Friedman Law Offices Now Accredited by the Better Business Bureau

Friedman Law Offices is proud to announce that after a 16-point analysis we are now accredited by the Better Business Bureau and received their prestigious “A” rating.

Ari Friedman Law Offices, P.C., Attorneys & Lawyers  Personal Injury & Property Damage, Los Angeles, CA

Attorney Ari Friedman and Attorney Tova Friedman, specialize in Personal Injury Law, including all types of auto accidents, trip and fall, or any type of injury caused by the negligence of another party or entity.

Ari Friedman Law Offices, P.C. dba Friedman Law Offices, has met the high standards of the California State Bar and in addition to being eligible to practice as individuals, the law firm has been certified to practice law as a “Corporation” in the State of California.

California Bar Certificate


We “Personalize” Your Personal Injury Claim & Experience! Each client is treated with respect and courtesy. We ensure that every issue is addressed in a timely fashion.
Ari Friedman and Tova Friedman offer you a unique experienced traditional practice that features new and vibrant techniques. This combination enables us to fight for you. At the Friedman Law Offices the client always comes first! Please check our testimonials.

I Slipped And Fell. What Is My Remedy?



Plaintiff  was walking on Defendants’ property in order to pay for gasoline. Plaintiff tripped on a protruding piece of cement on Defendants’ property that was abutting a handicap ramp. Plaintiff tripped and fell face forward into the mini market’s cement wall. Plaintiff injured his shoulder, head, wrist, knees, back, neck, nose, lips, chest. As a result, Plaintiff received immediate emergency treatment and has been undergoing treatment since the accident with constant residual pain.


Plaintiff parked his car in order to pay for gasoline at the gas station window. After exiting his car, he walked toward the pay window and tripped on the abutting cement. The ramp had no railing that most handicap ramps have. There were no warning signs advising of the abutting cement. The cement ramp came to an abrupt point and is located in a place where people walk from their car to the market.


After arriving at the emergency room, Plaintiff was examined and given medication for pain. Plaintiff underwent a series of CT scans and x-rays and was ultimately admitted to the hospital, where he stayed for almost a week. The x-ray at the hospital indicated a “humeral neck fracture”. Plaintiff’s shoulder was secured by a shoulder immobilizer.

Plaintiff was seen at the hospital by his primary care physician. Plaintiff had swelling from his shoulder through his forearm. The doctor advised Plaintiff that he must continue to wear the shoulder immobilizer.

Plaintiff followed up with the doctor  the following week and he re-examined Plaintiff and advised him that he should continue to wear the immobilizer for an additional four weeks. Plaintiff was referred to undergo physical therapy and began said therapy at a rehab facility.Plaintiff’s condition was only minimally improving. Plaintiff underwent physical therapy


Plaintiff still experiences constant head pain, constant right shoulder pain that radiates to his back, and constant hip pain. Plaintiff experiences intermittent pain to both his knees. Plaintiff also still experiences almost constant pain in his neck.

Plaintiff is no longer able to perform the normal housework or errands which require carrying heavy items. Before the accident, Plaintiff, an elderly gentleman, was able to maintain his home without the need of anyone’s help. Due to the accident, Plaintiff was forced to hire a housekeeper. Plaintiff cannot accomplish simple household tasks such as making his bed or cleaning the bathroom.


An owner who conducts active operations on the premises must exercise ordinary care for the safety of everyone she knows, or should expect, to be on the property. Oettinger v Stewart, 24 C2d 133, 138 (1944).



Ari Friedman
Personal Injury Lawyer


There is no place for discrimination in this country!

This city, state, country has no place for discrimination. This New York jury awarded the Plaintiff $900K:

A deliveryman for the Midtown restaurant Mangia 57 has won a $900,000 jury verdict, payback for the anti-Semitic harassment heaped upon him by three supervisors at the eatery.

“It’s a very happy ending — I’m in another world,” said Adam Wiercinski, of Washington Heights.

“They would call him a ‘dirty Jew,’ and when he would say, ‘But I took a bath,’ they would laugh and say, ‘No, you still smell like Jew,’ ” said his lawyer, Matthew Blit.

