San Diego Estate Planning Lawyer Blog

San Diego, California has a major league baseball team called the San Diego Padres. At the stadium, not all areas are protected from either a foulr ball or a hit ball. As such, it is important to understand the below facts if you attend baseball games. To minimize risk of injury, it is advisable to sit in seats which are adequately screened. You can view these seats on the link provided by the website to the Padres above. This ruling does not include football games and there is also the San Diego Chargers which have their stadium in San Diego as well.

A state court has overturned a $1 million jury verdict for a young girl who was injured when part of a broken bat struck her as she sat in the stands at a major league baseball game. The girl was seated behind a net that extended down the third base line, but the bat fragment curved around the net and hit her.

The girl argued that baseball officials were negligent in not having more protective screening for spectators. However, most courts apply a more lenient "limited-duty" rule to America's Pastime and this court was no exception. The majority of baseball fans prefer to be close to the action, with no protective screen that would block their view and prevent the possibility of catching a batted ball. Baseball teams reasonably accommodate this majority of their consumers, while providing protected seats behind home plate for those more concerned with safety. Under the limited-duty rule, when a stadium owner has made adequately screened seats available for all those desiring them, it has fulfilled its duty as a matter of law and it will not be liable for spectators injured by an object from the field.

The girl also asserted that the stadium owner had a duty to warn spectators about projectiles from the field. The court rejected this basis for liability because the risk involved was already well known by spectators. As a general rule, there is no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers. Even so, the stadium owner in this case had warned the fans with an announcement, a notice on a video board, and fine print on the tickets. Making no distinction between a broken bat and a baseball, the court quoted the observation of another court that "[n]o one of ordinary intelligence could see many innings of the ordinary [baseball] league game without coming to a full realization that batters cannot and do not control the direction of the ball."

If you have any questions about this legal matter, please contact our law firm of Pinkerton, Doppelt & Associates, LLP or e mail us.

San Diego, California is a state however San Diego small business owners must comply with federal law as well. Federal law is supreme over state law. In San Diego, small business owners must comply with all applicable federal laws.

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing the most widely applicable federal laws that prohibit discrimination in employment. The smallest of businesses are not subject to most of these statutes. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, applies only to employers with 15 or more employees. The same is true for Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits job discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The threshold for coverage under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is 20 or more employees. The Equal Pay Act, which is intended to prevent wage discrimination between men and women in substantially equal jobs in the same establishment, applies to most employers with at least one employee.

In calculating the number of employees for purposes of coverage of these statutes, all employees are counted, including part-time and temporary workers. Independent contractors are not included, but the distinction between such workers and employees is often difficult to draw without the advice of legal counsel. Situated between the businesses so small as to be excluded from coverage and the Fortune 500 are thousands of small businesses to whom the EEOC-enforced laws apply.

Procedures

Anyone believing that his or her employment rights have been violated because of the types of discrimination covered by the federal laws, or because of retaliation for opposing job discrimination, filing a charge, or participating in proceedings under those laws, may file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. In most areas of the country, the charge must be filed within 300 days from the date of the alleged discrimination. The EEOC will notify the employer within 10 days of receiving a charge.

If a charge is eligible, the EEOC will give the parties an opportunity to take part in voluntary, confidential mediation to reach mutually agreeable solutions. If all parties agree to participate, neutral mediators will work with them to that end. In the event that mediation is unsuccessful, the charge is referred for investigation by the EEOC.

An EEOC investigation may involve a responsive statement from the employer, collection of documents by the EEOC, and visits and interviews by EEOC personnel. If the EEOC ultimately dismisses a charge, the charging party is notified and has 90 days to file a lawsuit. A finding by the EEOC of reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred will lead to an invitation to the parties to enter into conciliation discussions. If they fail, the EEOC and/or the charging party may bring suit.

Continue reading " San Diego: Small Business and Job Discrimination " »

San Diego, California follows the federal law in regards to COBRA coverage. Below is an example of what can happen to an employee who is terminated from employment regarding continuation of health insurance. For many San Diegan's, health insurance is not affordable and sometimes, due to medical issues and medical conditions, may not be obtainable. As such, COBRA coverage may be the only available coverage. At Pinkerton, Doppelt & Associates, LLP, we can advise you of your COBRA rights.

Shortly after he was fired from his job, Monty got married and left town for a three-week honeymoon. While he was away, his former employer sent him a notice about his right under a federal law, called COBRA for short, to elect to continue his health-care insurance coverage. COBRA requires that such a written notice be provided within 14 days of a termination from employment, but neither the statute nor regulations spell out what adequate notice entails.

In Monty's case, he never got the notice, which was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. When Monty went to the post office to claim the letter, postal workers could not find it. Eventually, the COBRA notice was found, but then it was returned to the sender with an erroneous indication that Monty never claimed it. By that time, Monty had begun a new job and was receiving treatment for a new medical condition. His new employer's insurer denied coverage for this treatment as a preexisting condition. That left Monty without coverage for significant medical expenses.

Monty was unsuccessful when he sued his former employer under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on the ground that it had not given him the required written notice about COBRA insurance coverage. Although it was through no fault of his own that Monty never received the notice, his former employer had made a good-faith attempt to get the written notice to him, and that was all that the law requires. The employer used certified mail, which is designed to enhance the prospects for an individual's receipt of delivery, and it was not responsible for the letter going undelivered.