Motorcycle Accidents Attorney in Los Angeles, California
$5 Million Motorcycle Accident Case: A restaurant’s failure to warn
$5 Million Motorcycle Accident Case: A restaurant’s failure to warn
More In This Category
View Transcript
The jury gave the Inoki family $5 million for the wrongful death of Joey Inoki who was a wonderful man in his early 40s. The plaintiffs were his parents who lived in Philadelphia. So they brought the case on behalf of their adult son who had died. What happened there was a tourist turned left out of a restaurant on the wrong way of a roadway because he was confused. He hits Joey and Joey’s killed. Clearly, that drive has some responsibility for it but what we pushed the idea was we think the restaurant should warn these tourists that they can’t turn left when they can only go right. And it had some problems there before. So what was interesting about that case is the jury agreed with us that he restaurant even though what happened was off their property that if they knew that there was a problem there they should warn these people particularly because they’re tourists coming in the LA area who aren’t familiar with the roads.
Los Angeles, CA personal injury attorney Thomas Johnston talks about a case he worked on where a restaurant did not give warning to confusing directions resulting in a tragic motorcycle accident. He explains that the Inoki family was awarded $5 million by the jury in the wrongful death case of their beloved son, Joey Inoki, a vibrant individual in his early 40s. Acting on behalf of their late adult son, the plaintiffs, who resided in Philadelphia, brought forth the legal proceedings. The tragic incident occurred when a confused tourist made a left turn from a restaurant onto the wrong side of the road, resulting in a collision that claimed Joey’s life. While the driver held some responsibility, we contended that the restaurant should have provided clear warnings to tourists that left turns were prohibited, as previous issues had arisen in that area.
What made this case particularly noteworthy was that the jury concurred with our argument that the restaurant, despite the incident occurring off their premises, should have been aware of the recurring problem and taken necessary measures to warn individuals, especially tourists unfamiliar with the roads in the Los Angeles area. The jury recognized the restaurant’s responsibility in ensuring the safety of those entering their establishment, even beyond their physical property boundaries.
