Premises liability litigation involves complex issues arising from the relationships between landowners and those permitted on the owner’s land, whether as tenants, guests, or contractors. Our appellate experience spans a wide variety of situations, from mobile home park owners’ liability for gang-related shootings to an oil refinery’s liability for contract workers’ exposure to asbestos. We have particular expertise in representing property owners sued by contractors' employees for work-related injuries, and have successfully handled many appeals involving the California Supreme Court's landmark decision in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689. Our knowledge of the law and the policy behind the law, developed over many years, assures you expert representation on appeal in this ever-changing area of the law.
Johnson v. The Raytheon Co.
California Court of Appeal issues published opinion affirming summary judgment in premises liability action.Read More
Hais v. Universal Protection Service LP
Horvitz & Levy successfully defends summary judgment in premises liability case.Read More
Jabo v. YMCA of San Diego County
Court of Appeal upholds finding that YMCA owed no duty to use automated external defibrillator.Read More
Wang v. Nibbelink
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in favor of property owners on the basis of recreational immunity.Read More
Ludwig v. Hacienda Paraiso
California Court of Appeal reverses $10 million judgment against H&L client.Read More
Bertsch v. Mammoth Community Water District
California Court of Appeal issues published opinion affirming summary judgment for community association and water district in skateboard injury case.Read More
Lozano v. AWI Management Corporation
California Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment that found apartment manager not liable for shooting rampage.Read More
Donaho v. County of Yuba
California Court of Appeal rules that public entity is not liable for placement of bus stop near freeway.Read More
Cohen v. Sterling
Court of Appeal upholds order granting new trial following $17 million verdict arising out of apartment building fire.Read More
Monroe v. Yurosek Farms LLC
California Court of Appeal holds that recreational use immunity applies to licensees as well as landowners.Read More
Finley v. Club One, Inc.
Court of Appeal holds health club member’s personal injury lawsuit is barred by liability waiver in membership agreement.Read More
Gonzalez v. Southern California Gas Company
California Court of Appeal reverses judgment in wrongful death/premises liability case based on absence of legal duty.Read More
Seabright Insurance Company v. US Airways, Inc.
California Supreme Court limits recovery by contractors’ employees for injuries arising from alleged violations of Cal-OSHA regulations.Read More
Tverberg v. Filner Construction, Inc.
California Supreme Court limits scope of hirer liability to self-employed contractors.Read More
Castaneda v. Olsher
California Supreme Court holds that mobile home park owner is not liabile for gang-related violence and has no duty to profile prospective tenants for possible gang affiliation.Read More
Kinsman v. Unocal Corp.
California Supreme Court limits landowners’ liability to contractors’ employees.Read More
24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Superior Court
Petition for writ of mandate successfully arguing that a fitness center's liability release barred plaintiffs' claim for ordinary negligence, and that the fitness center's failure to dial 911 sooner did not constitute gross negligence as a matter of law.Read More
Laico v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.
Appellant's opening brief arguing a property owner was not liable for injuries caused by chemicals on premises leased by plaintiff's employer from landowner, where landowner had no knowledge of dangerous condition and exercised no control over leased premises.Read More
Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the plaintiff could not show that the failure to provide additional security guards was a substantial factor in causing her injuries; a speculative possibility that additional daytime security guards or functioning entrance gates might have prevented the assault on the plaintiff was insufficient to show causation.Read More