Oakland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Last week I was in court in Oakland and observed the selection of a jury in a personal injury case, which involved an auto accident. The lawyers in the case asked the jurors their thoughts about the amount of verdicts in personal injury cases. Almost without exception, each prospective juror replied that they felt jury verdicts were excessive and often out of proportion to what they should be. Many of the jurors cited the famous McDonald's case as an example of what they meant.

As an Alameda personal injury attorney, I am often talking to juries. My experience in questioning jurors whether it's an automobile case or any other personal injury claim is similar to what I heard in that courtroom. Unfortunately, jurors ' beliefs about the size of jury verdicts does not match the reality of the awards actually rendered by juries. A recent study by the Center for Justice and Democracy entitled "White Paper: Headline Blues: Civil Justice in the Age of New Media" shows how the media influences the public's misperception about the size of jury verdicts in personal injury cases. It makes several points to show why and how this is happening.

How many times have you seen headlines such as "Woman wins 3.5 million dollars for personal injury claim." It makes it sound like she won the lottery. Often the reality in such cases is that there were very serious and permanent injuries involved, such as brain damage or paralysis, and egregious conduct by the defendant. The study showed that in 39 percent of the articles studied, there was no analysis of the defendant's misconduct, and in 14.5% of the articles there was no description of the type of injury.

Consider the following important points also brought out in this study. In analyzing numerous media articles, the average jury verdict reported was $4,600,000.00. However, according to the most recent U.S. Department of Justice numbers, the median jury verdict for a winning plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit is just $24,000.00. In other words, the reported verdicts by the media are 192 times higher than what the typical plaintiff recovers in a personal injury lawsuit. No wonder people think that people are gaming the system and that the tort laws need to be reformed.

Sound bites, headlines, tweets, and other bite size pieces of media coverage are distorting what is actually happening in the courtroom. Not surprisingly, people who are sitting on juries in these types of case are skeptical of persons making such claims. Unfortunately for individuals who have suffered serious personal injuries, juries are prejudiced against them before they even walk into the courtroom because the prospective jurors have been saturated with misinformation about what is really happening in our jury system.

As personal injuries lawyers, we must do our part as well. When we obtain significant results for our clients, which also benefit our communities, we should strive to make sure that the cases are reported on in a dignified and accurate manner. The reporting should truly reflect the nature of the case including the seriousness of the client's injuries and the conduct of the defendant that caused such injuries. In this way, juries can come to their job with a sense of duty to the community to see that justice is done in each case instead of a sense of cynicism.

Resource:

White Paper: Headline Blues: Civil Justice in the Age of New Media, Center for Justice and Democracy, October 2011

Today, Highway 101 in San Francisco was closed down for over six hours after a big rig overturned and caught fire. The fire engulfed the cab after the rig overturned. Three other cars were involved in the accident, causing personal injuries to the occupants. The truck's driver and a driver of one of the cars involved in the collision were taken to a nearby hospital. There was substantial property damage also done by the fire, and by the truck colliding into the guardrail.

At this time the collision is still under investigation by the California Highway Patrol. Big-rig crashes such as this point out the need for adequate liability insurance. In this case, assuming the truck driver is found to be at fault for the collision there will need to be enough insurance to cover all of the property damage done to the roadway, and the other cars involved in the collision. There will also have to be sufficient liability coverage to compensate all of the other drivers who have personal injury claims.

California law requires higher minimum liability insurance limits for commercial truck drivers than for ordinary drivers. Non-commercial drivers are only required to carry minimum liability insurance limits of $15,000.00/$30,000.00. However, commercial truck drivers must carry minimum single limits of $750,000.00 per accident (California Vehicle Code section 3463.15).

Often times commercial truck drivers carry multiple layers of insurance. If you are injured in a trucking accident, it is extremely important to identify all possible insurance policies which might cover the collision. Unfortunately, as a truck accident lawyer, I have seen too many times where the trucker's insurance carriers do not disclose these other layers of coverage.

I represented a man who was severely injured in a trucking accident where the insurance company lawyers concealed the available insurance company. The case, Dean v Spivey, involved an elderly gentleman,who had just retired. He and his wife were driving on Highway 880 near San Leandro when there was a multi-vehicle collision. In the sequence of the accident, his car was rear ended by a tractor-trailer. As a result, he sustained a large disc herniation in his neck which resulted in partial paraplegia. Initially, the insurance carrier for the trucking company stated that there was a one million dollar insurance policy on the truck. Suspecting however, that there might be other layers of coverage, I subpoenaed the trucking company's insurance brokers records. It turned out that there was an additional $3,000,000.00 in coverage. As a result of this extra investigation, the case was settled for $3,250,000.00, well over the initial layer of coverage.

