Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Jeremy Robinson Weighs in on CPSC’s Historic Amazon Recall Decision

CPSC’s Groundbreaking Authority Over Amazon

SHK attorney Jeremy Robinson has provided expert analysis on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) recent landmark decision holding Amazon.com Inc. legally responsible for recalling hundreds of thousands of unsafe products sold on its platform. The unanimous ruling establishes Amazon as a “distributor” under federal law, marking a significant shift in regulatory oversight of online marketplaces. This decision represents a fundamental change in how regulatory bodies approach e-commerce platforms.

A Victory for Consumer Protection

“This is a significant victory, not only for consumers but also for physical retailers who’ve been subject to these types of provisions for quite some time,” said Robinson, whose expertise in e-commerce liability is well-established through his successful 2020 California appellate case against Amazon. “Amazon has been able to, in some states or locations at least… avoid being responsible for the products that it lists.”

Analysis of CPSC’s Decision

Robinson noted that the CPSC thoroughly dismantled Amazon’s argument that it was merely providing logistics services. The Commission’s ruling emphasized Amazon’s substantial control over products sold through its Fulfilled by Amazon program, including receipt, storage, and shipping of items. This comprehensive analysis sets a new precedent for how online marketplaces may be regulated in the future.

Regulatory Framework and Implementation

Drawing on his extensive experience in product liability law, Robinson highlighted the CPSC’s detailed requirements for Amazon under this ruling. The company must now cease distribution of affected products, notify purchasers, post information on social media, and submit monthly progress reports verifying that consumers have returned or destroyed unsafe products.

Impact on E-commerce Liability

As a leading voice in e-commerce liability law, Robinson contextualizes the ruling’s significance while acknowledging its current limitations. He explains that while this decision is substantial, state-by-state variations in product liability laws still create a complex legal landscape.

“All the states have this patchwork of product liability laws, and all of them have various different provisions in them,” Robinson noted. This insight highlights the continuing challenges in establishing consistent nationwide standards for e-commerce liability.

Broader Implications for Online Marketplaces

The decision specifically addresses three categories of products: defective carbon monoxide detectors, hair dryers, and children’s sleepwear that fails to meet federal flammability standards. Robinson’s analysis suggests this could be the beginning of broader regulatory oversight of online marketplaces, potentially affecting millions of products sold through these platforms.

Future of E-commerce Regulation

Robinson’s expertise positions him to anticipate the ruling’s long-term effects on e-commerce regulation. The decision may serve as a template for future CPSC actions against other online marketplaces, potentially reshaping how these platforms operate and their responsibilities to consumers. His insights suggest this ruling could catalyze further regulatory developments in the e-commerce space.

Read the full article on Law 36.

Contact Information

For inquiries about consumer protection litigation or to discuss your case with Jeremy Robinson and the SHK team, contact us for a consultation.

Source: Law360, “CPSC Makes Moves On Powers Of Recall Over Amazon”

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Attorney Jeremy Robinson discussing the landmark Amazon liability ruling
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Jeremy Robinson Secures Landmark Victory in Amazon Liability Case

The Groundbreaking Supreme Court Decision

SHK attorney Jeremy Robinson has achieved a significant victory in consumer protection law, successfully arguing that Amazon.com LLC can be held liable for defective products sold through its marketplace. The Supreme Court of California’s decision to deny Amazon’s petition for review cements Robinson’s appellate court victory as the only binding precedent in the country holding Amazon strictly liable for marketplace products.

“This is an important victory not only for Ms. Bolger but for all consumers in California,” said Robinson, who led the legal strategy that ultimately proved successful. “Despite Amazon’s claims, the high court denied Amazon’s petition as well as the request to have the case depublished.”

Strategic Litigation Leads to Consumer Protection Victory

The case arose when Robinson’s client suffered severe burns from an exploding laptop battery purchased on Amazon from third-party seller Lenoge Technology Ltd. (operating as “E-Life”). When Lenoge defaulted, Robinson strategically focused on establishing Amazon’s legal responsibility.

While the trial court initially sided with Amazon’s “online marketplace” defense, Robinson’s compelling arguments on appeal led to a groundbreaking 46-page published opinion that placed Amazon firmly within the stream of distribution. This decision fundamentally changes how online marketplaces can be held accountable for defective products.

