Innovative & Successful Trial Attorneys
At Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime, LLP we take pride in our reputation as innovative and successful trial attorneys with decades of litigation experience. We are trial attorneys who actually try cases. The three named partners have been elected as members of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) and many of our other attorneys have first-chaired their own trials. We have earned a statewide reputation for
effective defense strategies that produce favorable resolutions, including dispositive motion and favorable settlements. If a case has to be tried, we are fully prepared to take the case to a jury-even on short notice and are proud of our track record.
Defending Catastrophic Exposure Cases Throughout California
We take pride in being a boutique trial firm capable of defending catastrophic exposure cases in a variety of scenarios that include personal injuries, products liability, transportation and trucking, premises liability, wildfire litigation, public entity (dangerous condition and sexual abuse), major construction defect cases, and employment litigation. Our ability to hold down damages using innovative litigation resolution strategies, effective dispositive motions, and trial spans the last 40 years. We are also proud of our record of defense verdicts in difficult cases.
Cases of Interest
Hoffman v. Young, No. B292539 (2nd Cir. Oct. 30, 2020)
When the child of a landowner invites a person onto the landowner’s property, the child’s invitation acts as an express invitation by the landowner such that the landowner may be liable for the invitee’s injuries.
READ MOREDix v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
A music festival operator has a duty to its invitees to protect against the consumption of illegal drugs and provide adequate medical care in the case of a drug overdose.
READ MOREWilliams v. County of Sonoma (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 125
The primary assumption of risk (“PAR”) doctrine does not bar a plaintiff’s recovery if the imposition of a duty to the plaintiff is similar to a defendant’s existing duty and the extension of that duty would not materially alter the fundamental nature of the activity.
READ MORE