En EspaƱol

Do I have a case for my auto defect?

Free Case Evaluation - Our full time staff is ready to evaluate your case submission and will respond in a timely manner.

Personal Injury Legal Cases

1999 Toyota Camry Collision Results In Severe Personal Injury

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE

ELEANOR T. GNUP and EDWARD T. GNUP, Plaintiffs,
vs.
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, Defendants.

CASE NO: 30-2010-00336522-CU-PL-CJC
Hon.
Dept.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

  1. Strict Product Liability
  2. Negligent Product Liability
  3. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Complaint filed:
Trial date: None Set

Come now Plaintiffs ELEANOR T. GNUP and EDWARD T. GNUP, and for causes of action against defendants, allege as follows:

  1. Plaintiffs ELEANOR T. GNUP and EDWARD T. GNUP are spouses to each other and adult residents of the City of Fullerton, County of Orange, State of California.
  2. At all times mentioned herein, defendant, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC. is and was a corporation, duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in the City of Torrance, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Defendant, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC. is and was a citizen of the State of California.
  3. At all times herein mentioned, defendant TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION is and was a corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Defendant, TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, is and was a citizen of Japan.
  4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that defendants, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, were and are individuals, partnerships, corporations, and/or business entities, qualified and/or authorized to do business in the State of California and were at all times herein mentioned, doing business within the State of California, in the Counties of Los Angeles and San Diego. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate associate, governmental or otherwise of defendant Does 1 through 100, inclusive and each of them are unknown to the plaintiffs, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and/or capacities of said defendants are ascertained, the plaintiffs will seek leave of this court to amend the complaint accordingly.
  5. The plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereupon allege, that each defendant designated herein as a Doe was responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings herein referred to which proximately caused the damages to the plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged, either through said defendant's own negligence or through the conduct of its agents, servants, employees or representatives in some other manner.
  6. The plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereupon allege that at all times mentioned herein the defendants and each of them were the agents, servants, employees, representatives and/or joint venturers of their co-defendants and were, as such acting within the course, scope and authority of said agency, services, employment, representation and/or joint venture in that each and every defendant, as aforesaid when acting as principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every other defendant as an agent, servant, employee, representative and/or joint venturer.
  7. The plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereupon allege that at all times mentioned herein each of the defendants, including defendant Does 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them were the agents, servants, employees, representatives of each of the remaining defendants and were at all times material hereto acting within the authorized course and scope of said agency, service, employment and/or representation, and/or that all of said acts, conduct and omissions were subsequently ratified by their respective principals and the benefits thereof accepted by such principals.
  8. At all times mentioned herein, defendants, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, were and are engaged in the business of manufacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling, distributing, selling, inspecting, servicing, repairing, marketing, warranting, modifying, aftermarket equipping and modifying, leasing, renting, selling, retailing, wholesaling and advertising a certain subject 1999 Toyota Camry 4-door sedan (as well as and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides), Vehicle Identification Number 4T1BG22K8XU491155, California License No. OPERA EL, and each and every component part thereof, (hereinafter, the SUBJECT VEHICLE), which defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, would be used without inspection for defects in its parts, mechanisms or design, for use in the State of California and elsewhere.
  9. On or about June 12, 2009, plaintiff ELEANOR T. GNUP was the properly restrained driver of, and EDWARD T. GNUP a properly restrained passenger in, the SUBJECT VEHICLE, traveling eastbound on Hermosa Avenue at its traffic signal-controlled intersection with Harbor Boulevard in Fullerton, California. While making a left turn from Hermosa Avenue onto northbound Harbor Boulevard, with the legal right of way, the SUBJECT VEHICLE was struck on the driver's side by a 1993 Ford Explorer being driven by Patricia Pacheco Martinez southbound on Harbor Boulevard. The force of the collision severely crushed the side of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, as a result of which plaintiff ELEANOR T. GNUP suffered severe and permanently disabling personal injuries and damages resulting therefrom.
  10. Plaintiff EDWARD T. GNUP was present at the scene of the injury-producing event described above at the time it occurred, being a passenger in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, and thus became aware that his wife had been severely injured in the collision, as a result of which he suffered extreme and serious emotional distress, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future due to his close involvement in assisting and caring for his wife in the course of her medical treatment and recovery for her physical injuries and the emotional distress resulting therefrom.
  11. Each of the above paragraphs 1 through 10, inclusive, are incorporated by reference into each cause of action stated below.
  12. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