Implications for E-commerce Marketplace Liability

“The significance of this ruling extends far beyond this single case,” Robinson explains. “We’ve established a legal framework that holds online marketplaces accountable for the safety of products sold through their platforms. This is particularly crucial as e-commerce continues to dominate retail sales.”

Robinson’s expertise proved instrumental in countering Amazon’s core defense that it merely provided services. He successfully demonstrated that Amazon’s extensive involvement in sales, including storage, shipping, and payment processing, made it an integral part of the distribution chain.

Setting National Precedent in Consumer Rights

While similar cases face ongoing challenges in other jurisdictions, such as the Ninth Circuit, Robinson’s victory sets a compelling precedent for future litigation. His strategic approach not only secured justice for his client but also established a framework for consumer protection in the digital marketplace.

The victory showcases Robinson’s dedication to consumer rights and his ability to adapt traditional product liability principles to modern commerce. His success establishes vital precedent that strengthens consumer protections across California’s e-commerce landscape.

Impact on Future E-commerce Litigation

Robinson’s achievement has drawn significant attention from legal scholars and practitioners nationwide. His innovative legal arguments and thorough understanding of both traditional liability law and modern e-commerce dynamics proved crucial to this landmark victory. The ruling sets a new standard for marketplace liability that may influence courts across the country.

[Read the full article on Law360]

For inquiries about consumer protection litigation or to discuss your legal needs, contact SHK for a case evaluation.

Source: Law360, “California High Court Won’t Review Amazon Marketplace Ruling”

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Legal document representing conflicting court decision on employer liability.
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Jeremy Robinson Discusses Conflicting Court Decisions on Employer Liability

Districts Split on Scope of Respondeat Superior Liability

Imagine you’re the managing partner at a law firm. One Saturday morning, you learn that the night before, one of your employees left work and later crashed into and killed an innocent driver. You’re horrified by the death, of course. But you’re also worried that your firm may be on the hook for the resulting damages.

Even if you’re not completely up to speed on respondeat superior law, you know the “going and coming” rule that normally bars employer liability for employee commutes is riddled with exceptions.

What questions do you ask? The first, and probably most obvious, is: Was the employee drunk? If so, where did they get or drink the alcohol? If the answer is “at work,” the firm is potentially in trouble, and you might want to rethink your alcohol policy.

The Impact of Purton v. Marriott International, Inc.

So holds the recent case of Purton v. Marriott International, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 4th 499 (2013). In Purton, an employee attended a holiday function, got drunk with both his own booze and some supplied by Marriott, drove home, made it home, but then left to drive someone else home and caused a fatal crash because he was still intoxicated.

Marriott argued that once the employee made it safely home, any potential liability Marriott may have had was cut off. However, the appellate court didn’t see it that way and reversed the summary judgment, stating:

“There is no reasonable justification for cutting off an employer’s potential liability as a matter of law simply because an employee reaches home.”

In response to Marriott’s complaints that the decision effectively requires employers to escort employees home from parties, the court said Marriott “created the risk of harm at its party by allowing an employee to consume alcohol to the point of intoxication.”

This is the “instrumentality of danger” approach espoused by a number of courts. The premise is simple: If your employee does something in the course and scope of their employment that makes them an “instrumentality of danger” (like getting drunk), you, the employer, remain responsible for the employee’s torts until that condition wears off—even if the employee makes it home and leaves again.

The lesson: If you don’t let employees get drunk at employer events, there will not be a problem.

The “Required Vehicle” Exception and Conflicting Decisions

But let’s suppose our hypothetical employee was not drunk. Then we get to whether you require the employee to make their own car available for work, and where you’re located.

If you do require your employee to use their vehicle for work, two recent published cases suggest your liability in the event of an accident may turn on which appellate district you draw:

  • Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc., 219 Cal. App. 4th 886 (2013) from the 2nd District Court of Appeal.
  • Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 220 Cal. App. 4th 87 (2013) from the 5th District Court of Appeal.

