Brian Johnson is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ Northern California office. His practice focuses on general liability, personal injury, complex construction, products liability, and general business matters.
Mr. Johnson is an experienced litigator, having represented individuals and businesses in state and federal courts for over a decade. He has successfully resolved client matters through trial, summary judgment motions, and alternative dispute resolution. Mr. Johnson enjoys handling complex, scientific, and highly technical types of litigation. He has significant environmental and complex litigation experience with RCRA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Proposition 65 cases. Mr. Johnson believes positive working relationships between counsel yield positive client results. Where appropriate, he will work to resolve client matters informally or through extrajudicial means before litigation commences or in its earliest stages.
Mr. Johnson graduated magna cum laude from Augusta State University in 2000 with a B.A. in Political Science and International Studies. While earning his B.A., he studied abroad in Greece and Russia as a Board of Regents Scholar. He earned his J.D. with a certificate of specialization in environmental law in 2004 from Tulane University Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana. An early litigator, Mr. Johnson co-chaired a RCRA trial in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana as a student attorney and member of Tulane Environmental Law Clinic. Mr. Johnson is a member of the California Bar and the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California.
In his free time, Mr. Johnson enjoys music, travel, cooking, and anything outdoors. He performs with a group of attorney musicians who perform rock and roll shows for residents and patients at California hospitals and long-term care facilities.
Summary of the Ruling
In a decision filed June 24, 2019, a California appellate court held: (i) a shopping center owner’s general knowledge of the possibility of violent criminal conduct on its premises is insufficient alone to create a duty to provide protection against foreseeable third-party criminal acts; (ii) a prior burglary, broken window and assault were insufficient to support finding that third-party criminal conduct was sufficiently…
In a decision filed on March 14, 2019, a California appellate court held there was no violation of the collateral source rule where expert testimony referencing a plaintiff’s collateral source payments was made to provide a reasonable value of damages and helps the jury with context and background of the issues. (Stokes v. Muschinske (Mar. 14, 2019, No. B280116) Cal.App.5th [2019 WL 1513208].)
Summary of the Ruling
A federal district court in Washington ruled a general contractor’s insurer acted in bad faith when it waited for more than one year to agree to defend it in an underlying construction defect action. In Rushforth Construction Co. v. Wesco Insurance Co. et al., Case No. 17-cv-1063, (W.D. Wash. Apr. 3, 2018), Judge John Coughenour for the Western District of Washington said reasonable minds could not disagree that the delay on the part of the insurer was “frivolous and unfounded.” The Seattle judge granted partial summary judgement in favor of the general contractor, Rushforth.
On May 5, 2014, George Sutherland sustained injuries when, while working as a crane operator, his crane became unstable and fell over. Sutherland brought an action almost exactly two years later, on May 3, 2016. His complaint alleged a cause of action for negligence against defendant Curtis Engineering Corporation. Curtis Engineering Co. provided engineering services to Sutherland’s project and at the worksite where Sutherland’s…