Truck accidents are often complex. The liability issues can be difficult, and insurance coverages and apportionment between parties make these challenging cases. Folks who are injured in trucking accidents often are severely injured due to the tremendous weights and forces involved in big rig collisions. Therefore, if you or a family member is seriously injured in a trucking accident, it is imperative that a skillful and experienced truck accident lawyer be contacted immediately after the accident to protect your rights.

Resources:

2 lanes of southbound 101 in San Francisco reopened after big-rig fire, Oakland Tribune, October 17, 2011

It was recently announced that AC Transit has agreed to pay a woman $10.5 million in settlement of a personal injury claim arising out of a bus accident. Such eye popping numbers often raise eyebrows and questions about our legal system. In my experience as an Oakland personal injury lawyer, I have found that when large numbers like this are paid out, there are usually very serious and permanent injuries involved. This case was no exception.

In 2008, 23 year old Abby Nicols was crossing the street in a crosswalk, with the green light facing her. An AC transit bus driver took a right turn from an adjacent street and struck her in the crosswalk. Abby was trapped under the bus for fifteen minutes before she could be extracted by emergency personnel. She suffered a crushed hip, and multiple fractures of her pelvis and femur. She suffered permanent nerve damage. This twenty three year old woman will require lifetime medical care for these injuries, including future surgeries. In short, her life will never be the same. In addition to compensation for these tremendous physical injuries, she was awarded compensation for all of her past and future medical bills, and her past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity.

You can see that although 10.5 million dollars is a lot of money, it is not an unreasonable amount considering the life altering effect these injuries had on the young woman. Indeed, there is no question in my mind, that she would rather have not been hit than receive the large personal injury settlement for this bus accident.

Bus companies are often public entities and usually are not easy to deal with. As an Oakland bus accident lawyer, I have had to represent many clients against AC Transit and other transit lines, such as the San Francisco Muni. One thing clients do not realize is that since these bus lines are public entities, special procedures must be taken.

Normally, in a personal injury claim, an injured person has two years from the date of the injury to file a lawsuit. However, when a person is making a claim against a public entity, such as AC Transit, you must file a government claim within six months of the date of the injury. If a claim is not filed within six months, the person will lose their right to sue (subject to some very limited exceptions).

The government claim must describe who was injured, how the injury occurred, the factual and legal basis for the claim, the types of damages sought, and the identity of responsible parties. If a claim is not properly filled out, a party will lose the right to purse that particular theory of recovery. Therefore, it is important to have well qualified legal counsel prepare the claim to assure that all possible theories of recovery are alleged in the claim.

Usually, these government claims are rejected by the public entity responsible for the injury. After the rejection of the claim, the injured person has six months from the date of the rejection of the claim to file a lawsuit. If the lawsuit is not filed within this time frame, the lawsuit will be thrown out of court.
As you can see, government claims procedures are quite complicated. If you are injured in a bus accident, or any type of accident where a public entity is responsible, you should consult with a lawyer well trained in government claims to make sure your rights are protected. For more information, see "Six Things You Should Know if You Want to Sue the Government in California."

Resources:

AC Transit agrees to $10.5 M settlement in crash, San Jose Mercury News, September 13, 2011

The California Supreme Court recently dealt a big blow to California consumers and personal injury victims. This follows a trend of decisions which favor large corporations and insurance companies over the rights and needs of the individual. It seems whether its in politics or in the court, the common man and woman are not faring very well in modern times.

The case is Howell v Hamilton Meats & Provisions. It involves a personal injury claim which arose out of a collision between a truck and another driver. The truck, being driven by an employee of Hamilton Meats & Provisions made an illegal U-turn causing the traffic accident. The driver of the other car, Rebecca Howell, suffered serious neck injuries which required spinal fusion surgery.

Ms. Howell protected herself by purchasing health insurance. She incurred medical bills in the amount of $190,000.00. Her insurance company had an agreement with the hospital and other health care providers so that they only had to pay $60,000.00 to pay the bills in full.

Under California law, and the common law throughout the United States, when someone is injured as a result of the negligence of others they are entitled to recover as damages the reasonable amount of their medical bills, in addition to other damages such as pain and suffering, lost earnings, loss of earning capacity etc.

