Civil Litigation

Contact An Experience Lawyer

Witnesses And Exhibits For Trial

Explore the essential strategies for identifying and gathering witnesses in legal trials, understanding court evidence, and the impactful roles of expert witnesses and trial consultants. Learn how to prepare witnesses and exhibits, navigate subpoenas, and effectively manage unavailable witnesses through depositions to ensure a robust presentation in court.

How to start a lawsuit in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

How to Start A Lawsuit In The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

24/7 SERVICE. CALL OR TEXT 310.498.2750 CALL NOW 310-498-2750 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 3. Commencing an Action A civil action is commenced pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by filing a complaint with the court. This rule sets forth the basic procedural step required to initiate a civil lawsuit in the federal courts …

How to Start A Lawsuit In The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Read More »

Civil Discovery In Personal Injury Cases

What Is The Civil Discovery Process?

Civil Discovery Is Limited To What Is Reasonably Calculated To Lead To Admissible Evidence Civil Discovery is a process wherein each side attempts to discover potential evidence, information, and material possessed by the opposing side. In general, discovery is very broad and is primarily limited to what is reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible …

What Is The Civil Discovery Process? Read More »

Premises Liability Legal Safety Standards! Call (310) 498-2750

What Is The Legal Standard In A Premises Liability Case?

In a premises liability case, the legal standard varies depending on the injured party’s status on the property, applicable state law, and the specific circumstances of the incident. Property owners owe different duties of care to different groups of people, such as invitees, licensees, and trespassers. The standard for invitees, such as customers in a store, is the highest and requires the property owner to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn invitees of any known or foreseeable hazards. Licensees, such as social guests, are owed a lower duty of care, which requires the property owner to warn of known or hidden dangers that are not obvious. Trespassers are typically owed no duty of care unless the property owner knew or should have known about the trespasser’s presence and a danger existed. Ultimately, the legal standard in a premises liability case will depend on the specific facts of the case and the applicable state law.

Premises Liability Lawyer! Call (310) 498-2750

What Experts Are Required In A Premises Liability Case?

Discovery in a premises liability case involves the process of collecting and reviewing evidence related to the accident or incident that occurred on the property. This may include reviewing surveillance footage, interviewing witnesses, and inspecting the premises themselves. The goal of discovery is to uncover all relevant facts and information in order to support the plaintiff’s case and ensure that justice is served. It is important for both parties to approach discovery in a thorough and diligent manner in order to properly assess the strengths and weaknesses of their case, and to prepare for any potential legal disputes that may arise. Ultimately, the outcome of a premises liability case may hinge on the discovery process, as this is where much of the evidence will be presented and analyzed by both sides.

The Sterling Firm is here for your 24/7

Case Brief: Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad Co.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is a landmark case that was decided by the New York Court of Appeals in 1928. The case involved an incident at a train station where a passenger was injured by falling scales which were knocked off the hands of another passenger when the latter was hurriedly trying to board a moving train. The injured passenger, Palsgraf, sued the Long Island Railroad Co. for damages. The court held that the railroad company wasn’t liable for Palsgraf’s injuries as there was no evidence that they had acted negligently or that there was a direct relationship between their actions and Palsgraf’s injuries. This case established the concept of proximate cause which requires a plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s actions were the actual cause of their injuries and that there was a direct relationship between the two. The decision has had far-reaching consequences and has been cited in many subsequent cases.

Shopping Cart