Night-shift manager Artur Zbozien often “passed gas” in front of Wiercinski, and would then joke that the gas was Zyklon B, the poison used in Nazi gas chambers during the Holocaust, according to the Brooklyn federal court lawsuit.

“How can I explain to you — he passed wind, loudly,” Wiercinski told The Post of Zbozien.

“Everybody laughed, and then he said, ‘See, this is your Zyklon B, you stupid Jew.’

“My father had six siblings — only two of them survived in what is now the Ukraine,” Blit said.

“I had to explain to the members of the jury, what is Zyklon B,” he added. “Because they were very young; they do not know. When I explain how it was used in the gas chambers, they were very serious. Everybody [in the courtroom] was silent.”

Other supervisors would dock Wiercinski’s tips, call him a “Jewish pederast,” and throw pennies at him, again making anti-Semitic jokes, the lawsuit said.

Wiercinski worked at the West 57th Street restaurant from 1992 until 2008, staying despite the abuse because, “He was 50 years old,” explained Blit. “He said, ‘Who else is going to hire a 50-year-old deliveryman.’ He was afraid.”

Jurors heard just three days of testimony last week, including supporting accounts from three of Wiercinski’s outraged co-workers. Much of the testimony was in Polish, the language used by many of the restaurant’s employees. The jury reached a verdict Thursday in just four hours, Blit said.

“He’s in shock,” the lawyer said of Wiercinski’s reaction to the hefty jury award. “He was so happy. It’s a moral victory for him.”

Employees at the restaurant and caterer, which has three Manhattan locations, have denied the harassment took place. The restaurant is expected ask that the verdict be tossed out or that the award be reduced. Calls to its attorney were not immediately returned.

The verdict will be appealed, a lawyer for Mangia 57 said Tuesday, insisting that there was no evidence — besides Wiercinski’s own word — that upper management was ever made aware of any problems.

“Mangia 57 denies and Artur Zbozien denied at trial that anything like this [anti-Semiticism] occurred,” said the lawyer, Daniel Kaiser. “I’m going to ask that this be thrown out entirely, or at least that the award be reduced to a nominal amount.”

Jurors bought Wiercinski’s story despite evidence presented by the defense that between 2000 and 2008, Wiercinski was receiving Social Security disability checks while collecting his full delivery job paycheck under a fictitious name, Adam Jamroz. Wiercinski admitted as much during a pre-trial proceeding, but took the fifth at trial, both sides conceded Tuesday.

Mangia knew who Adam Jamroz was for the past 20 years — if they agreed to let him call himself Adam Jamroz and be paid under that name, the jury saw that they were just as guilty as he was,” countered Blit.

Brooklyn federal Judge Leo Glasser has ordered that the transcript in which Wiercinski described the alleged Social Security fraud be turned over to the US Attorney’s Office, Kaiser said.

As for management purportedly not knowing about the anti-Semitic attacks, “We put in evidence a statement from Artur Zbozien, a sworn affidavit, in which he said that upper management knew about the abuse and transferred him to a different location because of it,” said Blit. “Then, when Zbozien asked to go back, they let him go back” to Mangia 57, Blit added. “That’s what the jury found so outrageous.”

“I’m not sure the defense attorney was at the same trial we were,” Blit added. “The jury got it right.”


iPhone and Android App “Car Crash Assist” is released!

Friedman Law Offices is proud to announce the arrival of our iPhone app “Car Crash Assist”.

This app helps guide you in obtaining pertinent information after an accident. After you have entered the data, you have the option of sending the information directly to an injury attorney as well as to yourself.
Gather the other persons information, take a snapshot of their drivers license, take photos of the scene and car damage, and have it all immediately sent to yourself and/or an attorney.



Courtesy of:

Ari Friedman

Other Car Made an Unsafe Lane Change and Hit My Car – Am I at Fault?



Plaintiff was a passenger on a Los Angeles County MTA bus proceeding home from work. As the bus was proceeding north on a highwawy, the bus driver struck another vehicle, a Hummer SUV. Plaintiff was standing towards the front of the bus as she was about to exit at the upcoming bus stop. Upon impact Plaintiff was thrown forward into a pole on the bus and was injured. The LAPD report indicated that the driver of the bus was at fault for this accident, in violation of California Vehicle Code §22107, unsafe lane change.