    (Against Defendants, TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive)

  13. Defendants, TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, knew that the SUBJECT VEHICLE was to be purchased and used without inspection for defects by the users of that vehicle including but not limited to the plaintiffs who were at all times herein mentioned, the legal purchasers and owners of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
  14. The SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts was manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, serviced, adjusted, selected and used with inherent vices and defects both in design and manufacturing and by failure to warn (hereinafter "SUBJECT DEFECTS") which made it dangerous, hazardous and unsafe both for its intended use or for reasonably foreseeable misuses.
  15. These SUBJECT DEFECTS included, but were not limited to the following.
    • Lack of any side impact protection, including but not limited to side air bags and/or side curtain air bags. Side curtain air bags and seat mounted torso air bags were not only technologically feasible at the time of design and manufacture of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, but were readily available and offered as an option in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, at relatively little additional cost. Both side curtain air bags and/or seat mounted torso air bags, should have been standard, not optional equipment on the SUBJECT VEHICLE given the enhanced and advanced propensities of the occupants of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to sustain serious head, chest and internal injuries in side impact crashes. When the lack of side air bags was combined with the defective restraint system, which defendants and each of them knew and were aware would fail to restrain an occupant in the SUBJECT VEHICLE in the event of a side impact crash, the SUBJECT VEHICLE was dangerous and defective and which, in this case, failed to restrain the plaintiffs in the SUBJECT VEHICLE and which caused the plaintiff driver to hit her head and body parts on the interior of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, causing her severe injury.
    • Defective and unsafe restraint system, which defendants and each of them knew and were aware would fail to restrain an occupant in the SUBJECT VEHICLE in the event of a side impact crash, and which, in this case, failed to restrain the occupants, in the SUBJECT VEHICLE and which caused the plaintiff driver to hit her head and body parts causing her severe injury.
    • Lack of any warnings and/or insufficient warnings regarding the above defects.
  16. Said product and each of its component parts was unsafe for its intended use and reasonably foreseeable misuses by reason of the defects in its design and/or manufacturing and/or failure to warn by said defendants, and each of them, in that when the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts was used by the plaintiffs, on or about June 12, 2009, as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, the SUBJECT VEHICLE, during reasonably foreseeable driving maneuvers, was dangerous and defective. The SUBJECT VEHICLE, when hit from the side in a reasonably foreseeable "t-bone" accident, failed to provide side impact protection, failed to restrain the occupants, causing severe injuries legally resulting in Plaintiffs' damages as set forth herein.
  17. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, serious and permanent injuries were caused thereby to the plaintiffs, legally resulting in plaintiffs' special and general damages in a sum in excess of the minimum subject matter jurisdiction of this Superior Court according to proof at trial. ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING EXEMPLARY DAMAGES PRAYER BY Plaintiffs ONLY Against Defendants, TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC. and DOES 1 through 5, Inclusive.
  18. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that defendants TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC. and DOES 1 through 5, and each of them intentionally engaged in conduct which, with respect to the SUBJECT DEFECTS, plaintiffs allege was a legal cause of their loss, damages, injuries and harm, exposed the plaintiffs and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to serious potential danger known to the defendants in order to advance the defendants' pecuniary interests and thus acted with a conscious disregard for the safety of the plaintiffs and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE and its defective restraints systems, and its lack of side air bags and/or side curtain air bags, warranting an award of exemplary damages against defendants TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, and the rule enunciated in Ford Motor Co. v. Home Ins. Co. (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 374, 381-382 and PPG Industries, Inc v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1996) 49 Cal. App.4th 1120. The facts supporting the defendants' intentional conduct which exposed the plaintiffs and other users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE and its defective restraints systems to serious potential danger known to the defendants in order to advance the defendants' pecuniary interests, are as follows.
  19. At all times herein mentioned, the SUBJECT VEHICLE was not equipped by the defendants with a certain type of side air bags and/or side curtain air bags. The purpose of the side air bags and/or side curtain air bags, is not only to keep the occupant/driver inside the vehicle but also to reduce the risk that the occupant/driver will hit other interior components of the vehicle, in the event of a crash, thereby sustaining serious or fatal injuries.
  20. Defendants and each of them performed ongoing crash testing including side barrier, vehicle to vehicle, and sled testing to the SUBJECT VEHICLE platform. Such crash tests involved a test vehicle, from the same platform as the SUBJECT VEHICLE, for the purposes of developing or validating the design of one or more of the vehicle components or systems. These include collisions into different barriers or objects and at different speeds at different crash angles. Such crash tests performed by defendants, during side impacts revealed, among other things, the poor performance of the restraint system, as well as the poor side impact performance and injury potential to occupants in side impact crashes due to the lack of side air bags.
  21. Most, if not all, of these tests utilized various types of dummies, in different seating positions, depending on the purpose of the tests. During the design and development of the SUBJECT VEHICLE defendants were required to perform numerous, specific, crash and sled tests in order to determine the SUBJECT VEHICLE's compliance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 208 [occupant crash protection], 209 [seat belt assemblies], 210 [seat belt assembly anchorages], and 214 [side impact protection], among others. The reports of these tests showed that defendants and each of them knew that the SUBJECT VEHICLE's side impact crash protection was greatly reduced due to the restraint's system design and due to the lack of the side air bag.
