About Kenneth C. Brooks

Personal Injury Litigation

Mr. Brooks has represented both Plaintiffs and Defendants in personal injury actions, which includes more than automobile collisions. The principal goal of an attorney in personal injury litigation is discovering all potential defendants. In one action, a client attending California State University at Chico simply hopped over a very large puddle to cross a street. The client, landing on an edge of the puddle, twisted an ankle. Covered by the water was a large branch causing the client to trip and fall. The injury to the ankle was minor. However, it ruined the client's plans for the Christmas break.  I looked into the matter and it turned-out that the City of Chico had nearly a decade of complaints of falling branches and backed-up storm drains.  Review of the minutes of the city council made clear that the City of Chico was underfunding street maintenance by millions of dollars. Within four months of filing the lawsuit my client was awarded $20,000.00 for a twisted ankle.  The people of the City of Chico now have street maintenance adequately funded.

In the City of Modesto, it appeared that a particular intersection was in the process of gentrification. A client twisted an ankle walking on a sidewalk.  A hole remained after the City of Modesto removed a tree. The city fought the action for years until finally, at deposition, one of the landowners had testified that the City of Modesto had prevented repair of the hole for years by denying a permit for the same. That lawsuit was resolved in favor of my client who received the compensation that she deserved.  However, the City of Modesto completely rebuilt the intersection make the same safe. The result was not only a win for my client, but the property values increased for all the property owners resulting from the improvement made by the City of Modesto.

In wrongful death action Mr. Brooks represented the survivors of a pedestrian killed by a motorist crossing a street in the City of Tracy. While the driver was ready to settle immediately, Mr. Brooks discovered that there had been numerous pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at this particular intersection giving rise to a dangerous condition.  While governments need not provide lighting on public highways, when the lighting is provided, it must be done with reasonable care. The conditions of the night the pedestrian was killed were such that the lights on the motor-vehicle causes a light wall, preventing the driver from seeing beyond the front hood of the motor vehicle.  Had the City of Tracy provided better lighting, this situation would not have happened.  As a result, both the City of Tracy and the driver settled the matter favorable for my client.

Government Tort Claims

Each of the cases mentioned above are complex tort cases, because each involved holding a local government accountable for an alleged dangerous condition that existed on public property. Cases against California and its local government requires an injured party to satisfy certain procedural conditions before proceeding with a lawsuit. However, satisfying the procedural conditions to name a government entity as a defendant in a lawsuit is not sufficient.  Unlike private parties, government defendants have several immunities that an attorney must be ready to address.  The immunities may operate to prevent liability of a government defendant even in the presence of a dangerous condition. Mr. Brooks is experienced with addressing these government immunities and has successfully argued so as to prevent these immunities for shielding government defendants from liability in numerous cases.
In one action I was hired to represent a minor child against the State of California. The minor child was traversing a crosswalk located on a California Highway. One issue in the case centered on whether the highway was properly maintained to ensure pedestrian safety. Mr. Brooks quickly satisfied the pre-filing procedural requires to name the State of California, as well as a local government in the lawsuit. Unfortunately, the minor child was subject to joint custody, and one spouse hired another attorney resulting in joint representation.  The case became more complex due to differences in legal strategies between the attorneys. Wanting to ensure the minor child received the best possible outcome, Mr. Brooks bowed out and let the other attorney handle the matter. After about 18 months the other attorney requested the documents associated with the pre-filing procedures undertaken to name the government entities as defendants. The State of California had filed a cross-complaint against the driver seeking compensation for the cost of the litigation that resulted from the driver colliding with the minor child. The driver had only $50,000.00 policy coverage. The driver was desirous of the minor child dismissing the State of California to avoid having to pay the State of California in exchange for providing an additional sum of money from the driver's personal funds.  This is money above the insurance policy limit of the driver.
Mr. Brooks is not just moving paper when representing personal injury clients.  Mr. Brooks examines the totality of the situation and determines the best possible strategy to ensure a client receives maximum recovery, before a lawsuit is filed.

 

Patent & Trademark Litigation

Mr. Brooks has assisted in patent and trademark litigation efforts in various jurisdictions over the United States including the Northern District of California, the Eastern District of Virginia and Southern District of Indiana. He has also provided in- depth analysis of individual patents and patent portfolios, and has assisted several companies develop and manage patent portfolios world-wide. Mr. Brooks has experience in various technological disciplines including, but not limited to, microprocessor design, digital and analog communication systems, fiber optic communications systems, computer networking, laser design and fabrication methods, semiconductor processes and equipment, and database systems.