records, and new articles about crime and Anti-Asian hate do not give rise to a new duty to protect; that casual dinner table talk does not establish actual knowledge of criminal threats; the third-party’s actions were not foreseeable; and that Defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to ensure the doors were locked and the alarm set did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant also argued that public policy factors did not favor imposing a new duty to lock all doors and windows and to always set the house alarm on residential homeowners.
Both Defense Counsel and Plaintiff Counsel presented oral argument before the Appellate three-judge panel. Plaintiff Counsel argued that Defendant has an affirmative duty to use the safety precautions of locks and the house alarm that were already in place. Plaintiff contended that but for Defendant’s failure to engaged the lock and alarm that had “zero burden”, the stabbing by the third-party invader would not have occurred. Defense Counsel argued that the burden on the homeowner Defendant was high because the imposition of a new duty to protect social guests would require all homeowners to serve as a bodyguard and sentry against any violent actions by unknown, surprise attackers. Defense Counsel argued that imposing a new duty to guarantee absolute security by locking all doors and setting alarms was susceptible to a wide range of passive human error such as where the homeowner fell asleep watching television or a guest or child unlocked a window or opened a door without the homeowner’s knowledge.
The Appellate Court agreed with Defendant finding that even under the assumption that there was a special relationship between a homeowner and overnight guest, the Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 factors could not be satisfied by Plaintiff. The reviewing judicial panel found that light of the absence of facts to establish prior notice of criminal acts and that there was no causal nexus between the homeowner’s omissions and the injury suffered, the third-party’s criminal acts were not foreseeable. The Appellate Court ruled that Defendant’s failure to check the door and set the alarm were not sufficiently likely to result in the attack on Plaintiff and the death of Defendant’s spouse and child. The Appellate Court affirmed in Defendant’s favor.
Plaintiff then petitioned the California Supreme Court for higher court review of the Appellate Court’s ruling. Plaintiff argued that both the Appellate Court and the Trial Court erred in holding that Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff. Defense Counsel prepared and filed an extensive Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition arguing that the Appellate Court correctly affirmed the demurrer because the criminal acts were not foreseeable; the Defendant homeowner did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries; there is no duty for affirmative preventive measures on homeowners; imposing a duty to ensure that the residence is fortified against crime is not workable; even a low financial burden does not justify the imposition of a new duty on homeowners; the social burden would be onerous; a duty to lock all doors and set all alarms would not likely change future behavior; and the availability of insurance would be adversely affected. Without permitting further briefing or any oral argument, the Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s petition.
Result: The Trial Court’s Order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend remains in place and the judgment in Defendant’s favor becomes final. Defendant was awarded costs of appeal.
Read MoreProud Supporter of ASCDC Fifth Annual Breast Cancer Fundraiser for City of Hope 2024
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP is pleased to be able to support and make a donation to The Association of Southern California Defense Counsel’s Fifth Annual Breast Cancer Fundraiser for City of Hope.
Proud Sponsor of the WINE & WISHES Gala 2024
The team at Macdonald & Cody, LLP was pleased to be able to help contribute to Make a Wish San Diego and their event on October 12th, the WINE & WISHES Gala 2024.
