Stay updated with the latest legal news, expert analysis, and firm updates from KAASS LAW.
Whether you're facing a legal challenge or seeking proactive counsel, our award-winning team is ready to defend your interests.
Battery is an intentional harmful or offensive touching of another person without his consent. Frequently used in a single phrase and often thought of as one offense, the terms "assault" and "battery" are two separate torts. These two offenses are usually almost alongside, that is, an assault is immediately by a battery. Though, an assault doesn’t include a battery since it is just the apprehension of a contact that if made would establish a battery.
According to CACI 1300 the plaintiff must be able to prove all the following elements to establish the claim:
A battery is a violation of a person’s interest in freedom from intentional illegal, offensive and harmful unconsented contacts with his person. To successfully establish a claim for battery a plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally subjected him to an offensive or harmful touching which actually lead to injuries.
Civil liability means that the attacker can be liable for payment of the damages to the victim in a lawsuit, as opposed to criminal liability when the attacker faces punishment for a crime. In a civil lawsuit, the victim will have the burden of proving that the attacker caused him harm and injuries. The victim has a right to file a lawsuit against the attacker whether or not he has a conviction of a crime of battery and against other parties who may have contributed to the circumstance leading to the battery.
As mentioned above when harm and injuries were a cause by an intentional act of battery, the victim has a right to sue the attacker for the following measures of damages:
Are you in need of more individualized information about civil liability for battery in California? Our experienced criminal defense attorneys at KAASS Law are here to take your call.
Under personal injury law, assault is defined as a purposeful act by one person which causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate harm or offensive contact to another person. Assault is known as an intentional tort when it is made the subject of a civil case.
According to CACI 1301 to establish the claim of assault, a plaintiff must prove all the following elements:
Assault does not always involve physical contact, at least not when it comes to civil liability. Even fear of offensive or harmful touching is usually enough for an assault to have occurred. In case the touching actually occurs, the physical contact is usually classified as a battery in civil law, though both claims are often made together.
Trespassing is the legal term for when one person enters onto another person’s land without legal right or permission to be there. The trespassing can be considered a crime, a civil wrong, or both depending on a particular case. When a person trespasses onto another person’s land and steals some personal property from the owner he can be charged with criminal trespass. When the trespasser breaks something on the homeowner’s property he can be sued under civil tort law.
Intentional interference with economic relations is an unfair business practice in California which includes three types of actions:
Elements of a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations According to CACI 2201, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim:
In California malicious prosecution is a civil cause of action aimed to go after individuals who file frivolous lawsuits and cause damages as a result. Malicious prosecution claims are having a chilling effect on an ordinary citizen’s readiness to bring a dispute to the court, and are often characterized as a “disfavored cause of action.”
An injured person must be able to prove all the elements for this claim. Failing to prove any one of the elements of this cause of action will result in a loss at trial.
According to CACI 1501 to prove a claim of malicious prosecution the plaintiff must be able to show the following:
In California, victims who suffer emotional distress as a result of another person’s conduct can file a lawsuit for the intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. There is no need that a victim suffers a physical injury.
The plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements for a successful claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress:
Under California law, outrageous behavior means that the conduct is so extreme that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency. Conduct is considered outrageous when a reasonable person finds the behavior uncivilized, goes beyond minor annoyances and poor manners that must be anticipated in day-to-day activities. As defined by CA case law, outrageous conduct can be shown in different ways including showing a pattern of behavior and not just an isolated incident, abusing the position of authority, using the victim’s vulnerability to emotional distress, or acting with knowledge that the conduct would likely cause emotional distress.
Defamation involves a false statement made by one person about another person which causes harm to a person’s property, profession, business, or occupation.
The plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish a defamation claim in California:
Defamatory statements are made using two methods: slander or libel
According to California Product Liability Laws, any person who designs, produces or sells a defective product is strictly liable for the damages by the product. This will further explain the following in motorcycle parts product liability.
Generally, a plaintiff must be able to establish the following elements, to prevail on a claim for products liability in California,
Under the strict liability law, it is not a requirement for the plaintiff to demonstrate the defendant’s negligence. Under the law, if the plaintiff got any injuries as a result of the defendant, then the defendant is labile for the injuries, with or without negligence.
Wrongful termination occurs when an employment relationship is ended by an employer in violation of the employee’s legal rights.
In California, wrongful termination claims can arise when an employer violates a federal or state statute, the worker’s employment contract, general principles of public policy, or some other aspect of the law.
The majority of employees in California are considered to be “at-will” employees. This means the employees are free to end the employment relationship at any time they want and likewise the employers are free to fire them at any time for any legal reason, or even without any reason. Employment is presumed to be at-will, in case there is no specific contractual relationship between the employee and employer which bounds the employer from firing the employee.
