Since 1997, Mr. Young has been representing both plaintiffs and businesses of varying sizes involved in personal injury, premises liability, and products liability litigation. Mr. Young has a strong background of litigation and appellate victories. In 2005, Mr. Young successfully argued a significant premises liability case on behalf of a seriously injured plaintiff before the California Supreme Court, Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224. That decision established that a merchant has a special relationship-based duty of care to protect its patrons. Prior to Delgado, Mr. Young also won an appeal in another premises liability case, Mata v. Mata (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1121, which involved an innocent bystander who was shot by an assailant in a bar due to negligent security.
Because of his extensive experience in the field of premises liability, Mr. Young was selected by Thomson Reuters to author an article for its Causes of Action series. The article is entitled "Cause of Action Against Tavern Owners, Restaurants, And Similar Businesses For Injuries Caused To Patrons By The Criminal Acts Of Others," which can be found at 26 Causes of Action 2d 1 (2004, updated Oct. 2014). It contains a nationwide, state-by-state summary of the law of third-party premises liability and has been cited by attorneys around the country as a go-to resource.
In addition to lawyering by day, Mr. Young also teaches paralegal studies at Santa Rosa Junior College, teaching a course on Legal Writing and another called Technology in the Law Office. He has also taught law school courses at Golden Gate University School of Law and John F. Kennedy School of Law. From time to time, Mr. Young also blogs about law and technology issues at his blog The Cyber-Esq, which can be found at
Mr. Young is actively seeking new clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries due to the negligence of others.
- Personal Injury
- Products Liability
- Free Consultation
I offer free consultations to potential new clients without time restrictions on length of consultation.
- Credit Cards Accepted
- Contingent Fees
33 1/3% if case is resolved at least 90 days prior to initial trial or arbitration date; 40% if case is resolved after 90 days prior to initial trial or arbitration date.
- English: Spoken, Written
- French: Written
- Italian: Spoken
- Adjunct Instructor
- Empire College
- - Current
- Adjunct instructor teaching advanced legal research and writing and e-discovery
- Young Law Office
- - Current
- Young Law Office is an aggressive personal injury and civil litigation law firm in Northern California
- Adjunct Instructor
- Santa Rosa Junior College
- - Current
- Adjunct instructor of paralegal studies, teaching Legal Writing, Law Office Technology, and Business Law
- Senior Associate
- Daniel Crowley & Associates
- Practiced as senior associate for small, boutique law firm handling a variety of civil litigation matters on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants
- Law Offices of Eric G. Young
- Private practice focused on personal injury and employment litigation and appeals.
- Adjunct Professor of Law
- John F. Kennedy University School of Law
- Adjunct Professor of Law, teaching Legal Writing and Law & Motion Practice to upper division law students
- Adjunct Instructor
- California State University - Sonoma State University
- Adjunct instructor in the Attorney Assistant Program, teaching Legal Writing, Law & Motion Practice, and Legal Research. I taught in the program until the program closed in 2006.
- Univ of Illinois
- Undergraduate Degree
- Golden Gate Univ School of Law
- Law Degree
- American Association for Paralegal Education
- - Current
- San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association
- - Current
- California State Bar # 190104
- - Current
- Sonoma County Bar Association
- - Current
- Fundamentals of E-Discovery, 2604 Ventura Ave, Santa Rosa, CA 95403
- Sonoma County Law Library
- MCLE presentation to attorneys and paralegals on basic e-discovery practice and procedure.
- Young Law Office
- WhatsApp Photo Leads To Drug Dealer’s Arrest
21 April 2018
- Lawyer’s Hourly Rate Calculator
25 July 2017
- Is Donald Trump’s Twitter Feed A “Public Forum?”
24 June 2017
- Senate To Consider Nationwide Protections For Online Reviews
26 November 2015
- Uber Faces Onslaught Of Legal Challenges, Both At Home And Abroad – Updated
12 July 2015
- Lawyer Disbarred For Unethical Use Of Social Media
8 July 2015
- Google Earth Evidence Is Not Hearsay, 9th Circuit Rules
20 June 2015
- Q. what is the fourm I use to file for marvin v marvin palimony
- A: From your question, it is unclear whether you meant to say "form" or "forum." If you meant "form," there is no "form" for filing a Marvin action. An attorney would need to draft a pleading for you. These are very fact-intensive cases. To strengthen your case in advance, you should gather as much documentation as you have that will help evidence that your companion held you out to the world as his wife. I handled a Marvin case in a nearly 30-year relationship that dissolved where I was able to obtain a favorable outcome for my client (1/2 of substantial real property holdings) based, in part, on greeting cards and notes from her companion where he referred to the property as "our property," or he promised her that she would be taken care of. Valuable evidence may be something you least expect in Marvin cases. Check out this link to one of the seminal cases, Byrne v. Laura, which has a great discussion of the many types of evidence that can be relevant in a Marvin action - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1288612.html. Any proof you have that he cared for you financially as well as witnesses to corroborate your facts are both important. Since you indicated in your inquiry that your companion passed away, a word or two about probate - did he leave a will? If not, who are the next of kin heirs? Has a probate been opened? As a person holding a Marvin claim, you are a creditor of the deceased's probate estate. You must assert a timely Creditor's Claim against the probate estate, or your Marvin claim will be barred as a matter of law. Once the personal representative of the probate, whomever that may be, provides notice to the creditor that the estate disputes the debt, you must file suit within 90 days of the rejection. I hope this is helpful to you. Best of luck.
- Q. In California can a dog walker sue me if they ran into a pole while walking my dog, it was not the dogs fought.