Both involve what has come to be known as the “required vehicle” exception to the “going and coming” rule. This exception holds that if the employee is required to use their personal vehicle for work or has agreed to make the vehicle available as an accommodation to the employer, the “going and coming” rule does not apply, and employers can be liable under respondeat superior for employee crashes during their commute.

Comparing Moradi and Halliburton

In Moradi, the employee, a salesperson who used her car for various employment tasks, left work to stop for frozen yogurt and attend a yoga session before going home. She planned to use her car for business travel the next day. While going to the yogurt store, she was involved in an accident. The court reversed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the employer could be liable.

In contrast, Halliburton involved an employee who was driving his employer’s vehicle and was returning to work from a personal errand (having lunch with his wife and trying to help her buy a car). He lost control of the truck, causing an accident. The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, finding no liability.

The courts reached opposite conclusions. The court in Halliburton even acknowledged the Moradi decision in a footnote but did little other than say, “yeah, there’s also that case.” This discrepancy makes it hard to reconcile the two cases and, unfortunately, doesn’t provide much helpful guidance to managing partners.

Navigating Employer Liability with SHK Law

At SHK Law, our attorneys, including Jeremy Robinson, understand the complexities surrounding employer liability in vehicle accidents. We stay updated on the latest court decisions to provide you with informed and effective representation.

Read the full article on the Daily Journal: Districts Split on Scope Respondeat Superior Liability

Contact Information

For inquiries about employer liability or to discuss your case with Jeremy Robinson and the SHK Law team, contact us for a free case evaluation

About Jeremy Robinson

Jeremy Robinson is an award-winning attorney with over 27 years of experience dedicated to mastering legal research, writing, and strategy. Recognized as Consumer Advocate of the Year in 2021 by the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego for his precedent-setting success in Bolger v. Amazon.com, Jeremy has made significant contributions to product liability law. His work has garnered attention from major media outlets like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, and CNBC. Jeremy continues to influence the legal landscape through his writing, speaking engagements, and dedication to his clients.

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Gavel on a courtroom desk with Jeremy Robinson's analysis of anti-SLAPP
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Understanding Anti-SLAPP Protections: A Legal Analysis by Jeremy Robinson

At SHK, our commitment to defending constitutional rights and navigating complex litigation is embodied in our exceptional legal team. With the addition of Jeremy Robinson, whose expertise in anti-SLAPP litigation adds to our robust practice, we continue to strengthen our position as leaders in this intricate area of law. Our firm’s deep understanding of anti-SLAPP statutes and their application enables us to effectively represent both private and public entities in these challenging cases.

In his insightful analysis for the Daily Journal, “Limited anti-SLAPP defense for public entities,” Jeremy Robinson examines the complex landscape of California’s anti-SLAPP laws and their application to government entities. The article delves into the fundamental tension between protecting free speech and the broad reach of anti-SLAPP statutes, highlighting how these laws extend far beyond their original intended scope of protecting public participation.

Robinson’s analysis centers on the landmark California Supreme Court decision in City of Montebello v. Vasquez (2016), which addressed the crucial question of when government entities and public employees can invoke anti-SLAPP protections. The case, involving former city council members using anti-SLAPP laws to defend against allegations of improper contract approval, illuminates the broader debate about government entities’ constitutional right to free speech.

The article expertly traces the evolution of California’s unique approach to this issue, beginning with Nadel v. Regents of University of California (1994), which established that public entities can enjoy some free speech protections. This foundation was further built upon in Bradbury v. Superior Court (1996), which recognized government entities as “persons” under anti-SLAPP law, acknowledging that they can only speak through their representatives.

Robinson’s analysis is particularly relevant as thousands of individuals and organizations face SLAPP suits annually, and as federal anti-SLAPP legislation continues to be debated in Congress. His examination of California’s distinctive position on government entities’ free speech rights provides valuable insights for practitioners navigating these complex waters.

Read Jeremy Robinson’s analysis of anti-SLAPP protections and their application to government entities. For inquiries about anti-SLAPP representation or to discuss your legal needs, contact SHK for a case evaluation. 