Not all employees are considered at-will and some of them have contracts which limit the employer’s ability to fire them without a reason. For example, when the employee is hired for a specific period of time, but the contract doesn’t specify the circumstances under which the employee can be terminated, he can only be fired under the following circumstances:
Bribery is an act of offering giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value for the purpose of influencing the acts of a public official in discharge of his legal or public duties.
Defendant is guilty of bribing a public official in case he directly or indirectly gives or promises to give something of value to the public official with intention to corruptly influence the public official to omit or perform an official act in violation of the official’s public duty. Corrupt action is any intentionally performed action with an illegal purpose. Public official is any officer, agent or employee of the US or any agency, department, or branch of the federal government who is acting in an official capacity. For the purposes of this crime jurors sitting on a federal jury will also fall within the definition of the public official. According to 18 U.S.C. § 201(a) official act is any action or decision that may be brought before a public official in his official capacity.
Defendant is guilty of providing illegal gratuity to a public official in case he directly or indirectly offers or gives something of value to a public official because of an official act performed by the public official. For proving the violation the prosecutor must establish that there is a relationship between the “something of value” and the official act for which it was conferred. Defendant is guilty of bribery of a bank officer in case he offers or gives something of value to a bank officer with intention of influencing the bank officer and in connection with a business transaction. Bank officer is any director, agent, employee, or other office of a financial institution.
Assault can be filed under civil and criminal laws and in both cases the elements to prove are similar. Both require that the defendant’s conduct create a reasonable apprehension of harm to the plaintiff. Though, the difference between criminal assault and civil assault lies mainly in the legal remedies that result from the action. In civil law, it is required that the defendant either meant to cause apprehension or that the defendant should have known that his conduct would cause apprehension to the plaintiff. In contrast, criminal law requires that the defendant had the intention to commit physical injury or battery to the plaintiff. In a civil assault claim, it is a private lawsuit between two persons, where a plaintiff can normally collect monetary damages, but a jail sentence is not usually imposed in civil assault claims. In contrast, with a criminal trial, the involved parties are the state (the prosecution) and the victim. Any damages awards can be limited by state statutes that cover how much a victim can recover in a criminal trial. On the other hand, criminal laws generally impose a jail sentence for the defendant, which can range from a few months to several years depending on the severity of the assault.
In case the defendant was acting in self-defense or defense of another person he can’t be found liable.
In some cases, the defendant could have a limited right to commit assault. For instance, when a police officer attempts to place a suspect under arrest.
In a successful claim, the plaintiff must prove all the elements of assault: the apprehension of harm, cause of action and the defendant’s purpose or knowledge of harm to the plaintiff. Damages that can be recovered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVAMLJRCVE
Trespass can be committed intentionally, recklessly or negligently. If a trespasser doesn’t know that the is deeded land, but with inquiry can find out, the trespass is negligent. Trespass requires some form of physical entry or contact with the plaintiff’s land. That entry could be the defendant going onto the plaintiff’s land, throwing or putting an object on it, causing a third person to enter onto the plaintiff’s land or discharging some substance onto the land. Trespass also takes place when a person fails to leave the owner’s property after permission to enter has been first given but then ended or revoked.
In case property was damaged by someone who committed a trespass the owner can take civil action. The owner can sue the trespasser even though the property was not damaged. In this case, the amount of compensation will be equal to the price that a reasonable person would pay for the right to pass over the land. The defendant can also ask for an injunction to stop the trespass from happening again.
Here are some examples of trespass in California:
A property owner or tenant has a legal right to get compensation for trespass to his land, and recover the following damages:
The claim of intentional interference with contractual relations requires the existence of an underlying enforceable contract. In case there is no contract or the contract is unenforceable, then the plaintiff will have a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage.
Elements of a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage According to CACI 2202, The plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim:
Though generally, a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage includes the defendant’s interference with a prospective contract, liability can be based on interference with any economic relationship containing a probability of future benefits to the plaintiff, including interference with any lawful trade, business, or occupation. Some common examples of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage include conduct constituting libel fraud, or misappropriation of trade secrets.
Elements of a claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage According to CACI 2204, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim:
Damages for interference with economic relations can include recovery for all resulting harm, including expenses, damage to business reputation, mental distress. The victim can also recover punitive damages in case the defendant acted with fraud, malice, or oppression. [video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/output_HD7202.mp4"][/video]
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/output_HD720.mp4"][/video] Do you feel as though you or a loved one have been a victim of malicious prosecution in California? KAASS Law would be happy to take a look into your situation to see what we can do to help you out. Give us a call now at (310) 943-1171 or get in touch by filling out the form below. [contact-form-7 id="5673" title="KAASS LAW Contact Form"]
Severe emotional distress means that the distress is so lasting or substantial that no reasonable person could be expected to bear it. It includes highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as shame, fright, worry, grief or anger.
