Myles M. Mattenson engages in a general civil and trial practice including litigation and transactional services relating to the coin laundry and dry cleaning industries, franchising, business, purchase and sale of real estate, easements, landlord-tenant, partnership, corporate, insurance bad faith, personal injury, and probate legal matters.
In providing services to the coin laundry and dry cleaning industries, Mr. Mattenson has represented equipment distributors, coin laundry and dry cleaning business owners confronted with landlord-tenant issues, lease negotiations, sale documentation including agreements, escrow instructions, and security instruments, as well as fraud or misrepresentation controversies between buyers and sellers of such businesses.
Mr. Mattenson serves as an Arbitrator for the Los Angeles County Superior Court. He is also past chair of the Law Office Management Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Mr. Mattenson received his Bachelor of Science degree (Accounting) in 1964 and his Juris Doctorate degree from Loyola University School of Law in 1967.
Bi-monthly articles by Mr. Mattenson on legal matters of interest to the business community appear in alternate months in The Journal, a leading coin laundry industry publication of the Coin Laundry Association, and Fabricare, a leading dry cleaning industry publication of the International Fabricare Institute. During the period of May 1995 through September 2002, Mr. Mattenson contributed similar articles to New Era Magazine, a coin laundry and dry cleaning industry publication which ceased publication with the September 2002 issue.
This website contains copies of Mr. Mattenson's New Era Magazine articles which can be retrieved through a subject or chronological index. The website also contains copies of Mr. Mattenson's Journal and Fabricare articles, which can be retrieved through a chronological index.
In addition to Mr. Mattenson's trial practice, he has successfully prosecuted and defended appeals on behalf of his clients in various areas of the law. Some of these appellate decisions are contained within his website.
YOU OBSERVE A TRAFFIC COLLISION! SHOULD YOU HELP?
states maintain a “good Samaritan” statute to immunize any person who, while
acting in good faith and without compensation, renders emergency care at the
scene of a traffic collision or other type of emergency.
recent California case considered the plight of Alexandra who
was injured in a traffic incident during the early morning of November 1,
2004.Alexandra had gathered together at a private
home with friends the previous evening, where some marijuana was apparently
shared and smoked.After others arrived,
the group went to a bar about where they consumed several drinks.Everyone remained at the bar until about on November 1.Alexandra rode as a passenger in a vehicle
driven by one of her friends.Others
rode in a second vehicle.
driver of the vehicle in which Alexandra was a passenger lost control and
crashed into a curb and light standard at about 45 miles per hour.The force of the impact caused the front air bags to deploy and
Alexandra, in the front passenger seat, was unable to exit the car.
companion vehicle pulled to the side of the road and everyone exited to
assist.One of the individuals, a
friend, removed Alexandra from the vehicle.
the aftermath, Alexandra sued her friends, alleging that even though she was
not in need of assistance after the accident, and had only sustained injury to
her vertebrae, the act of dragging her out of the vehicle,
caused permanent damage to her spinal cord and rendered her a paraplegic.
court noted that there were a variety of factual disputes.The defendant who removed Alexandra from the
vehicle did so because, according to her testimony, she figured the car would
catch fire or “blow up.”The friend
testified at deposition that she saw smoke coming from the top of the vehicle;
however, these facts were in dispute.
was also a dispute as to how the friend removed Alexandra from the car.The friend testified she placed one arm under
Alexandra’s legs and the other behind her back to lift her out of the car.Alexandra testified that the friend used one
hand to grab her by the arm and pull her out of the car “like a rag doll.”
personnel were called to the scene.Alexandra suffered various injuries, including injury to her vertebrae
and a lacerated liver that required emergency surgery.There was a dispute whether the accident
itself caused plaintiff’s paraplegia.
the friend liable for the injuries suffered by Alexandra?Before you rush to raise
your hand with what you assume is the correct answer, read further.
issue presented to the court was whether the good
Samaritan law applies to any emergency care rendered at the scene or
whether it applies only to emergency medical care rendered at the scene
of a medical emergency.
court determined that although the friend may have believed that Alexandra had
to be immediately removed from the court due to a risk of fire explosion, that
risk was not a medical risk to her health.Therefore, moving her from the car was
therefore not emergency medical care.
reviewing the California statute, the court thus distinguished
between immunizing a good Samaritan from negligently
administering medical treatment to a traffic accident victim laying on the
highway and immunizing someone against negligently removing the victim from a
a general rule, one has no duty to come to the aid of another unless the person
has created the problem or peril, or unless there is some special relationship
between the parties which gives rise to a duty to act.
duty to act, for example, is illustrated by placing a person in peril or
increasing the risk of harm.In one Los Angeles case, an officer investigating an accident
directed the plaintiff to follow him into the middle of the intersection where
the plaintiff was hit by another car.
illustration, involving an omission, rather than the affirmative act of
instructing an individual to proceed into an intersection, occurred in a case
where a deputy sheriff promised to warn an individual of when a prisoner, who
had made threats on her life, was released.The county was held liable when the sheriff failed to warn and the
prisoner murdered the individual to whom the promise had been made.
The moral of the story?If
you undertake to come to the aid of another, be careful to exercise due care in
all that you do to help!