Source: “Limited anti-SLAPP defense for public entities” – Daily Journal

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Amazon Prime boxes stacked up
Media, Published ArticlesAdam J. Savin

Amazon Faces Increased Liability: A Deep Dive into the CPSC Ruling by Jeremy Robinson

SHK Law is proud to welcome Jeremy Robinson, a seasoned litigator who has made significant contributions to the legal field. His recent article in the Daily Journal, “The legal and practical implications of In the Matter of Amazon, Inc.,” sheds light on a landmark decision that could reshape the online marketplace.

In a significant victory for consumer safety, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has ruled that Amazon is a “distributor” under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) for products sold through its Fulfilled by Amazon program. This ruling has far-reaching implications for both Amazon and consumers, as it underscores the company’s responsibility for the safety of products it handles.

Understanding the CPSC Ruling

The CPSC’s decision stems from Amazon’s extensive involvement in the Fulfilled by Amazon program. This program allows third-party sellers to store their products in Amazon’s warehouses and ship them directly to customers. By taking on tasks like receiving, storing, and shipping products, Amazon assumes a significant role in the product distribution process.

The CPSC’s ruling recognizes that Amazon’s involvement goes beyond mere logistics. The agency determined that Amazon exercises substantial control over the products it handles, including accepting product listings, managing inventory, and processing customer orders. This level of control, the CPSC argued, makes Amazon a distributor under the CPSA.

Implications for Amazon

This ruling has several implications for Amazon:

  1. Increased Liability: As a distributor, Amazon is now responsible for ensuring the safety of products sold through its Fulfilled by Amazon program. This means the company may face increased liability for product recalls, injuries, and other safety-related issues.
  2. Operational Changes: Amazon may need to implement stricter quality control measures and safety standards to comply with its new obligations as a distributor. This could involve additional costs and resources.
  3. Legal Battles: Amazon is likely to challenge the CPSC’s ruling in court. The outcome of these legal battles could have significant implications for the future of online marketplaces.

Implications for Consumers

While the CPSC’s ruling is a positive development for consumer safety, it’s important to understand its limitations. The ruling primarily affects products sold through the Fulfilled by Amazon program. It does not extend to all products sold on Amazon’s marketplace.

Additionally, the CPSA does not provide consumers with a direct cause of action against Amazon for product defects. Consumers who are harmed by defective products may still need to pursue claims under state product liability laws.

Jeremy Robinson’s Expertise

Jeremy Robinson, an accomplished litigator at SHK Law, brings a wealth of experience to the table. His insightful analysis of the CPSC ruling highlights the complexities of online commerce and the evolving legal landscape. With a keen eye for detail and a deep understanding of consumer protection laws, Jeremy is well-equipped to navigate the challenges posed by this landmark decision.

To delve deeper into the legal and practical implications of the CPSC ruling, we encourage you to read Jeremy Robinson’s full article in the Daily Journal.

Don’t Wait, Take Action

If you believe you have a product liability claim, it’s important to act quickly. There are strict deadlines for filing lawsuits, so it’s crucial to consult with an attorney as soon as possible.

Contact SHK Law today to schedule a free consultation. Let us fight for your rights and help you recover the compensation you deserve.

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Employee reporting workplace issues under California's SB 497 protections.
LawsAdam J. Savin

SB 497: Shielding California’s Whistleblowers from Retaliation

California has consistently led the charge in protecting workers’ rights, and Senate Bill 497 (SB 497) is a significant step forward in that mission. This groundbreaking legislation enhances protections for whistleblowers who report illegal activities or unsafe working conditions, ensuring they can do so without fear of retaliation. By strengthening these safeguards, SB 497 promotes a workplace culture built on safety, transparency, and accountability.

Whistleblowers who stand up against misconduct deserve strong protection, and SHK Law is ready to advocate for them. With SB 497, California has introduced some of the most comprehensive legal measures to date. Let’s dive into the details.

What Is SB 497?

SB 497 is a new California law aimed at protecting workers who report unethical or illegal activities in the workplace. These activities may include violations of safety standards, wage theft, discrimination, harassment, or fraud.

Before SB 497, whistleblower protections in California were robust but often fell short in addressing subtle or indirect forms of retaliation. This law closes those gaps by strengthening worker protections and holding employers accountable for any retaliatory actions.

