This action involved a tragic incident, wherein Plaintiff got shocked-electrocuted as
a result of a defective/improperly installed sign mounted on the outside wall of Defendant’s
property/store which was not grounded.

On the day of the incident, Plaintiff was at the subject store with his co-worker
installing a refrigeration system. As part of the installation, Plaintiff had to install a
compressor on the roof and in order to get to the roof, Plaintiff used a ladder which he
placed against the subject sign. Plaintiff had to place the ladder against the subject sign
because of other machinery/equipment nearby. At the end of the day, the timer turned on
and energized the subject sign. As such, when Plaintiff was attempting to climb down the
ladder he got shocked-electrocuted causing Plaintiff to fall approximately 12 feet to the
ground.

As a result of the incident, Plaintiff sustained severe injuries including but not limited
to requiring back surgery.

The owner of the subject store as well as owners of the subject property and their
agents failed to remedy a known dangerous condition. Defendants knew or should have
know that the subject sign was not grounding posing as a dangerous condition.
In fact, immediately following the incident, investigation into the matter was
conducted by Plaintiff’s expert. Inspection of the Electrical Sign revealed that the sign
emitted electrical current because of improper wiring in violation of applicable electrical
code requirements. The defect in the subject sign was created and allowed to exist by
Defendants as set forth below.

Based on information and belief, prior to the subject incident, Defendants leased the
store which had the subject sign mounted on the outside wall to Defendant store owner.
Based on information and belief, the subject sign was repaired-modified by unlicenced
improperly trained electrical technicians.

The court in Grant v. Hipsher, (1967) 257 Cal. App.2d 375, 381, citing to the case
of Finnegan v. Royal Realty Co. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 409, held that where a tenant makes a
structural change which is in violation of safety regulations and the owner had knowledge
of the change, a duty is imposed upon the owner to terminate the tenancy or compel the
tenant to comply with the regulations. The court further held that while the Finnegan case
in which the foregoing principles were enunciated involved structural aspects of a building,
no rational basis exist for holding the distinction to be of controlling significance if fencing
of a swimming pool is involved instead. Id. at 382. The court held that a fence enclosing
a swimming pool is as much a part of the permanent improvements of the demised
premises as the exit door or the sprinkler system involved in Finnegan case, and the extent
of the lessor's duty to see that such improvements conform to applicable safety ordinances
should be no less. Id.

The court in Lopez v. Superior Court, (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4 , 705, 715, held that th
“where there is a duty to exercise reasonable care in the inspection of premises for
dangerous conditions, the lack of awareness of the dangerous condition does not generally
preclude liability. Although liability might easily be found where the landowner has actual
knowledge of the dangerous condition "[t]he landowner's lack of knowledge of the
dangerous condition is not a defense. Id. He has an affirmative duty to exercise ordinary
care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and therefore must inspect them
or take other proper means to ascertain their condition. Id. And if, by the exercise of
reasonable care, he would have discovered the dangerous condition, he is liable. Id.”
The court in Mora v. Baker Commodities, Inc., (1989) 210 Cal. App. 3d 771, 781,
held that a commercial landowner, cannot totally abrogate its landowner responsibilities
merely by signing a lease. As the owner of property, a lessor out of possession must
exercise due care and must act reasonably toward the tenant as well as to unknown third
persons. Id. The court further held that at the time the lease is executed and upon
renewal a landlord has a right to re-enter the property, has control of the property, and
must inspect the premises to make the premises reasonably safe from dangerous
conditions. Id.

The court in Finnegan v. Royal Realty Co. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 409, 423, held that
statutes and ordinances prescribing the safety features of buildings impose a duty of
compliance upon the property owner. Where such a statute or ordinance fails to designate
the person charged with the duty of compliance, the initial responsibility is that of the
owner. Id. The court further held that if a landlord may delegate his duty of compliance
with safety ordinances and statutes designed for the protection of members of the public
rightfully on the premises to persons who may be financially irresponsible, all salutary
legislation would soon become a nullity. Id. at 432-433. The situation is somewhat
analogous to that of one who employs an independent contractor. Id. at 433. Where the
law imposes a definite, affirmative duty upon one by reason of his relationship with others,
whether as an owner or proprietor of land or chattels or in some other capacity, such
person can not escape liability for a failure to perform the duty thus imposed by entrusting
it to an independent contractor. Id. And it is immaterial whether the duty thus regarded
as 'nondelegable' be imposed by statute.

As a result of the tragic incident, Plaintiff had to be transported by ambulance to
UCSD Medical Center. Plaintiff was examination and diagnosed with an L4 burst fracture,
pedicle fractures bilaterally at L5 and chronic diagnosis of isthmic spondylolisthesis, grade
1 at L5-S1. Based on the forgoing diagnosis, Plaintiff was taken to the operating room
and underwent an L3-S1 posterior fusion. Following his initial L3-S1 posterior fusion,
Plaintiff had to undergo another surgery for fixation-stabilization of his L4 burst fracture.
As a result of the subject accident, despite the surgery and physical therapy
treatment Plaintiff continued to experience restrictions even in his daily routine activities.