  22. Defendants also acted with a callous disregard for the safety of the motoring public with respect to the SUBJECT VEHICLE's lack of any side air bags. Side air bags offer protection to the head and body during side impact crashes. Those that provide head protection are either curtain or tubular air bags and deploy from the roof rail. Those side air bags that provide body protection are either door mounted or seat mounted. Combination or "combo" side air bags provide both head and body protection and typically deploy upward from the seat back. Had such side air bags been installed in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, they would have prevented the severe blunt force head and torso injuries that occurred in this case to the plaintiff driver thereby causing severe and catastrophic injuries.
  23. Such side air bags are and were readily available to defendants to equip the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Side curtain air bags and seat mounted torso air bags were not only technologically feasible at the time of design and manufacture of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, but were readily available and offered as an option in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, at relatively little additional cost. Both side curtain air bags and seat mounted torso air bags, should have been standard, not optional equipment on the SUBJECT VEHICLE and exhibit the Defendants' conscious disregard for plaintiffs given the enhanced and advanced aforementioned propensities of the occupants of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to sustain serious and fatal injuries in foreseeable side impact crashes, known to the defendants by the numerous crash and sled tests performed by defendants with and without side air bags, and the purchase purpose of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, i.e., for sale to members of the public inexperienced with the aforementioned propensities of the SUBJECT VEHICLE and/or of unknown and/or undisclosed driving experience.
  24. Defendants by and through their officers, directors and agents, had marketed the SUBJECT VEHICLE, to attract purchasers such as the plaintiffs, yet such marketing and advertising did not disclose the heightened risks of head and torso injuries in side impact crashes, without the protection of side air bags. Defendants and their agents, officers and directors, further created a marketing and advertising campaign at or about the time of manufacture of said vehicle, including but not limited to, television commercials and print media depicting the SUBJECT VEHICLE performing as a "safe" vehicle, under certain conditions well known to the defendants, that were likely to cause the occupants of such vehicles to become seriously injured or killed, and thereafter consciously failed and refused to warn consumers of such risks.
  25. Defendants, by and through their officers, directors and agents, knew and were fully aware that the occupants of the SUBJECT VEHICLE were susceptible to serious head and internal injuries due to the defendants' performance of side impact crash and sled testing on the SUBJECT VEHICLE and vehicles of other manufacturers. Prior to the manufacture of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, defendants knew that its SUBJECT VEHICLE model revealed the likelihood for serious or fatal injuries in side impact crashes as evidenced by the results of the numerous sled and crash tests. Defendants, by and through its engineers, management or others, developed tests, to determine the likelihood of fatal and serious head and torso injuries in side impact crashes, without the protection of side air bags. In addition, defendants knew that similar vehicles of other manufactures, did not have the same propensity to injure its passengers in side impact crashes.
  26. In addition, in order to advance the defendants' pecuniary interests, despite defendants' full knowledge of the SUBJECT VEHICLE's occupants' susceptibility to serious and fatal head and torso injuries in foreseeable side impact crashes, plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants intentionally and deliberately under produced the "optional" side air bags so that purchasers of the SUBJECT VEHICLE could not purchase the additional protection and defendants knew and were fully aware that the lack of side air bags would increase the SUBJECT VEHICLE's propensity to render its occupants seriously or fatally injured in side impact crashes.
  27. Defendants further knew and were fully aware that certain design modifications, including but not limited to the installation of side air bags as standard equipment, instead of optional equipment, would have improved the head and torso protection to the occupants and driver of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, yet defendants and each of them consciously decided not to utilize such known and available design modifications in order to advance the defendants' pecuniary interests.
  28. The actions of said defendants and each of them, as described above, were thus undertaken with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of consumers and users of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, in order to advance the pecuniary gains of the defendants and each of them, and such actions were despicable because such conduct would and does kill people.
  29. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and allege that the decisions made by the defendants and each of them to design and manufacture the SUBJECT VEHICLE with its defective restraint system, lack of side air bags, and failure to warn regarding these defects, in the defective and dangerous condition, as alleged herein, were made by corporate management of the defendants and each of them, by the product of corporate policy in that such major and strategic design and manufacturing decisions could, by virtue of the corporate structure of the defendants and each of them, be made only at the level of corporate management as the product of corporate policy, given the substantial capitalization requirements and risks associated with such high level design and manufacturing decisions across the entire company, world wide. Plaintiffs further allege that the conduct of the defendants was undertaken with the result that the SUBJECT VEHICLE, with its ultimate defects in its design, manufacture and production were fully intended by the defendants to reside therein such that they were and are the product of the entire corporate management and corporate policy of the defendants with respect to the conscious willful and disregard of public safety for defendants' pecuniary gain with regard to the design, manufacture, production and marketing of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.
  30. As a direct and legal result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants and each of them, an award of exemplary and punitive damages against defendants TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC. and DOES 1 through 5, and each of them, pursuant to California Civil Code §3294 and the rule enunciated in Romo v. Ford Motor Company (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 11125, and Ford Motor Company v. Home Insurance Co. (1981) 116 Cal. App. 3d 374, 381-382, is proper and appropriate to punish said defendants and to deter such conduct in the future.
  31. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    NEGLIGENT PRODUCT LIABILITY (Against All Defendants)