The question in this case was what is the reasonable value of the bills. Is the reasonable value the amount billed by the health care provider or is it the amount the insurance company actually paid to extinguish the bill? The California Supreme Court ruled that the injured party may only recover the amount that her insurance company paid, i.e. $60,000.00, not the amount that was billed by the hospital and doctors, $190.000.00. Thus, Ms. Howell's damages were reduced by $130,000.00.

The ruling does not reflect the economic reality of why these bills are reduced. And, therefore, the ruling does not permit the injured person to recover the full value of their medical bills. What the court addresses in its decision, but fails to fully appreciate, is that the hospitals and doctors are not reducing their bills out of the goodness of their hearts. The bills are reduced because these healthcare providers are receiving other benefits, such as increased business from the insurers, reduced costs in the form of stream lined processing of claims, and other cost saving measures. Therefore, the reasonable value of the medical bill incurred is closer to the full billed amount than the reduced amount that the insurer actually pays.

Additionally, the court fails to address the everyday reality of how trucking accident claims, such as this, are settled. Invariably, the health insurer who paid the medical bills has a lien against any third party claim, such as auto accidents, slip and falls, or any general negligence claim where someone has filed a personal injury lawsuit or claim. This means that the health insurer has a legal right to be fully reimbursed from the personal injury claim for the amount it has paid out. So in Ms. Howell's case, she will receive nothing for her medical bills--the full $60,000.00 will most likely go to her health insurer. The difference between the amount billed, and the amount received, $130,000.00 will go to the benefit of the person who made an illegal u-turn and caused her a serious disc injury resulting in spinal fusion. Where is the justice in that?

As an Alameda personal injury attorney, I have observed that for many years, starting in the 1950's through the 1970's California courts were stalwarts of protecting the rights of the injured. They were leaders in developing the law in products liability and insurance bad faith law among other areas. More recently, the California Supreme Court cases have swung in the opposite direction. More and more, the decisions favor large corporations, insurance companies and the powerful. The Howell case is just one more in a line of such cases. One can only hope the the California legislature will correct this injustice.

Resource:

CA Supreme Court tort case ruling helps insurer, San Francisco Chronicle, August 19, 2011

The San Jose Police Department recently announced that it will no longer come to the scene of a non-injury car accident. The department is facing large budget cuts and will not be doing accident investigations for these types of car crashes. As an Oakland personal injury lawyer, I have seen this trend for years. The cities of Oakland and San Francsico frequently will not respond to non-injury automobile accidents either. So the question becomes what should you do to protect yourself if you have been involved in a traffic accident and the police will not respond?

The following are some tips to follow if you have been involved in an accident where the police will not investigate.

Photos, Photos, Photos: Many people today have digital cameras on their phone. It's important to document a scene after an accident occurs. Therefore, if you can, take pictures of the cars where they came to rest after the collision. This will help reconstruct the accident if there is any conflict between the parties as to how the accident occurred. It's also important to photograph skid marks. The length of the skid mark can later be used to determine the speed of the vehicle at the point of braking. If there is debris on the ground, such as broken headlights, taillights, or other car parts, these should be photographed as well. These photos can be used to establish the point of impact which again can be useful in determining fault in the accident.

Personal Information: Get as much information as you can from the other person(s). At a minimum you should have their name, address, home telephone, work telephone, driver's license number, and car license number. Again if you have a camera phone, a simple way to capture this information is to photograph the other person's driver's license, confirming with the other person that the information is current. Additionally, getting the person's employment information is important as well. All of this information is useful, because if you cannot resolve your claim with the insurance company, you may have to sue the individual. If you are going to sue for damages related to your auto accident, you will need to know the location of the person who hit you so you can have the complaint properly served on them. People move frequently, so that's why it's good practice to have their employment information as well.

Insurance information: The law requires that a person carry proof of insurance with them while driving their car. The proof is generally on a small card or piece of paper which has been prepared by the insurance company. You need to get the name of the insurance company and the policy number. The proof of insurance will also have the dates of coverage. You want to make sure that the policy was in effect at the time of the accident.

Witness information: If there are independent witnesses, you should get their names, addresses, and telephone numbers. If there is any dispute as to who is at fault for the accident, the insurance companies, and for that matter, judges and juries put great weight on independent witnesses. Don't assume that just because the other person admits fault at the scene of the accident, that you don't need the names of witnesses. It is not uncommon for parties to change their minds about what they believe happened after an accident. If this is the case, an independent witness will be very valuable in helping determine the truth about the actual facts of the accident.

Frequently, people suffer personal injuries at the scenes of accidents but do not feel it immediately. There are several reasons for this. Adrenaline rush may mask symptoms initially. Also, it takes time for inflammation to develop. That is why people who suffer a neck or low back sprain often do not feel the symptoms such as pain, stiffness, and loss of motion for several hours following a collision.

