Position: Associate Telephone: 626-744-2089 Fax: 626-744-2001 E-Mail: bbyszewski@sollp.com Download VCard

Brad A. Byszewski received his undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California and juris doctorate from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. Mr. Byszewski was sworn in as a member of the California Bar in December 2005.

Prior to joining Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP, Mr. Byszewski worked at Girardi & Keese in downtown Los Angeles; the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office; and the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office.

Mr. Byszewski specializes in products liability, personal injury, premises liability, and business litigation (handling matters involving breach of contract; products liability; toxic tort; personal injury, premises liability; corporate fraud; entertainment; manufacturing; commercial real estate; employment, and Uniform Commercial Code disputes).

In the summer of 2009, Mr. Byszewski and Frank Sabaitis represented V.A.S. S.p.A. in the trial of Perez vs. V.A.S. S.p.A. The litigation involved product liability and negligence claims by Plaintiff for injuries he sustained while using a heavy piece of industrial machinery manufactured by V.A.S. Upon the conclusion of trial, the court entered a defense judgment in V.A.S.’ favor, finding that Plaintiff’s misuse of the industrial machinery was not reasonably foreseeable to V.A.S. Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s ruling to the California Court of Appeals, arguing that the ruling was not supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court misapplied the burden of proof. Upon submission of appellate briefs, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of V.A.S. The Appellate Court further ordered that its written opinion in Perez v. V.A.S. S.p.A. be published, representing the first comprehensive, published opinion of California products liability law since the Appellate Court’s 1996 decision in Torres v. Xomox Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th.1.

In February 2010, Mr. Byszewski represented ValleyCrest Companies in a personal injury/premises liability action. Plaintiff alleged that he tripped and fell in a residential complex as a result of the landscape maintenance performed by ValleyCrest. ValleyCrest moved for summary judgment in response to Plaintiff’s premises liability and personal injury claims. Upon briefing and oral argument, the Court granted summary judgment in ValleyCrest’s favor, finding that ValleyCrest incurred no liability with respect to Plaintiff’s claims.

Mr. Byszewski is a member of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and the Pasadena Bar Association. Mr. Byszewski was recognized as a 2010 Southern California Rising Star by Southern California Super Lawyers and Los Angeles Magazine. Mr. Byszewski also serves as a mandatory settlement conference officer for the Pasadena Superior Court, handling limited jurisdiction cases.

Mr. Byszewski graduated from Loyola Law School as a member of the St. Thomas More Law Honor Society.

Juan Perez vs. V.A.S S.p.A In a written opinion issued August 3, 2009, the Hon. Patrick T. Meyers of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Southeast District, entered a total defense judgment in favor of Defendant V.A.S. S.p.A., represented by Frank T. Sabaitis and Brad A. Byszewski of Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP, in a Products Liability/Design Defect bench trial. Jhaveri v. Teitelbaum In a written opinion issued August 12, 2009, the California Court of Appeal held that a statutory release or settlement between a plaintiff and one or more joint tortfeasors is only effective to offset the claims as to the non-settling co-tortfeasors before a verdict or judgment is entered. After entry of a verdict or judgment, a settlement with a co-tortfeasor does not reduce or offset claims against non-settling co-tortfeasors. Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court (Marlborough Development Corp., et al. CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT DECLARES THAT TRIAL COURTS DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ORDER PARTIES IN A COMPLEX CIVIL ACTION TO ATTEND AND PAY FOR PRIVATE MEDIATION  View PDF Barnett, et al. vs. First National Insurance Company of America In a written opinion issued May 26, 2010, the California Court of Appeal overturned prior case law by holding that a single statutory offer to compromise made to husband and wife co-plaintiffs is valid. People vs. Khaled In a written opinion filed May 25, 2010, the Orange County Superior Court appellate panel ruled that automatic photographs of drivers running red lights are hearsay and, absent sufficient foundation, are inadmissible to support a California Vehicle Code violation. Bozzi vs. Nordstrom, Inc, et al. Please see the attached summary of Bozzi vs. Nordstrom, Inc. in which the California Court of Appeal reaffirms that sufficient factual foundation is necessary for admissability of expert witness testimony. Super Lawyers 2010 - Rising Star Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP is pleased to announce the selection of Brad A. Byszewski Appellate Decision - Perez vs. V.A.S. SpA. We are pleased to share with you a summary of one of our recent successes, both at the trial level and in the Court of Appeal. The California Appellate Court’s opinion in Perez v. V.A.S. SpA. represents the first comprehensive, published opinion of California products liability law since the Appellate Court’s 1996 decision in Torres v. Xomox Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th.1. Sophisticated Purchase Defense SOPHISTICATED PURCHASER DOCTRINE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIMS WHEN PLAINTIFF IS NOT THE PURCHASER AND IS NOT AWARE OF DANGEROUS PROPENSITIES Jones,et al. vs. ConocoPhillips, et al. Jones et al. vs. ConocoPhillips, et al., a products liability action in which the Appellate Court ruled that a claim based upon toxic exposure need not identify a specific toxin to which a plaintiff was exposed, but only exposure to a specific product. Mansur vs. Ford Motor Company Consumer Expectation Test Cannot Be Used To Establish A Design Defect When Compex Evaluation Is Required Puerta vs. Torres A Statutory Offer To Compromise That Does Not Contain An Indication of How to Accept Is Invalid Riverisland Cold Storage vs. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assocation The Parol Evidence Rule Does Not Exclude Evidence Of A Misrepresentation Of The Terms Contained In A Written Agreement At The Time The Agreement Was Signed J. McIntyre Machinery, LTD vs. Nicastro A MANUFACTURER DOES NOT SUBMIT ITSELF TO THE JURISDICTION OF A FOREIGN STATE BY MERELY PLACING A PRODUCT INTO THE STREAM OF COMMERCE Adams vs. Ford Motor Company The Appellate Court ruled that the trial court can award to a prevailing defendant all expert costs, whether incurred before or after a CCP Section 998 offer was made.

News & Announcements for this attorney