Eric Young | Santa Rosa Personal Injury Lawyer

I represented a young woman who had been victimized by a police officer. I can't divulge much more about the case than that, but we were able to obtain a very successful outcome for her that far exceeded her expectations. That was rewarding.

I consider firm building to be an everyday task, one that is constantly evolving, requires learning new skills, and adopting new methodologies and technologies to deliver legal services in the best way possible.

As a litigator, I believe clients should look for someone who will tell the client the "good, bad, and ugly" of what it means to litigate a case, not just the client on with unrealistic promises. The pros and the cons must be discussed. Going into litigation requires a significant commitment of time, money, and emotion, and I believe clients should enter into it with clear and informed expectations.

I think it's important to be familiar with one's community. As a lawyer, it is important to be familiar with the judges you appear in front of and to cultivate relationships with other local attorneys who can act as advisors or mentors. This is especially true for younger attorneys.

First, I do not limit clients to the amount of time I spend with them on an initial phone consultation or at the initial in-person consultation. I give each the amount of time they require. I spend most of my time trying to listen actively and offer options that educate the client about their rights and responsibilities.

I need basic facts - the who, what, where, when, why, how - of a case. Many potential clients focus on irrelevant details that matter to them on an emotional level, but they often ignore important details. I always ask clients to tell me what they think the other side would say about the case if I asked them.

I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation, so I am able to see a case from both sides. It is helpful to plaintiffs to have an advocate who can anticipate defense arguments and methods. I spend a considerable amount of time educating clients about this.

I enjoy managing a case from start to finish, building it like a house, methodically from the ground up.

I am passionate about animal rights. Nothing motivates me more than my concern for the welfare of animals. I am also the proud owner of 2 rescue dogs that I spend most of my free time with. My dogs keep me grounded and remind me of the important things in life - loyalty, friendship, patience, and trust.

I am involved in my local bar association through committee and working group activities. I take my pro bono responsibilities seriously. I also give my time and money to several local animals charities in the North Bay Area as well as to several national organizations.

• State Bar of California
  Sonoma County Bar Association
  San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association
  National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

• Delgado v Trax Bar & Grill
  Plaintiff and his wife were patrons at a bar that had hired security to patrol the inside of the bar as well as the parking lot outside. While at the bar, another patron began to stare at the plaintiff in a threatening manner, and the plaintiff's wife informed the bar's security. The security guard told plaintiff and his wife to leave, but he did not escort them out, nor did he do anything to de-escalate the situation. As plaintiff and his wife walked to their car, the outside security was not at their post. The other patron and several accomplices attacked the plaintiff, causing severe injuries. Plaintiff sued the bar for premises liability negligence. The trial court dismissed the case, finding the bar had no duty to protect the plaintiff under the facts of the case. My office became involved as appellate counsel. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision but ruled plaintiff could not show the bar did anything or failed to do anything that caused the attack. We appealed to the California Supreme Court, which overturned the Court of Appeals decision, holding that a business owner has a "special relationship" with its customers, imposing on the business owner a duty to take reasonable, minimally burdensome steps to protect a patron's safety. The Supreme Court ruled that, under the facts of this case, the bar failed to adequately safeguard plaintiff when it was on notice of an ongoing danger from the other patron. Significantly, the decision limited the scope of an older case, Ann M. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, which business owners and their attorneys were using to argue a business owner could never be liable unless there had been a prior, nearly identical incident of criminal activity on the premises.

• Mata v Mata
  My office represented a co-plaintiff in this case who was a patron at a bar operated by Mata. The bar had a security guard who was supposed to guard the door to the bar and make sure that no patrons who were not supposed to enter the bar were allowed to enter. A patron entered the bar who had previously been "86'd" from the bar because the security guard was not at his post. The patron was visibly intoxicated when he arrived, but he was served alcohol in violation of the bar ejecting him in the past. The patron because unruly, and he was asked to leave the bar. As he was exiting the front door of the bar, and as the door was closing behind him, the patron pulled out a gun and fired several shots through the front door of the bar, killing the father of the lead plaintiff in the case and seriously wounding the other plaintiff. Plaintiffs sued the bar alleging premises liability negligence. Relying on a prior case, Ann M. v Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds there were no prior shootings at the bar, and thus, the shooting was unforeseeable. My office appealed the trial court's decision, and the Court of Appeals reversed in the plaintiffs' favor. The Court of Appeals held that, because the bar had already hired security, foreseeability was irrelevant. The bar had assumed a duty of care, which was breached when the patron was allowed to enter the bar.

• Cause of Action Against Tavern Owners, Restaurants, and Similar Businesses for Injuries Caused to Patrons by the Criminal Acts of Others (West 2004) 26 Causes of Action 2d 1;
  
  Once Bitten, Twice (Not So) Shy: California Courts Impose A Duty To Protect Patrons From Dangerous Insects, Sonoma County Bar Journal, January 2019;
  
  California Courts Provide Protection Against Frivolous Disability Lawsuits, North Bay Biz, March 2007;

• YouTube
• Eric G. Young
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Cyber-Esq. Blog