If you follow the above steps following an accident, you will have obtained all of the information that a police officer usually gets when making a report. If it later turns out that you are injured and need to file a personal injury claim, or the other person changes their version of how the collision occurred, then your rights will be protected. For further information following an accident, read "Eight Common Mistakes That Can Cost You Thousands of Dollars When Dealing with Insurance Adjusters."

Cash Strapped San Jose Police Won't Respond to Low-Priority Calls, CBS San Francisco, August 17, 2011

Last month forty people died in a high speed rail crash in China. The collision occurred outside Wenzhou, when two high-speed trains collided. The accident has raised questions about the safety of the Chinese high speed rail system which is now the largest high speed system in the world, just four years after the system opened. Shortly after the train wreck, legal authorities in China ordered attorneys not to accept personal injury or wrongful death cases. Lawyers were also required to report immediately to the government the names of injured passengers or families of the deceased who come in for legal assistance.

The collision itself was a national tragedy. Given the approach of the Chinese government to insulate lawyers from the investigatory process, we may never know what were the true causes of this tragedy and how it could have been prevented. This is in stark contrast to how personal injury claims are handled in the United States and other western countries with progressive legal systems designed to protect the rights of personal injury victims.

A recent car crash in the news may help illustrate the point. On July 31, 2011, a woman was killed on Highway 580, on the Altamont Pass near Livermore when her car went off the road falling down an embankment over 200 feet. The collision caused her car to overturn several times and ultimately explode into flames. The cause of the accident is still under investigation by the police.

In this instance, the traffic investigation may reveal an unsafe road condition. The roadway may be lacking appropriate guard rails, have other improper grading, or there may be other roadway design factors which may have contributed to causing this crash. If that is the situation, a government claim may be filed against the State of California alleging a dangerous condition of public property. Once the claim is filed, extensive discovery can be conducted to help determine the cause of the accident, and whether the State of California maintained an unsafe condition on the highway.

As an Alameda personal injury lawyer, I was recently involved in the representation of a family which had a serious accident on the Altamont Pass. Their car also went off the road and down an embankment causing several family members serious injuries. During the course of the lawsuit, documents were obtained which showed that the CHP was concerned about vehicles leaving the roadway in the area of the accident and requested CalTrans to place guardrail in the area. Depositions of investigating police officers and tow truck drivers who worked in the area testified that they had witnessed in excess of fifty accidents in the area. This type of information became available only because we have a legal system in California which is designed to let injured parties perform extensive investigative discovery in conjunction with a personal injury lawsuit.

It seems that this type of open investigative process, designed to get to the truth, and protect the rights of personal injury victims, is something which is not embraced by the Chinese government. Unfortunately, there are many well heeled factions who would like to limit the rights of injured parties in the United States as well. Insurance companies, the Chamber of Commerce, and other corporate interests espouse something they euphemistically call "Tort Reform." These so called reforms are really programs designed to limit people's right to full discovery, to full compensatory damages, and to even limit the types of suits that can be filed. So the next time you hear someone talk about "tort reform", you might ask yourself whether you would prefer your legal system to be more like the Chinese system or one that fully protects the rights of the individual.

Resources:

China lawyers 'told not to take rail crash cases', AFP, July 30, 2011

Woman killed in fiery crash on Altamont Pass, Contra Costa Times, July 31, 2011

A motorcyclist was driving his bike in a protest ride against New York helmet law, when you guessed it, he had a serious accident. As part of the protest, he was not wearing his helmet. He died when he flipped over his handlebars and landed on his head on the roadway. Investigating police officers said the motorcyclist hit his breaks, lost control of his bike, fishtailed, and then the flew over the handlebars. He was taken immediately to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

California has strict laws regarding the use of helmets designed to reduce personal injuries while operating a motorcycle. California Vehicle Code section 27803 provides:  "(a) A driver and any passenger shall wear a safety helmet meeting requirements established pursuant to Section 27802 when riding on a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle.
(b) It is unlawful to operate a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle if the driver or any passenger is not wearing a safety helmet as required by subdivision (a).
(c) It is unlawful to ride as a passenger on a motorcycle, motor-driven cycles, or motorized bicycle if the driver or any passenger is not wearing a safety helmet as required by subdivision (a).
(d) This section applies to persons who are riding on motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, or motorized bicycles operated on the highways.
(e) For the purposes of this section, "wear a safety helmet" or "wearing a safety helmet" means having a safety helmet meeting the requirements of Section 27802 on the person's head that is fastened with the helmet straps and that is of a size that fits the wearing person's head securely without excessive lateral or vertical movement.
This section does not apply to a person operating, or riding as a passenger in, a fully enclosed three-wheeled motor vehicle that is not less than seven feet in length and not less than four feet in width, and has an unladen weight of 900 pounds or more, if the vehicle meets or exceeds all of the requirements of this code, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and the rules and regulations adopted by the United States Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."

