Play Video

Daniel Kramer

Thursday, October 28th, 2021 // From 8:30am to 12:00pm

Subject: Premises Liability

3 hr Case Analysis


Daniel Kramer is a trial lawyer who specializes in representing families and individuals involved in catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death matters, as well as employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuits. Daniel has obtained numerous jury verdicts as lead counsel, all victories on behalf of his clients. Multiple verdicts have been featured in both The Daily Journal, Verdict Search, The Huffington Post, and Fox 11 News. Five verdicts were ranked as the top 50 verdicts in the state of California for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 by From 2013-2020, Daniel has been consistently honored as a “Top Attorney” in personal injury and employment law by Pasadena Magazine, which reached out to thousands of lawyers from all over the Los Angeles and Pasadena vote for the “most esteemed and highly regarded attorneys” in their chosen fields. Dan was distinguished for his “exceptional service” in his specialties.

Case Analysis Details

“Acosta v. Mas Realty”

Voir Dire, Opening Statement, Closing Argument, & Rebuttal

On August 10, 2016, Plaintiff Louis Acosta was at Arlington Plaza, a strip mall located in Riverside, California to inspect the exterior lights of the buildings as part of his job as a lighting technician. Mr. Acosta needed to access one of the rooftops in order to check the photocells on the roof. Mr. Acosta proceeded to climb the ladder to the roof, push the hatch door open, and maneuver the locking lever into position. However, while he was in the process of exiting the hatch door, his toolbelt caught on the hatch door’s locking lever, causing the door to slam onto his back. Mr. Acosta was able to re-open the hatch door and upon examination realized that the door was missing a spring assist, so that the door was able to slam down as opposed to gently dropping. As a result of the incident, Mr. Acosta underwent two spinal fusion surgeries and has future surgery recommendations. During discovery, it was revealed that Defendants knew about the dangerous hatch door for two years but had failed to fix it. Despite this knowledge, Defendants continued to allege all the way through.