- A: To begin with, a person can sue another person for anything they want. The doors of the court are open to some of the most ridiculous claims imaginable, in California and in every other state. Having said that, however, it does mean the person who sues has a meritorious case. Based on the limited information you have provided, the only possible cause of action she might have would be for negligence, which requires that she establish that you owed a duty of care to prevent her harm and that your unreasonable action or inaction breached that duty. What duty does a dog owner owe a dog walker? You probably have a duty to warn if a dog is dangerous. But, beyond that, do you owe a duty to prevent a dog walker from walking into a pole while she is in charge of your dog. Not likely. There is simply no duty or breach of duty on these facts. California follows the doctrine of "occupational assumption of the risk." A person who knowingly undertakes an occupation that comes with certain risks assumes them, and you owe no duty to prevent their harm. You could argue that walking a dog involves caring for an animal that might suddenly act in an unpredictable manner - dogs pull at their leads, tug, jump, turn, and go in different directions. Think how often even the most well-mannered dog (I have 2) suddenly runs off in a different direction simply because it sees a cat or a squirrel. In my opinion, a dog walker assumes the risk of injury caused by such unpredictability in an animal and, furthermore, they should be attentive to their surroundings, which would include poles at street crossings.
- Q. Defendant filed a motion to compel discovery based on his request not when discovery is due.
- A: Much more information is needed to answer this question. Unless discovery responses are late, a motion to compel would not be appropriate. I am confused by the remainder of the information you provided. Seeing a lawyer in person would be helpful, if you do not already have one.
- Q. Im a security guard. my boss is tryin to make me get a shot at a hospital but i dont want the shot. ( TB Shot )
- A: California law requires that employees working in certain facilities be routinely tested for TB and to be free of the bacteria that causes TB, meaning the law can also require you to undergo a treatment regimen for TB if you test positive. Hospitals, schools, and community colleges are three such facilities that can require a TB shot and treatment as a condition of employment. TB is a serious, communicable disease that can kill people, particularly those who are already sick and in a hospital. If you work in a hospital, are not willing to be tested for TB or be treated, and you are infected with TB (which, incidentally, can infect a person and not show any symptoms for extended periods of time), you pose an immediate, unmitigated risk of harm to unsuspecting patients in that hospital. It is not harassment for your employer to require you to undergo testing or treatment for TB so long as you continue to work in a hospital. It's the law. Now, you might have an argument that your employer has an obligation to accommodate a sincerely held religious belief that prevents you from undergoing TB treatment. That accommodation might - and I emphasize might - include assigning you to other guard locations where TB testing or treatment may not be a job requirement. However, I am not convinced your employer has such an obligation. Quite frankly, as long as you continue to work in a hospital environment, your personal privacy, bodily autonomy, or religious beliefs are not going to overcome the unsuspecting public's right to be protected from a life-threatening, communicable disease like TB - and with all respect, they should not. It's a public safety issue.
- Q. If Plaintiff files Amended Complaint late (Court granted demurrer w/ leave to amend), isMotion to Strike a good option
- A: A motion to strike would not be the appropriate procedure, in my opinion. In California, a motion to strike lies against any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in a pleading or when a pleading is not drawn in conformity with the laws of the state. (CCP 436.) A motion to strike might lie against the amended pleading once it is filed. The better approach would be to file a motion to dismiss under CCP 581(f)(2). Having said that, however, the decision whether to dismiss a case or not always lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, even when an amended pleading is late, and a trial judge's decision whether to dismiss or not will only be overturned on appeal on a showing of abuse of discretion (the toughest civil appellate standard). (Harding v. Collazo.) A 3-day delay in filing an amended pleading may not strike a trial judge (who is used to delay upon delay) as being all that significant, particularly if there has been no prejudice caused by the delay. Keep in mind, in California, there is a strong, public policy favoring the amendment of pleadings, and the reason is because the law favors hearing legal matters on their merits. The policy favoring leave to amend is so strong that amendment must be permitted unless the adverse party can show meaningful prejudice which includes such results as the running of the statute of limitations, a delay of the trial, the loss of critical evidence, or added preparation costs. While I don't know the particulars of your situation, it seems unlikely that a short, 3-day delay would have caused such results, and in fact, the delay might be easily explained by many other circumstances. It could be inadvertence, innocent mistake, the party/attorney could be seriously ill, etc. You might want to find out why the amended pleading is late instead of rushing off and filing any motion. Good luck.
- Q. Animal services is trying to euthanize my dog. I need to file something to get a Writ of Mandate to stop the euthanasia
- A: As a dog lover myself with two rescues, I am truly sorry you are experiencing this. The first thing you need to do is to contact animal services and request an administrative hearing. Most every city or county gives an opportunity for a hearing before they euthanize a companion canine. Your request should be made in writing, and it should be hand-delivered, faxed, or emailed. If you hand deliver it, get a receipt or some sort of writing to evidence that you delivered it. In the written request, tell them that you (1) oppose the euthanizing of your dog, (2) request the return of your dog, and (3) if they do not promptly return your dog, you want a hearing to contest the euthanizing of your dog. If you speak to anyone at animal services by telephone, keep notes of whom you spoke to. If you have already tried this and were not given a hearing, or you had a hearing and animal services decided against you, you can file a Petition for Writ of Mandate to the Superior Court of the county in which you reside. Here is a link to a comprehensive information sheet about Petitions for Writs of Mandate - http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/APP-150-INFO.pdf. This describes the forms that you need to file, how to serve it, etc. All forms can be obtained at the California Judicial Council's website, which you can find here - http://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm. I wish you the best of luck. I would be apoplectic if anyone wanted to harm my dogs.