In 1993, the constitutionality of this law was challenged by motorcycle enthusiasts in the case of Buhl v Hannigan. The challengers claimed that the law was vague, was not related to a legitimate state concern, that it violated their right to freedom of expression and right of privacy. All of these arguments were shot down by the court, which explained that the legislature has a right to pass law which are in the interest of the public safety.

In 2009, there were 4,462 motorcyclists killed in accidents. Another 90,000 were seriously injured during this same time period. NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1829 motorcyclists and estimated that if all cyclists used helmets and additional 823 more lives could have been saved. NHTSA states that helmets are 37 per cent effective in preventing deaths due to head injuries, and 67 per cent effective in preventing traumatic brain injuries.

As an Alameda motorcycle injury lawyer, I have represented numerous motorcycle accident victims. The use of a helmet almost always mitigates the potential for serious head injuries. Therefore, I strongly support helmet laws in California and in all jurisdictions.

Resources:

NY Motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law, Associated Press, July 3, 2011

National Conference of State Legislatures, June 2011

When summertime comes, we tend to go to amusement parks. Whether it's the Santa Cruz Boardwalk, Raging Waters in San Jose, Six Flags in Vallejo, or Disneyland, going to amusement parks and water slide parks during the summertime is about as American as apple pie. A recent California Appellate case elaborates upon your legal rights if you have suffered a personal injury at an amusement park.

The case is Nalwa v Cedar Fair LP. The facts involve a woman who was riding on a bumper car at California's Great America Amusement Park in Santa Clara, California. The woman, who was a physician, was riding the bumper car along with her children who were in other cars. During the course of the ride, her car was struck head on by another bumper car and during the collision she broke her wrist.

The evidence in the case showed that the defendant owned and operated four other amusement parks throughout the country. At the other parks, the defendant configured the traffic so that all the cars traveled in one direction to help prevent head on collisions. There was evidence that the defendant knew that the one directional travel helped to reduce injuries. However, at the Santa Clara park, unidirectional travel was not employed. Instead, employees of the park were told to warn riders after a head on collision to stop that activity.

The injured doctor brought suit for personal injuries against the owners of Great America claiming that the defendant was a "common carrier" and that it was negligent in the operation of its bumper car operation. The defendant filed a summary judgment motion to have the case dismissed on the grounds that by getting on the ride the doctor "assumed the risk" of getting injured by getting on the ride. Although the trial court agreed with the defendant's position, the California Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and held that the amusement park owner owed the injured doctor a duty of care to operate its rides in a reasonably safe and prudent manner.

In upholding the doctor's right to sue the amusement park for the personal injuries she sustained, the court rejected the idea that by merely getting on a ride she assumed all risk of injury. It cogently observed that people do not go to amusement parks expecting to be injured. Common sense tells us that breaking a bone is not a natural or expected consequence of getting on a ride. The court stated, "The very reason we go on amusement park rides is because we seek the illusion of danger while being assured of a ride's actual safety. The rider expects to be surprised and perhaps even frightened, but not hurt."

Amusement park ride injuries are not uncommon. Although data is limited, because reporting of injuries at parks is often not required by law, the Consumer Product Safety Commission noted that in 1996, there were over 8,000 amusement park injuries nationwide.

As an Alameda personal injury lawyer, I have handled many personal injury cases against amusement parks over the years. Because the rides often involve high speeds, the injuries can often times be severe. Many times the amusement park owners will argue, as was done here, that the patron who paid money to enter their facility, assumed any risk of injury that they suffered on the ride. As the court rightly concluded here, that is nonsense. People go to these parks assuming the rides are safe for use. They don't go expecting an injury. Alternatively, the parks will also have riders sign waivers or releases of responsibility to try insulating themselves from liability if their customers are injured. Frequently, however, these types of waivers are held invalid as being against public policy.

