Issue: Can the Seinfeld gang be held liable for an accident occurring due to their illegal use of a handicapped parking space?
Facts: While looking for an engagement present for the Drake at the mall the George decides to take a handicapped spot with his dad's fancy car. George is convinced by Kramer who claims most handicapped people don't want to use the handicapped spot anyway, or do not drive at all. Upon return to the parked car they realize that a woman has sustained major injuries as a result of having to park further away, and a real "gang" has formed in order to make the illegally parked vehicle pay the price.
As for the store's liability, it is clear from case law that the mall should be safe. In URHAUSEN v. LONGS DRUG STORES (155 Cal. App. 4th 254), the California Court of Appeals ruled that an individual was barred from having private cause of action under the California Disabled Persons Act ("DPA"), if the facility in which the individual was injured in was found to conform to the handicapped access standards.
The more interesting question is the one of proximate cause. "But for" their parking in the handicapped spot, could the injury have been prevented. The burden of proof on the
Monday, September 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)