Rear-End Collision Photo


Plaintiff  was a negligent-free passenger on the bus. Defendant and Cross-Defendant dispute which vehicle changed lanes causing the accident and subsequent injury to Plaintiff.


Plaintiff sustained trauma to her head, neck, back, and left shoulder as a result of this collision. She was evaluated by a hospital and followed up with a doctor who reported that Plaintiff had severe headaches, pain in the neck, back, and shoulder. The docotor diagnosed Plaintiff with 1) post-traumatic cerebral syndrome, 2) post-traumatic cervical muscololigamentous sprain, 3) post-traumatic lumbosacral muscololigamentous sprain, and 4) post-traumatic left shoulder sprain. Physical therapy was prescribed as well as Celebrex for the pain.

Plaintiff sought physical therapy and received heat and ice pack therapy, ultrasound, joint mobilization, massage, and therapeutic exercise therapy. While some symptoms subsided at the completion of physical therapy, Plaintiff still continued to have pain and followed up with her doctor. He recommended another set of physical therapy sessions which Plaintiff underwent.

Car accident lawyer


Plaintiff still suffers from intermittent neck pain radiating into her shoulder. She has trouble performing simple daily activities such as lifting bags of groceries or turning her head while driving.



Ari Friedman
Personal Injury Lawyer

Freeway Rear-End Collision


Plaintiff was driving a 2004 Porsche SUV eastbound on the 580 Freeway near Pleasanton, California in the number one lane. Defendant was driving a Toyota Prius behind plaintiff’s vehicle and rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle causing injury to plaintiffs. Plaintiff  number 2 was a passenger in plaintiff ‘s vehicle.

Freeway Collision Pic


Defendant rear ended plaintiff and liability is not contested.


Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained over $6,000 in property damage.

Freeway collision Pic2


Plaintiff incurred medical expenses in the sum of $43,497.53.


Plaintiff suffered injuries to his right knee, neck, back, left shoulder, arm, and head as a result of this rear-end collision. Following the accident he sought treatment from a doctor. Plaintiff began a course of chiropractic therapy. X-rays were ordered, however, due to the increased pain, specifically in his right knee, the doctor referred plaintiff to another doctor for an orthopedic consultation.

Plaintiff underwent right knee Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, 2) arthroscopic chondroplasty, medial femoral condyle, impinging medial plica, and local synovitis in medial gutter. The doctor indicated that the surgery was successful. 

Prior to the accident, plaintiff was gainfully employed. As a result of plaintiff’s injury to his knee and per the recommendation of his doctor, plaintiff was required to miss seventeen days of work. 



Ari Friedman
Personal Injury Lawyer

Bicycle Accident Analysis – Am I at fault?


Facts: A 19 year old was riding his bicycle on the sidewalk going eastbound when Defendant pulled out of a private driveway and struck the bicyclist.



            Plaintiff testified he was travelling between five and ten miles per hour prior to impact; he was “just coasting” and “cradling the brakes”. There were no pedestrians in the area. Plaintiff testified that he was careful to look out for cars coming out of driveways.


The California vehicle code does not prohibit bicycle riders from riding on the sidewalk, on either side of the street.

21804.  (a) The driver of any vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from any public or private property, or from an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic, as defined in Section 620, approaching on the highway close enough to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that traffic until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety. Cal. Veh. Code Section 21804(a). Emphasis added.

As to the definition of “right of way”: Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instruction (CAC) 701 states”

“When the law requires a [driver/pedestrian] to “yield the right-of way” to [another/a] [vehicle/pedestrian], this means that the [driver/pedestrian] must let the [other] [vehicle/pedestrian] go first.

The only California Code dealing with bicycle operations on a sidewalk, merely allows local municipalities to maintain their own regulations:

“This chapter does not prevent local authorities, by ordinance, from regulating the registration of bicycles and the parking and operation of bicycles on pedestrian or bicycle facilities, provided such regulation is not in conflict with the provisions of this code”. Cal. Veh. Code Section 21206.