Resources:

California Research Bureau, Safety and Oversight of Amusement Rides in California, August 1997

Summertime means vacations and outdoor fun. Over the years all terrain vehicles (ATV's) have steadily increased in popularity as recreational vehicles. Unfortunately, most consumers are unaware of the hidden dangers of these vehicles and the number of deaths and serious personal injuries associated with their use.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that over the 2010 Memorial Day weekend alone, there were a reported 28 deaths related to ATV use. That's an average of 7 deaths per day over that one holiday weekend. Between 2004 and 2006, deaths of children under the age of 16 increased more than 65%.

In California the number of reported deaths is staggering. Between 1982 and 2009, there were 560 fatalities associated with ATV's. 101 of the deaths between 1982 and 2006 were children under the age of 16.

California has passed various ATV laws to help reduce the number of injuries and deaths associated with these recreational vehicles. Operators are required to wear helmets on public lands at all times. All operators under the age of 18 must possess a safety certificate or be with an adult with a safety certificate if operating on public lands. Passengers may not be carried while on public lands, except one passenger may be carried if the particular ATV is designed to carry a passenger. The ATV may not be used on highways, except to cross highways. Click here to obtain more information about ATV training.

Obeying the safety laws however, does not prevent serious ATV injuries and accidents. There has been many wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits alleging that the design of particular ATV's are contributing factors to these accidents. These product liability claims often look at whether the center of gravity of these vehicles is too high causing them to be unnecessarily top heavy. The Yamaha Rhino 450 and 650 have been widely criticized. Critics claim that the vehicles were involved in numerous slow speed rollovers on flat terrain. Safety experts say the high center of gravity and narrow tires for these vehicles make them especially prone to rollover accidents.

Yamaha issued a safety recall of these vehicles in 2007. Owners of 2004 through 2007 models can have their vehicles modified. The safety modifications are free of charge.

Because ATV's, unlike cars, do not have doors or rollover protection, occupants can becoming easily trapped if the ATV turns over. This can result in crush injuries resulting in amputation of the limb. Other injuries often associated with ATV accidents involved permanent brain trauma, and spinal cord injuries resulting in paralysis.

As an Alameda personal injury lawyer, I know that litigation in this area is challenging. In order to be successful in these type cases, you need an experienced products liability lawyer to review the case. Due to the complex nature of these case, they can be extremely expensive to litigate. The products liability lawyer must be familiar with and have access to the types of experts needed to prove not only the design defect, but the causation issues in the case, i.e. how did the design defect contribute to cause the accident in questions. Typically, experts used in these cases include biomechanical engineers, mechanical and design engineers, accident reconstructionists, handling and safety stability professionals.

As with any personal injury case, acting promptly after an injury occurs is extremely important. It is vitally important that the scene of the accident be investigated and photographed. The ATV in question should immediately be stored for preservation of evidence and inspection by experts. Interviews of potential witnesses should be done immediately before witness's memories fade.

Resources:

CPSC, CPSC Warns Memorial Day Weekend Among the Deadliest Holidays for ATV Riders, May 27, 2011

On September 19, 2007, Monica Orduno was a pedestrian near the intersection of West MacArthur and Martin Luther King Blvd. in Oakland. A car which was making a left turn collided with another vehicle. That car spun out of control and pinned Ms. Orduno against a concrete planter box.

A government claim for personal injuries was filed against the City of Oakland claiming that the intersection was dangerous because it lacked a left turn lane. Ms. Orduono was a working, single mother, who lost her leg in the accident. She had incurred over $750,000.00 in medical bills and expects to incur $2.5 million in future medical expenses.

Not a lot of information is reported about how the lack of the turn lane contributed to the occurrence of the accident. However, it is often the case that there are more factors involved in a car accident than just the motorists involved. Often times, the design of a roadway or intersection, poor lighting, poor signage, inadequate or faded striping, or other features of the roadway can contribute to the causation of a serious personal injury car accident. Therefore, whenever there is an auto accident with catastrophic or permanent injuries, there should be an immediate inspection of the accident scene.

A government is liable for a dangerous condition of the roadway if the following factors are present: First, there must be a dangerous condition of public property, which is defined as a condition that creates a substantial risk of injury to the public, when the property is used in a reasonably foreseeable manner. Second the dangerous condition created a foreseeable risk of the type of accident which occurred. Third, the public entity which owned or controlled the land either created the dangerous condition or had ample notice of the problem long enough before the accident to have had time to fix the problem. And finally, it must be shown that the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in contributing to the accident in question.

The government has numerous defenses and immunities which apply to these types of cases. One of the most common defenses is called a design immunity which protects the government if the design of the particular roadway was made pursuant to a duly approved design. However, even that immunity can be overcome if physical conditions had changed since the original approval of the design.