Unexpected accidents may cause life-altering physical injuries, disabilities to people or make a victim suffer from emotional distress. A victim can be entitled to recover compensation in case another person’s negligent conduct has caused him to suffer from emotional distress.
The plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements for a successful claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress:
Negligence takes place when one person has and breaches a duty of care that he owes to another person. A victim must be able to establish the following elements to prove the negligence.
In California law, a bystander who witnesses an accident when another person is injured or killed, may also be able to recover damages for emotional distress. The bystander must be able to prove the following elements for a successful claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress:
Some examples of situations when a bystander can be eligible for monetary damages
Are you in need of legal assistance regarding emotional distress? Our litigation attorneys in California can provide you with services involved with personal injury, employment law, and many other practice areas of law. No need to fight a battle on your own. Get in touch right away to find out how KAASS Law can help you!
A statement is a defamation per se in case there is no need for extrinsic evidence to explain the statement's defamatory nature. A plaintiff doesn’t need to show special damages as damages to the plaintiff's trade, business, property, profession or occupation if the statement is defamation per se.
Defamation per quod means that the statement is not defamatory on its face and requires proof and allegations of special damages. Examples of special damages can include lost profits and adverse employment consequences.
According to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, when a public figure brings an action for defamation, in addition to all mentioned elements, he should also prove that the statement was made with actual malice. Thus, the public figure must prove that the person who made the defamatory statement knew that is was false. Here are some examples of a public figure under California law:
There are different types of compensation available to the victims, who win defamation lawsuits. These include:
There are several defenses available in defamation cases. Here are some of them:
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Defamation-claim-in-California.mp4"][/video] Do you have any additional questions or concerns regarding defamation claims in California? Get in touch with KAASS Law for more information now.
There are essentially three types of claims under strict product liability:
In manufacturing defect claims, if you can compare the product in question with another product in the same line within the manufacturer, the product falls into manufacturing defect claim. So, the product presented a harm which actually was a result of the manufacturing defects.
If the plaintiff asserts that the defect is in all the same product line, then it falls under design defect claims. In California, there are two test in defective design product liability claims:
According to this test, after the plaintiff shows that the defective product design caused the injuries, the burden of proof completely shifts to the defendant. The defendant must prove that the utility of the defective product design outweighs the risk of the design and in case he fails to do that, then the plaintiff will win the case.
According to this test a product’s design will be considered defective in case it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect it to perform.
According to California strict product liability, a defendant who is aware that the consumer is using the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner that exposes him to a risk of injuries is obliged to warn the consumer of the risk of injury or harm. The defendant can be liable for a failure to warn when such failure to change the outcome. So, in case a typical consumer is aware of the risk of injuries or harm on his own, then the defendant can’t be found liable for failing to warn of an already-known hazard. Get in touch with our Los Angeles motorcycle accident attorneys for more information and a free consultation! [contact-form][contact-field label="Name" type="name" required="true" /][contact-field label="Email" type="email" required="true" /][contact-field label="Website" type="url" /][contact-field label="Message" type="textarea" /][/contact-form]
These types of employment contracts can be entered into in writing or verbally, but it must be specified that the agreement is for a set period of time.
Exceptions to “at-will” employment give to allow the employees to sue their employers for wrongful termination.
Even though employers can fire at-will employee for seemingly arbitrary reasons, they are still prohibited from terminating employees for illegal reasons. According to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, it is illegal for employers to discriminate in employment decisions on the basis of the following factors:
In case the decision to terminate the employee was motivated by any of the above-mentioned reasons, the termination is unlawful under the law. Employees that have become the victims of wrongful termination have the right to file a lawsuit against their former employers and seek monetary damages.
According to the law, wronged employees can recover:
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Wrongful-Termination.mp4"][/video] Are you in need of additional information about wrongful termination in California? Our employment law attorneys in Los Angeles at KAASS Law should be able to answer and specific questions that you have. Feel free to get in touch with us anytime at (310) 943-1171 or fill out the form below. [contact-form-7 id="5673" title="KAASS LAW Contact Form"]
For convicting the defendant the prosecution must prove beyond the reasonable doubt all elements of crime. In case there is a lack of evidence proving the defendant’s fault he can’t be found guilty of federal bribery.
In federal bribery cases, the prosecutor must establish that the defendant had the criminal intent to commit the crime. One of the most difficult areas of the government’s case is proving intent, and if the defendant can present arguments and evidence to show that he did not possess the intent to commit the alleged criminal activity, he won’t be found guilty of this crime. Penalties for Federal Bribery Penalties for violating 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)
Penalties for violating 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A):
Penalties for violating 18 U.S.C. §215(a) (1): If the amount of the “something of value” offered or provided to the bank officer is more than $1000, the penalties are the following:
If the amount of the “something of value” is less than $1,000, the defendant will receive up to one year in federal prison and fines.