  32. Plaintiffs incorporate, repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 29 above, and incorporate the same by reference as though set forth herein.
  33. At all times mentioned, defendants and each of them, had a duty to properly manufacture, design, assemble, package, test, fabricate, analyze, inspect, merchandise, market, distribute, label, advertise, promote, sell, supply, lease, rent, warn, select, inspect, service, maintain, and repair said product and each of its component parts.
  34. At all times mentioned, defendants and each of them and DOES 1 through 100 knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts were not properly manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, serviced, maintained, selected and provided inadequate warnings and/or no warnings for the use and purpose for which it was intended in that it was likely to injure or kill the person(s) who used said product, each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides.
  35. Defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly, manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, modified, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, serviced, maintained, selected and provided inadequate warnings and provided the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts so that it was a defective and dangerous product, unsafe for the respective use and purpose for which it was intended when used and driven as recommended or for reasonably foreseeable misuse by members of the public, including the plaintiffs. In particular, said SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts during a reasonably foreseeable side impact crash, was dangerous and defective in that the restraint system failed to restrain the plaintiffs and provided no side air bag protection, causing the plaintiff driver to hit her head and torso on the interior of the SUBJECT VEHICLE, all causing plaintiff ELEANOR T. GNUP to sustain head and chest injuries.
  36. As a direct and legal result of the negligence, carelessness, and unlawful conduct of the defendants, and each of them, and the defects inherent in the vehicle, defendants legally caused the serious personal injuries to plaintiff ELEANOR T. GNUP, in turn legally resulting in plaintiffs' damages as set forth herein.
  37. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

    NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

  38. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 34 inclusive.
  39. Plaintiffs suffered serious emotional distress as a result of perceiving the serious injuries and danger to the other occupants of the vehicle, who were all members of their family.
    • Plaintiff, EDWARD T. GNUP, observed serious personal injuries and danger to his wife, ELEANOR T. GNUP.
    • Plaintiff, ELEANOR T. GNUP, observed serious personal injuries and danger to her husband, EDWARD T. GNUP.
  40. As described above, defendants negligently caused the serious injuries to plaintiffs by reason of the defects inherent in the SUBJECT VEHICLE, which were caused by reason of Defendants' breach of their duties of care to properly manufacture, design, assemble, package, test, fabricate, analyze, inspect, merchandise, market, distribute, label, advertise, promote, sell, supply, lease, rent, warn, select, inspect and repair the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides.
  41. At all times mentioned, defendants and each of them and DOES 11 through 20 knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that said SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its components parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides was not properly manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, selected and provided inadequate warnings for the use and purpose for which it was intended in that it was likely to injure the persons who used said product, each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides.
  42. Defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly, manufactured, designed, assembled, packaged, tested, fabricated, analyzed, inspected, merchandised, marketed, modified, distributed, labeled, advertised, promoted, sold, supplied, leased, rented, repaired, selected and provided inadequate warnings and provided said SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides so that the same was a defective and dangerous product, unsafe for the respective use and purpose for which it was intended when used and driven as recommended or for reasonably foreseeable misuse by said defendants and each of them. In particular, defective and unsafe restraint system, which defendant and each of them knew and were aware would fail to restrain occupants in the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides during a side impact collision causing injury to its occupants, as alleged above. In addition, the lack of any side impact protection, including but not limited to side air bags and/or side curtain air bags and seat mounted torso air bags of the SUBJECT VEHICLE and each of its component parts and/or aftermarket parts and/or installation guides in the event of a side impact crash, and in this case, failed to restrain the occupants and which caused plaintiff driver to hit her head and body parts on the SUBJECT VEHICLE's interior causing her severe injuries.
  43. The plaintiffs were present in the SUBJECT VEHICLE at the time of the side impact collision and were aware that their family member was being seriously injured when the defective and unsafe restraint system failed and the lack of any side impact protection causing their severe injuries.
  44. As a direct and legal result of the Defendants' negligence, carelessness, and unlawful conduct and the defects inherent in the vehicle, the plaintiffs suffered serious emotional distress, including but not limited to suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry shock, humiliation, and shame, such that an ordinary, reasonable person would be unable to cope with the serious emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants and each of them, as follows:

  1. For special and economic damages including, medical expenses, and loss of past and future earnings and earning capacity, according to proof at trial;
  2. For general damages including damages for loss of consortium and emotional distress and suffering;
  3. For prejudgment interest, as determined by and accrued according to applicable statutes;
  4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
  5. For any other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
  6. Exemplary and punitive damages, by all plaintiffs, against Defendants, TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC. and DOES 1 to 25, ONLY.

By:__________________________________
BRIAN D CHASE, ESQ.
STEVEN R. MEEKS, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

DATED: January 11, 2010 Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys

By:__________________________________
BRIAN D CHASE, ESQ.
STEVEN R. MEEKS, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.


Was This Page Helpful? Yes | No

List of Defective Cars

Have a question that wasn't answered here?

Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys
1301 Dove St #120
Newport Beach, CA 92660

local: (949) 203-3814
Get Directions

See All Ratings And Awards

Connect

Copyright & Disclaimer

Disclaimer: The legal information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice, nor the formation of an attorney-client relationship. Any results set forth here were dependent on the facts of that case and the results will differ from case to case. Bisnar Chase serves all of California. In addition, we represent clients in various other states through our affiliations with local law firms. Through the local firm we will be admitted to practice law in their state, pro hac vice.

Copyright © 1999-2016 Bisnar Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP - All rights reserved.
Location: 1301 Dove St. #120, Newport Beach, CA 92660 - Tel: (949) 203-3814

Website Design by: SLS ConsultingSLS Consulting