Due to the complexity of these type auto cases, an immediate investigation must be done before the physical conditions of the accident site change. This involves the hiring of expert witnesses familiar with highway design cases. In a typical highway design case, our office would immediately hire an accident reconstruction expert to examine the scene of the accident, the vehicles involved, and review all pertinent police investigations which were conducted. Additionally, a traffic engineer is retained to analyze the accident scene to see if it comports with traffic safety design standards, and whether it meets standards as set forth in the California Traffic Design manual. Finally, a human factors engineer is hired. This type of expert is a multi-disciplinary expert who has expertise in psychology, engineering, and design who analyzes the design features of the accident scene in light of human beings usual physical and psychological capabilities. Such experts are necessary to prove that a dangerous condition existed and to show how the condition contributed to the actual causation of the accident.

Since these types of cases are generally filed against public entities, such as cities, counties, or the State of California, it is imperative that a government claim be filed within six months of the date of the accident. If a claim is not filed within that time frame, the claim will be barred by law subject to a few, very limited exceptions.

As a car accident lawyer in the Oakland, Alameda area, I have seen over the years how poor roadway design can cause dangerous highway conditions which can contribute to serious auto accidents. Whenever serious accidents occur, it is alway prudent to look at all surrounding circumstances to see if roadway conditions played a part in the crash.

Resources:

Oakland Tribune, Oakland pays $750,000 to woman hit by car on Martin Luther King Jr. Way, June 21, 2011

On June 14, 2011 a Fremont man lost his life when his car was involved in a rear end accident on the Dumbarton Bridge. Terrence Abdullah, was traveling westbound on the Dumbarton bridge when his vehicle stalled. After his car stalled, a car driven by Roberto Lopez slammed into the rear of Mr. Abdullah's car. Mr. Abdullah died at the scene.

The report did not give an explanation as to why Mr. Lopez did not see the stalled vehicle in front of him. The accident occurred at 4:00 p.m. and there were no reported visibility problems. Although the accident is still under investigation, normally someone who rear ends a stopped vehicle, such as happened here, is legally responsible for personal injuries and or the wrongful death of the other driver.

When a car stalls on the road, the police and insurance investigation will also center on why the vehicle stalled. If the car simply ran out of gas or there were foreseeable mechanical problems with the car, the driver of the stalled car can be held comparatively liable for his own injuries or death. Comparative fault reduces the amount of recovery that a negligent person might otherwise recover by the percentage of fault that he contributed to his own accident. In the case of a wrongful death claim, the decedent's percentage of fault would reduce the amount of recovery by his family.

As a Fremont personal injury lawyer, I have seen many rear end type personal injury accidents over the years. Some of the most serious involve accidents like this Fremont accident on the Dumbarton bridge where a car stalls on a high speed roadway. It's a real dilemma for drivers to decide whether to stay in their car or vacate. There are several safety tips that you should consider if your car stalls on the freeway.

According to the California Department of Motor Vehicles, if your car stalls on a freeway you should do the following:

Safely pull to the right shoulder if possible.
If you must exit the car, you should get out of the car on the right side away from traffic.
Wait in your car, with your seatbelt on, while you wait for assistance.
It is a good idea to not set your brake if on flat land and leave the car in neutral. This will lessen the impact forces if you are struck from behind.

If you cannot pull to the shoulder, or if there is no shoulder area, you should put on your hazard lights and exit your vehicle. However, you should stay safely away from the car and other moving traffic. Do not attempt to run across lanes of traffic on the freeway. The California Highway Patrol recommends standing 150 feet in front of your vehicle on the catwalk area if stalled on a bridge.

Other tips recommended by the AAA, are: don't try and fix your car yourself. Be careful not to place flares in any area where they might ignite flammable material such as roadside debris, dry grass, etc. Before leaving on your trip, make sure you have plenty of gas. Carry emergency materials such as flares, flashlights, warning triangles, and reflector vests. It's good to carry these items inside your car as you do not want to have to go to the back of your car and open the trunk while your car is stuck in traffic.

Some of the most serious car accidents I have seen over twenty-eight years of representing personal injury victims are those where someone has broken down on a high speed freeway. By using these tips mentioned above, you and your family can lessen the risk of serious injury or death if your car breaks down on the freeway.

Resources:

Oakland Tribune, Fremont man killed in Dumbarton Bridge accident, June 14, 2011

When a married person is seriously injured, the non-injured spouse often pays a large toll as well. While the couple may still love each other just as much, there is no doubt that the marital relationship has been harmed. In the law, this is what as known as a loss of consortium claim. A recent California appellate court decision reaffirms this important legal right of the uninjured party to sue for loss of consortium.