Key Protections Under SB 497

  1. Expanded Definition of Retaliation
    • SB 497 broadens the scope of what constitutes retaliation, covering not just termination but also demotions, reduced hours, harassment, or hostile work environments created after an employee reports wrongdoing.
  2. Protection Against Indirect Retaliation
    • The law ensures that workers are shielded from more nuanced forms of retaliation, such as being overlooked for promotions or subjected to increased scrutiny by supervisors.
  3. Right to Report Anonymously
    • SB 497 enhances protections for workers who wish to report violations anonymously, ensuring confidentiality and reducing the risk of retaliation.
  4. Increased Accountability for Employers
    • Employers found guilty of retaliating against employees can face stricter penalties, including fines and potential legal action by the affected worker.

These changes reflect California’s ongoing commitment to promoting transparency and accountability in workplaces across the state.

How SB 497 Protects California Workers

SB 497’s primary objective is to create a safe environment for workers to report unethical or dangerous conditions. Here’s how the law strengthens whistleblower protections:

  • Encourages Transparency: By protecting employees who report unethical practices, SB 497 promotes a culture of openness and integrity in the workplace.
  • Reduces Workplace Retaliation: Employers are deterred from retaliatory behavior, knowing that the law imposes severe consequences for such actions.
  • Supports Workplace Safety: Employees who report unsafe conditions help prevent workplace accidents, ultimately saving lives and reducing liability for companies.

Learn more about how SHK Law fights for workers’ rights.

How SHK Law Can Help

SHK Law is dedicated to defending whistleblowers who take a stand against misconduct. Your courage to speak out deserves strong legal advocacy.

Here’s how we can help:

  • Case Evaluation: We’ll assess the details of your case to determine if your employer’s actions constitute retaliation under SB 497.
  • Legal Representation: Our team of experienced attorneys will represent you, ensuring your voice is heard and your rights are protected.
  • Pursuing Compensation: If you’ve suffered damages due to retaliation, we’ll fight for the compensation you deserve, whether it’s lost wages, emotional distress, or punitive damages.

Whether your case involves workplace retaliation, unsafe conditions, or other violations, SHK Law is here to provide the expert guidance you need. Connect with us today to receive a free case evaluation.

The Bottom Line

SB 497 marks a turning point for workplace justice in California. The law arms whistleblowers with unprecedented protections, making it harder for employers to silence those who expose misconduct.

Facing retaliation? SHK Law’s attorneys will leverage these enhanced protections to defend your rights. Contact us now to build your strongest case.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice. Instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. It may also be inaccurate, incomplete, or inapplicable to the person reading it. This website also contains links to other third-party websites; such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser. The content on this webpage/website is provided “as is;” no representations are made that the content is error-free.

Readers of this website/webpage should contact their own attorney to obtain advice with respect to any legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site. Instead, they should seek legal advice from counsel in their relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and the law firm SHK Law, the lawyers at SHK Law, or the authors or contributors of this website.

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Gavel and legal documents highlighting California’s SB 71 jurisdictional limits.
LawsAdam J. Savin

SB 71: Expanding Access to Justice in California

California has taken a significant step toward improving access to justice with the introduction of Senate Bill 71 (SB 71). This groundbreaking legislation increases jurisdictional limits for small claims courts and other specific court cases, offering individuals and businesses a more affordable and accessible path to resolve disputes.

At SHK Law, we recognize how these changes can directly impact the legal process and your ability to seek justice. Here’s what you need to know about the updated jurisdictional limits and how they can work to your advantage.

What Is SB 71?

SB 71 is a law designed to streamline California’s legal system by raising the monetary limits for cases heard in small claims and other courts with limited jurisdiction. Previously, small claims courts were limited in the types and sizes of cases they could hear. With the passing of SB 71, these limits have been expanded, enabling more cases to bypass the lengthy and expensive procedures of higher courts.

Key Changes Under SB 71

  1. Increased Monetary Limits
    The jurisdictional limit for small claims court cases has been raised, allowing disputes involving larger amounts to be heard in these venues. For example, the limit for individual plaintiffs has increased from $10,000 to $15,000.
  2. Broader Accessibility
    Cases that previously required filing in superior court can now be handled in small claims court. This means less complexity, fewer filing fees, and a faster resolution process.
  3. Focus on Efficiency
    By shifting smaller cases away from overcrowded higher courts, SB 71 aims to reduce backlogs and ensure that serious and complex cases receive the attention they deserve.

