Raymond “Ken” Wilson Jr. is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office. His practice focuses on catastrophic personal injury; sexual assault and molestation defense on behalf of youth serving organizations, churches, schools, and national governing bodies; professional malpractice defense (medical and legal); and appellate law.
Mr. Wilson has favorably resolved a variety of matters for his clients through settlement, dispositive motion, or trial in state and federal courts in both California and Nebraska. He has obtained a defense verdict for an OB/GYN accused of medical malpractice, obtained a defense verdict for an insurance broker in an errors and omissions case, has obtained multiple defense summary judgments in cases where damages were claimed to be $10 million or more, and obtained favorable settlements for multiple youth serving entities in sexual assault and molestation cases.
Mr. Wilson has also achieved considerable success in his appellate practice. He has written several winning briefs in the California Court of Appeal as well as multiple petitions for review to the California Supreme Court. Mr. Wilson also recently argued in front of the California Court of Appeal, First District and obtained a favorable opinion affirming a defense verdict in a catastrophic personal injury case where Plaintiff sought in excess of $26 million from the jury. In addition, Mr. Wilson has written three winning briefs to the Nebraska Court of Appeal.
Mr. Wilson earned his J.D. in 2012 from Creighton University School of Law, where he was on the National Trial Team and was runner up in the ABA’s National Criminal Trial Advocacy Competition. Mr. Wilson earned his B.A. in political science in 2007 from the University of San Diego. Mr. Wilson is licensed to practice law in California and Nebraska (inactive member) and is a member of the San Diego Defense Lawyers, San Diego County, Omaha, and Nebraska Bar Associations.
Mr. Wilson is an avid surfer and sailor. He spends most of his free time with his wife – an internationally ranked champion sailor – and son at home or on the water. Mr. Wilson also enjoys playing golf and riding his road bicycle and is currently serving as a Director for the Coronado Yacht Club.
I was privileged to brief and argue a recent case on behalf of Gehl Company in the California Court of Appeal. In Verrazono v. Gehl Company (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 636, the Court of Appeal, First District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s refusal to order a new trial following a defense verdict in a case involving severe injuries sustained by plaintiff while using a rough terrain forklift made by…
California Court of Appeal Again Indicates That Entities Must Have Actual Notice of Their Employee’s Actions Before They Can Be Held Liable
In Potter v. Alliance United Insurance Company (AUIC), the California Court of Appeal looked at a case involving a California legal minimum auto insurance policy, $15,000. Plaintiff, Christopher Potter was driving and was struck by Jesus Tovar’s car. Tovar was insured by AUIC with a maximum policy limit of $15,000. Potter offered to settle the claims against Tovar for the policy limit, but AUIC failed to respond to the offer.
The California Legislature is considering a bill (AB 218) which would modify California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1. Currently, section 340.1 sets the statute of limitation for civil actions involving childhood sexual assault at the date the plaintiff turns 26 years old or three years after the plaintiff discovers (or should reasonably discover) the connection between the abuse and psychological injury, whichever occurs later.
In Linton v. County of Contra Costa (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 628, plaintiff sued for injuries she sustained when she fell from her wheelchair while riding in a county para-transit van. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleged violations of the Disabled Persons Act (California Civil Code § 54 et seq.) and the Unruh Act. (California Civil Code § 51 et seq.) Both causes of action allow for attorney’s fees if liability is proven.
When reviewing a plaintiff’s list of retained and non-retained experts expected testimony in a medical negligence case, it is very important to ensure the testimony will not be duplicative and the expert has the proper basis to give the expected opinion.
The scene: You are driving down the highway in the slow lane, and two cars merge onto the highway in front of you. The car closest to you is tailgating the one ahead of it when the front car slams on its brakes for no discernable reason and then drives away. The car directly ahead of you hits its brakes, too, and you cannot stop in time before hitting it.
The legalization of marijuana for recreational use over the past several years in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Washington D.C., and for medicinal use in another 29 states, has led to billions of dollars in sales for growers, sellers, and billions of dollars in taxes for the states. It has also led to increased risk of product liability litigation against those same growers, sellers, and governmental agencies who license the businesses. Many, if not most, of the insurance policies purporting to cover the growers and sellers are likely modified standard product liability and CGL policies which have explicit exclusions for the sale, manufacture, or ingestion of psychotropic substances, including marijuana.
In Calderon v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 383 P.3d 676 (2016), the Colorado Supreme Court reviewed an action filed by Calderon against his own automobile insurer after being struck by an uninsured motorist. The facts of the case were undisputed: an uninsured driver ran a stop sign, collided with Calderon, and Calderon sustained injuries that rendered him unable to work for over a month.