This accident occurred within the City of Los Angeles. This fact is not disputed. The only applicable Los Angeles Municipal Code section states:

“No person shall ride, operate or use a bicycle, unicycle, skateboard, cart, wagon, wheelchair, rollerskates, or any other device moved exclusively by human power, on a sidewalk, bikeway or boardwalk in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”  L.A.M.C. Section 56.15

The above ordinance makes it clear that the only situation a bicycle is not allowed to operate on a sidewalk is when he is operating in a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. The legislators chose their words carefully. The code does not state that the requirement be “negligent riding” or “fast riding”, rather, the ordinance chose its words carefully and used very strong language indicating an intentional hazardous type of riding.

There is no evidence whatsoever supporting that Plaintiff was riding his bicycle in a negligent manner and surely not in a “wanton or willful disregard for the safety…”

Some Tips On Negotiating An Auto Insurance Claim

Car accident lawyer

      Car accident attorneys

Insurance claims are supposed to be easy to obtain in the case of damages to the vehicle. Either way, that’s what every insurance agent and adjuster tells the customer. However, they are everything but easy to obtain. Such are the red tape and legal matters involved in claiming money from any auto insurance carrier.

It is prudent to request the help of a car accident lawyer since getting your claim resolved will require you to jump hurdles. Don’t wait until its too late.

Negotiating an auto insurance claim

After all bills have been accrued, the negotiation starts.

Once the negotiation starts, it is your job to produce the relevant bills and documents to support your claim. These documents should contain an estimate of repair costs that was needed (if not already paid), photographs of the damage caused to your vehicle and any other relevant documents to support your claim.

Company adjuster

Car accident lawsuits

If the defendant’s adjuster refuses to meet your demands, there are several steps that can be taken by a car accident lawyer who is representing you in the matter. The lawyer will be able to determine whether the insurance offer is reasonable and if not, he will know what amount is reasonable for a settlement.

There are several evenues your lawyer may pursue On of which: a complaint at the Department of Insurance, regarding the claim that you have submitted to your auto insurance company. 

If you were injured in an auto accident, there is no reason to wait – speak with a professional today. There is always a free consultation.

Filing A Personal Injury Lawsuit: A Guide

Personal injury lawyer

     Personal injury lawsuit

When thinking of legal matter and the court system the first thing that comes to mind is of course the many hours to be spent in the courtrooms, and the personal injury lawyer who do not charge hourly, but who will be paid from the proceeds of your case. So, if you are someone who has sufficient cause to file a personal injury lawsuit against another person or company, then you might want to avoid some common pitfalls that a rookie might make.

Whatever your case may be, it goes without saying that one with an excellent personal injury lawyer is like a case half won. A good attorney will be able to influence the decisions of the judge and jury through brilliant cross-examinations. Given below are some steps that you can follow if you want to pursue a personal injury lawsuit in a court of law.

Hiring an attorney

The importance of an attorney has already been analyzed and explained. Yet, it is still an important part of filing a lawsuit, and to find an experienced attorney, you will have to break some sweat. Local or state bar associations will have references and qualifications of their attorneys, so it will be a good place to start your hunt for an attorney. One of the best ways is asking some of your friends who have had positive experiences with an injury lawyer.

Court processes

The court processes start with a formal complaint being filed. The court will allow some time for the defendant to offer answer the lawsuit, which needs to be properly “served”.

Statute of limitations

You will have to file a complaint within a certain time period which is ascertained by the statute of limitations laws. In California, the statute of limitations in injury cases is two years from the date of injury.


References and qualifications

     Lawyers for personal injury cases

The burden of proving the case is on the plaintiff or the victim, who must prove with the help of sufficient evidence that the actions of the defendant were responsible for the injuries he or she had to suffer. Some of the items to be addressed: The plaintiff must also provide enough proof showing that the actions of the defendant and defendant only were responsible for the injuries that he or she had to suffer.

Intentional actions

IF an intentional tort is at issue, it is also up to the plaintiff to prove that the actions of the defendant were intentional and not the result of coincidence or an accident.

The bottom line

Court processes can drag on forever if you are not represented by an efficient injury attorney. As it is quite clear, it is up to the plaintiff to prove whose fault the accident was.