These changes reflect California’s commitment to modernizing the legal system and making justice more attainable for all.

How SB 71 Improves Access to Justice

The expansion of jurisdictional limits is more than just a procedural update—it’s a practical solution to many of the challenges individuals face when pursuing legal action. Here’s how SB 71 helps:

  • Reduced Costs: Small claims court has lower filing fees and fewer procedural requirements than higher courts, making legal recourse more affordable.
  • Faster Resolutions: With streamlined processes and fewer cases clogging higher courts, disputes can be resolved more quickly.
  • Empowered Plaintiffs: By raising the limits, SB 71 allows plaintiffs to seek justice for disputes previously deemed too small for higher courts but too large for small claims courts.

Implications for California Residents and Businesses

These changes don’t just benefit individuals—they’re a win for businesses as well. Small businesses often face disputes over unpaid invoices, damages, or contract breaches that fall within these updated limits. SB 71 simplifies the path for business owners to reclaim losses, avoiding the challenges associated with superior court proceedings.

How SHK Law Can Help

Navigating California’s evolving legal landscape requires experienced guidance. At SHK Law, we help individuals and businesses understand their rights and maximize the opportunities provided by changes like SB 71. Our team ensures you’re well-prepared to take advantage of the streamlined processes and expanded limits.

Whether your case involves a contract dispute, a personal injury claim, or another legal matter, SHK Law has experience across a variety of case types impacted by the expanded jurisdictional limits. From slip-and-fall accidents to contract disputes, our attorneys know how to leverage the new jurisdictional limits to secure faster and more affordable outcomes for our clients.

The Bottom Line

SB 71 marks a major advancement in California’s legal system by increasing jurisdictional limits and making justice more accessible. These changes benefit individuals and businesses by reducing costs, speeding up resolutions, and alleviating the burden on higher courts.

If you’re considering filing a case and want to know how SB 71 impacts your options, contact SHK Law today. Our experienced attorneys are ready to help you win in this new legal landscape.

 

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice. Instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. It may also be inaccurate, incomplete, or inapplicable to the person reading it. This website also contains links to other third-party websites; such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser. The content on this webpage/website is provided “as is;” no representations are made that the content is error-free.

Readers of this website/webpage should contact their own attorney to obtain advice with respect to any legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site. Instead, they should seek legal advice from counsel in their relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and the law firm SHK Law, the lawyers at SHK Law, or the authors or contributors of this website.

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Courtroom scene with a gavel and legal documents, symbolizing accountability under California’s AB 360.
LawsAdam J. Savin

AB 360: Holding Law Enforcement Accountable

California continues to lead the charge in advancing police accountability with the enactment of Assembly Bill 360 (AB 360). This landmark legislation bans the use of “excited delirium” as a cause of death or defense in cases involving law enforcement’s use of force. The law responds to mounting concerns about the misuse of the term to justify excessive force and aims to bring greater transparency and accountability to cases involving deaths in police custody.

At SHK Law, we understand the significance of holding law enforcement accountable and protecting the rights of those affected by police misconduct. Here’s what you need to know about AB 360 and its impact on California law enforcement laws in 2024.

What Is ‘Excited Delirium’?

“Excited delirium” is a term historically used to describe a state of extreme agitation, confusion, and aggression that can result in sudden death, particularly in police custody. However, the term has been widely criticized for its lack of scientific basis and its disproportionate use to explain deaths involving marginalized communities.

AB 360 recognizes the problematic nature of this term, removing it as a defense or explanation in cases involving law enforcement use of force.

Key Provisions of AB 360

  1. Bans the Use of ‘Excited Delirium’ as a Cause of Death
    • Law enforcement agencies can no longer cite “excited delirium” as a valid cause of death in cases involving police custody or use of force.
  2. Prohibits ‘Excited Delirium’ as a Legal Defense
    • AB 360 prevents defense teams from using the term to justify or excuse excessive use of force, ensuring cases focus on evidence-based explanations.
  3. Emphasizes Accurate and Transparent Reporting
    • The law mandates accurate medical reporting in use-of-force cases, reducing the potential for misrepresentation of facts.

