Premises Liability

Case: Lopez v. 1000 Palms & Associates, et al., LASC No. 21STCV35740
Outcome: $3.6M awarded to Plaintiff following bench trial.
Plaintiff: Victor I. Lopez
Defendants: 1000 Palms Associates Group; 59th Equity Investors, LLC; Equimax; Theresa Nicolas; Karabel & Sons Investments; Does 1 to 25, Inclusive
Court: San Fernando Courthouse, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Verdict Date: January 12, 2024
Attorneys: Plaintiff – Thomas L. Cohen; Jake R. Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law Offices, P.C.; Jonathan D. Kintzele, KLG, P.C.
Defendants: Samuel A. Mann; James J. Orland; Matthew P. Malczynski
Experts: Dr. Jeffrey Galpin; Jeff Hughes

Summary of Case:

Defendants operated a marijuana cultivation operation located in a massive warehouse by downtown Los Angeles. The plaintiff, a plumber, was called into the warehouse to address a clogged sewage pump and received instructions to enter the affected area through a pit of standing water, runoff materials, and various other organic matter that had accumulated in the water.

The pit of water that the plaintiff was instructed to wade through was a modified sump pit, which the defendants had manipulated and retrofitted, flaunting local safety codes and municipal regulations. The defendants were aware that the piping and circulation changes made in the warehouse were not in compliance with laws and codes and that the pit posed a hazard that the plaintiff should have been notified of.

The plaintiff had no way of knowing that the pit posed a safety hazard because these types of pits usually contain only water drainage, such as stormwater runoff, and should not present a safety concern in normal conditions. As a result of entering the dangerous water in the sump pit, the plaintiff contracted a rare, life-threatening necrotizing fasciitis [1] known as Fournier’s gangrene. This flesh-eating disease is aggressive and spreads rapidly, affecting arteries, muscles, and nerves. While the soft tissue in the groin area is most often affected, severe cases can extend into the thighs and stomach.

Expert witnesses testified that less than 1,800 cases of this infection have been recorded in all of the world’s prominent medical journals. Data is limited because Fournier’s gangrene is incredibly rare, but fatality rates have been estimated as high as 90%. [2]

The plaintiff suffered catastrophic damage to his scrotum, external genitals, and half of his abdomen. As a result of the infection, 20% of his body required skin grafting, he lost both testicles, and his genitals were permanently damaged. Daily activities such as sitting, sleeping, and everyday physical activity cause immense pain for the plaintiff.

Experts testified that to a high degree of medical certainty, defendants’ conduct caused the hazardous conditions that led to the plaintiff’s contact with the dangerous bacteria. Under California’s premises liability laws, anyone who owns, leases, occupies, or controls a property could be held responsible for injuries that occur on the property. Specifically, the plaintiff in any premises liability case must prove that the defendant falls into one of those owning or occupying categories, as well as the following elements:

1. The defendant failed to maintain the property or negligently used the property.

2. The plaintiff was injured or otherwise harmed.

3. The defendant’s actions or failure to act contributed substantially to the harm sustained by the plaintiff. [3]

In this case, it was proven that the defendants knew the modified sump pit used at their marijuana cultivation warehouse presented a safety hazard. Not only had they not taken the necessary actions to address the dangerous conditions, but they also did not warn the plaintiff about the dangers of entering the pit. The plaintiff had no reason to suspect the hazardous conditions existed, and he testified that had he known of the dangers, he never would have agreed to enter the pit.

Defendants 1000 Palms Associates Group, 59th Equity Investors LLC, and Equimax were found jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff’s damages and ordered to pay a judgment of $3.6 million. Joint and several liability is a legal doctrine that states more than one defendant may be held liable for the injuries and harm suffered by a plaintiff. It also states that each of the defendants is independently responsible for the entirety of the damages caused by their actions, so the plaintiff may be awarded the full compensation amount from any of the liable defendants. [4]

Joint and several liability is intended to ensure that injured victims are able to recover full compensation while also preventing defendants without the financial means to provide this compensation from being held fully responsible for payment. When defendants who lack the monetary resources to cover substantial legal judgments are held liable, it ultimately leads to the redistribution of these costs in the form of higher prices for the general public. [5] Joint and several liability attempts to curtail these costs from being passed to consumers and taxpayers.

Kintzele Law Group has represented clients throughout California in complex civil trials, including as the lead of the legal team in this case, Lopez v. 1000 Palms Associates, et al. (LASC No. 21STCV35740).  Please contact nicholas.ta@klawpc.com for more specific case information. 

[1] Fournier’s Gangrene. Cleveland Clinic. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22025-fourniers-gangrene [2] Id. [3] Premises Liability – Essential Factual Elements. Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2023 edition). https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1000/1000/ [4] Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability [5] CA Civ Code Section 1431.1.  https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_code_section_1431.1