Uncategorized

The plaintiff alleged that her minor daughter, H.C., was returned to play as a goalie in a water polo tournament after being hit in the face by the ball and while manifesting concussion symptoms, received additional hits to the head, and as a result, she suffered severely debilitating post-concussion syndrome.

To prevail in a negligence claim under California law, a plaintiff must plead the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach. California Civil Code § 1714(a)’s “primary assumption of risk” doctrine provides that an entity does not owe a duty of care where “conditions or conduct that otherwise might be viewed as dangerous . . . are an integral part of the sport itself.” Knight v. Jewett, 834 P.2d 696, 708 (Cal. 1992)

Plaintiff alleged that USA Water Polo was liable for injuries suffered when H.C. was hit in the head again after she returned to play. The panel held that under California law, secondary head injuries such as those suffered by H.C. were not “inherent in the sport” of water polo, and therefore USA Water Polo owed a duty of care to H.C. The panel rejected USA Water Polo’s contention that it fulfilled its duty of care to H.C. with the existence of its “Rules Governing Coaches’ Conduct” that was applicable to all of its teams.

Read the full opinion at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/11/28/16-56389.pdf

Can’t sue a college for volleyball injury? | Excursion Immunity Does Not Apply | Grossmont College | Watch at:

Assumption Risk in Snowboarding and Skiing | Mammoth Mountain | Watch at:

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
www.LAWSTACHE.com
185 West F Street Suite 100-D
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 357-6677

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

Plaintiff-Appellant Joshua Brennan accuses Dawson of searching his curtilage without a warrant and arresting him for a probation violation without probable cause. On the evening of February 21, 2015, Dawson went to Brennan’s home to administer a portable alcohol breath test on Brennan, who was on probation. The terms of Brennan’s probation, imposed in August 2014, prohibited him from consuming alcohol and required him to submit to such tests at random.

When no one opened the door, Dawson made five to ten trips around the close perimeter of the home, knocking on and looking into doors and windows. Dawson also physically manipulated Brennan’s home security camera and activated his police cruiser’s lights and siren to rouse Brennan. When Brennan ultimately exited the home, he submitted to the breath test and registered a 0.000. Nonetheless, Dawson arrested Brennan for violating his probation by failing to take the breath test on demand.

The Fourth Amendment is at its strongest when the home is concerned: for centuries, the home “has been regarded as entitled to special protection,” and “[h]ome intrusions . . . are indeed the chief evil against which the Fourth Amendment is directed.”

Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment protects curtilage, the area immediately surrounding the home. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300 (1987).

Although the Fourth Amendment protects the curtilage, a police officer has an implied license to enter the curtilage and attempt to speak with the home’s occupant, even if the officer lacks a search warrant. Jardines. The Supreme Court in Jardines underscored that the police officer’s implied license is strictly limited when the officer lacks a warrant. The Court explained that the implied license allows an officer to “approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.” If the occupant of the home does not wish to engage, the visitor must retreat, even if that visitor is a police officer.

Dawson exceeded his implied license when he repeatedly entered and traveled through Brennan’s curtilage over the course of ninety minutes and thus violated Brennan’s Fourth Amendment rights. Of course, Brennan was subject to at least some warrantless intrusions because his probation required him to take randomly administered breath tests on demand. But that condition did not expose his home to warrantless searches.

More on home searches: https://youtu.be/dZvV5XxTJNw

More on curtilage: https://youtu.be/ZQ-BckaR4IQ

Read full opinion here: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0508n-06.pdf

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
www.LAWSTACHE.com
185 West F Street Suite 100-D
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 357-6677

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

Did the initial securing of the Defendant’s home constitute an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment? And if so, did such seizure taint the incriminating evidence ultimately uncovered in the warrant search of his home? We answer both questions yes, and reverse.

Law enforcement unreasonably seized Defendant’s home in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Immediately thereafter, Investigator Cooke interviewed Defendant for over two hours at the police station. Defendant subsequently signed a consent to search form permitting Cooke to search his home. But given the undisputed record facts, Defendant’s consent was not an act of free will sufficient to purge the primary taint of the illegal seizure. Rather, his consent was “come at by exploitation” of such seizure. Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488. Consequently, Cooke unlawfully searched Defendant’s home and witnessed ammunition in the home’s bedroom closet. Probable cause, tainted from the unlawful search, arose when Cooke connected Defendant’s status as a convicted felon with the ammunition. Cooke requested federal agents to procure a search warrant and a neutral magistrate judge unknowingly issued a tainted warrant. Law enforcement executed the tainted warrant and discovered the incriminating evidence the Defendant now seeks to suppress. Necessarily, this evidence too was tainted. While the causal chain is relatively long, nowhere along the links of the chain were the “fruits” of the unlawful seizure of Defendant’s home purged of their primary taint. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress is REVERSED.

Read the full opinion here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-3059.pdf

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
www.LAWSTACHE.com
185 West F Street Suite 100-D
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 357-6677

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!