These measures aim to hold law enforcement accountable while strengthening the integrity of investigations and legal proceedings.

Why AB 360 Matters

The passage of AB 360 addresses a critical gap in accountability for law enforcement practices. Here’s why this legislation is so significant:

  • Promotes Transparency: By eliminating the use of “excited delirium” as a catch-all explanation, the law ensures that deaths in custody are accurately reported and investigated.
  • Enhances Accountability: Prohibiting the term as a defense prevents its misuse to shield excessive force, holding law enforcement to higher standards.
  • Supports Justice for Victims: Families of those who have died in police custody now have stronger legal protections to seek accountability and justice.

California Law Enforcement Laws in 2024

AB 360 is part of a broader movement to reform law enforcement practices and protect civil rights in California. By prioritizing transparency and removing unscientific justifications for excessive force, the state is taking meaningful steps toward restoring trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

If you or a loved one has been impacted by police misconduct, understanding your rights under new laws like AB 360 is crucial. 

How SHK Law Can Help

At SHK Law, we are committed to holding law enforcement accountable and advocating for those impacted by police misconduct. Our experienced team can:

  • Evaluate Your Case: We’ll assess the facts to determine how AB 360 and other laws apply to your situation. Get a free case evaluation from our legal team. 
  • Provide Expert Legal Representation: Our attorneys specialize in representing victims of police misconduct, ensuring your rights are protected.
  • Pursue Justice: Whether through negotiation or litigation, we’ll fight to hold law enforcement accountable and secure the compensation you deserve.

The Bottom Line

With the passage of AB 360, California has taken a bold step toward eliminating the misuse of “excited delirium” in law enforcement cases. By banning this controversial term, the state is reinforcing its commitment to transparency, accountability, and justice.

If you’re seeking legal support in a case involving police misconduct or excessive force, SHK Law is here to help. Contact us today to discuss your case and take the first step toward justice.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice. Instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. It may also be inaccurate, incomplete, or inapplicable to the person reading it. This website also contains links to other third-party websites; such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser. The content on this webpage/website is provided “as is;” no representations are made that the content is error-free.

Readers of this website/webpage should contact their own attorney to obtain advice with respect to any legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site. Instead, they should seek legal advice from counsel in their relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and the law firm SHK Law, the lawyers at SHK Law, or the authors or contributors of this website.

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
Expert witness testifying in a California personal injury case.
LawsAdam J. Savin

The Power of Expert Witness Testimony in Personal Injury Cases

In personal injury lawsuits, facts alone aren’t always enough to sway a jury or secure a favorable settlement. That’s where expert witnesses come in. These professionals provide specialized insights that can tip the scales of justice, especially in complex cases. At SHK Law, we have seen firsthand how expert testimony can mean the difference between a lowball settlement and a life-changing award.

What is an Expert Witness?

An expert witness is a professional with specialized knowledge or experience in a specific field relevant to a case. Their role is to provide clarity, offer expert opinions, and connect the dots for judges and juries who may not understand the technical or scientific aspects of the case.

Common Types of Expert Witnesses in Personal Injury Cases

  1. Medical Experts: Explain the nature, extent, and potential long-term impact of injuries.
  2. Accident Reconstruction Specialists: Recreate incidents to demonstrate fault or causation.
  3. Economic Experts: Calculate the financial impact of an injury, including lost wages and future expenses.

For example, in a case involving a traumatic brain injury (TBI), a neurologist might explain how the injury affects cognitive function and quality of life, strengthening the claim for long-term damages.

How Expert Witnesses Shape Injury Lawsuits

Expert witnesses don’t just add value to a case—they build its foundation. Here’s how:

Proving Negligence

A safety engineer can testify about how a poorly designed product or workplace hazard violated safety regulations, establishing liability. For example, the National Safety Council estimates that workplace injuries cost the U.S. economy $171 billion annually, often due to preventable negligence. An expert can quantify and explain these failings in a courtroom.

Establishing Damages

Medical experts can provide insight into ongoing treatment needs or future surgeries, creating a strong case for higher damages. According to a study by the Insurance Research Council, injured claimants who receive expert-supported legal representation settle for 3.5 times more on average than those who don’t.

Countering Defense Arguments

Defense teams often argue that injuries are pre-existing or exaggerated. A skilled expert can counter these claims with data and professional assessments that leave little room for doubt.

Case Outcomes Backed by Expert Testimony

Research highlights the important role expert witnesses play in influencing case outcomes. According to a report by the American Bar Association, personal injury cases that include expert testimony are more likely to achieve favorable jury verdicts, often leading to significantly higher damage awards when the testimony is persuasive and well-presented.

Real Results at SHK Law

In one of the most significant slip-and-fall verdicts in the United States, our team fought tirelessly to uncover the truth behind a client’s devastating spinal injury caused by a fall at a McDonald’s. The defense initially denied liability, claimed there was no video footage due to unrelated construction, and even blamed our client for causing his own fall.

By partnering with expert witnesses, including a life care planner and medical professionals, we built an undeniable case. These experts provided compelling testimony that the fall exacerbated our client’s pre-existing spinal injuries, resulting in permanent damage and requiring a spinal cord stimulator to manage his pain.

The defense’s initial settlement offer of $300,000 was far from adequate. At trial, after years of litigation and expert-driven evidence, we achieved a groundbreaking jury verdict of $18,794,132.14, making it the number one slip-and-fall verdict in the U.S. in 2022.

This case demonstrates both the powerful impact of expert witnesses and SHK Law’s dedication to fighting for the truth and delivering results that truly matter to our clients.

FAQs About Expert Witnesses in California

How Are Expert Witnesses Chosen?

At SHK, we carefully select professionals whose expertise aligns with the specific needs of each case. For instance, in a slip-and-fall case, we might bring in a biomechanical expert to demonstrate how the accident caused specific injuries.

Can Expert Witnesses Be Cross-Examined?

Yes, and this is where experience matters. SHK prepares our experts rigorously to withstand cross-examination, ensuring their testimony remains credible and impactful.

How Much Does an Expert Witness Cost?

While costs vary, investing in the right expert often leads to significantly higher settlements or awards. This cost is typically recovered in the increased compensation the expert helps secure.

The Role of Expert Testimony in Injury Lawsuits

Insurance companies know the power of expert witnesses—and they fear it. That’s why they often attempt to discredit or exclude expert testimony. At SHK Law, we anticipate these tactics and work diligently to ensure our experts deliver testimony that holds up under scrutiny.

Studies show that jurors place a high value on expert witnesses, often seeing them as impartial authorities. According to a report by the National Center for State Courts, jurors are 85% more likely to favor a party with credible expert testimony, highlighting the critical role these professionals play in the courtroom.

Why SHK Law is Different

Most law firms rely on quick settlements, prioritizing volume over value. SHK Law takes a different approach. We see each case as an opportunity to fight for meaningful justice. By partnering with top-tier expert witnesses and leveraging our litigation expertise, we give our clients the best chance at success—whether through negotiation or in the courtroom.

Leverage is Key

Our trial-ready approach sends a clear message to insurance companies, prompting them to reconsider their tactics and often resulting in more substantial settlements. 

Contact SHK Law Today

Expert witnesses are a game-changer in personal injury cases. But they’re only as effective as the attorneys presenting them. At SHK Law, we combine cutting-edge legal strategies with industry-leading experts to deliver case results that matter.

If you’re facing a personal injury lawsuit, don’t settle for less. Contact SHK Law today or schedule a free case evaluation to learn how we can build the strongest possible case for you.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice. Instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. It may also be inaccurate, incomplete, or inapplicable to the person reading it. This website also contains links to other third-party websites; such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser. The content on this webpage/website is provided “as is;” no representations are made that the content is error-free.

Readers of this website/webpage should contact their own attorney to obtain advice with respect to any legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site. Instead, they should seek legal advice from counsel in their relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and the law firm SHK Law, the lawyers at SHK Law, or the authors or contributors of this website.

Free Case Evaluation
Disclaimer
1 2 3 … 6
© 2024 SHK Law, All Rights Reserved. Built by Dymic Digital