In the case of Mealy v B-Mobie, Inc., the Mealys had been married for over fifty years. Mrs. Mealy was afflicted with polio in 1952 and was confined to a wheelchair after that. Nevertheless, she was able to drive a car and work outside the home. She and Mr. Mealy had five children together and she worked over thirty years as a counselor for Catholic Social Services. After she retired, she began to lose strength in her arms and her mobility worsened. In order to get in and out of bed, the Mealy's used a Guldman lift system. In 2008, while using the system, a belt broke causing Mrs. Mealy to fall to the floor and break her hip.

Following the fall, Mrs. Mealy filed a products liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the lift for her personal injuries. Mr. Mealy joined in the suit claiming a loss of consortium. The evidence at trial showed that after the fall Mrs. Mealy required help with almost every aspect of her daily living. She was unable to groom herself as she could before her injury; she was now incontinent, and she was unable to do other household chores and participate in leisure activities that she could do before. Her husband now became her round the clock caretaker.

At trial Mr. Mealy testified that his relationship with his wife was as strong as ever. In fact he testified he loved his wife more than ever. Incredibly, the defense in this case tried to use this testimony to argue that there were no damages to Mr. Mealy and therefore no basis for a loss of consortium claim. The defendant argued that since the loss of consortium was not complete, but only partial there should be no recovery at all for Mr. Mealy's loss.

The Second District of the California Appellate court soundly rejected this argument. The court wrote that "consortium" refers to the non-economic aspects of the marriage relation, including conjugal society, comfort, affection, and companionship. It includes sexual relations, moral support and household services. The court noted that moral support is an important part of the claim. In this case, the evidence clearly showed that Mrs. Mealy suffered a serious hip fracture that completely changed her life, and thus impacted her husband as well. The fact that he still loved his wife as much as he did before the injury should not, and did not bar his claim.

As an Alameda lawyer specializing in personal injury and wrongful death claims, I see claims where spouses have suffered life changing injuries such as traumatic brain injury injuries or spinal cord injuries. In these difficult cases, the marriage is often tested. The impact on the relationship is real, and as this California case holds, it is compensable--even if the parties still love each other!!!

Resources:

Mealy v B-Mobile, California Court of Appeal, Second

In 2008, the federal government passed the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act. The bill was named after the granddaughter of the former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III. The seven year old girl died when she was entrapped by the suction of a spa drain.

The law was made to prevent drowning deaths and serious injuries caused by swimming pool drain entrapment. It required that commercial, city, and or club pools be fitted with approved anti-entrapment safety drain covers and entrapment avoidance systems to meet national standards.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced yesterday the recall of over one million pool and spa safety drain covers. The commission found that labs used faulty standards to certify many of the recalled drain covers. This resulted in inaccurate flow ratings. The recall came after a CPSC investigation that involved the subpoenaing of over 17,000 pages of documents from testing laboratories.

Eight manufacturers products were listed in the recall. The manufacturers are A & A, AquaStar, Color Match, Custom Molded Products, Hayward Pool Products, Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Rising Dragon, and Waterway. For a complete description of the products you may go to the CPSC website.

The State of California also has passed laws to reduce entrapment injuries caused by faulty swimming pool drains (The Public Pool and Spa Safety Act, Assembly Bill 1020) In November, 2010 pools at Alameda High Schools were closed for failure to comply with these laws. The pools have since been repaired.

The CPSC has issued recommendations to prevent serious swimming pool injuries and accidents. Avoid using pools or spas with broken or missing drain covers. Install a safety vacuum release system which turns off the pump if a blockage occurs. In the event someone is trapped by the suction of a drain try to put a hand between the drain and the persons body to break the seal as opposed to just pulling the trapped person from the drain.

The CPSC has also launched a swimming safety program called "Simple Steps Save Lives." It recommends staying close and watching children in and around the pool. Never leave a child unattended in a pool or spa. Keep kids away from pool drains, pipes and other openings. If a child is missing, the first place you should look is the pool or spa. Proper safety equipment can also save lives. Have a proper fence or other enclosure around pools and spas; install lockable safety covers on pools and spas; install pool and gate alarms to signal when kids go near the water; and maintain safe pool drains.

The statistics about swimming injuries and deaths are shocking. 76% of reported deaths involve children under the age of 5. There are over 5,000 pool and spa submersion incidents per year. 96% of submersion victims will die with deaths usually occurring on the same day as the drowning. For those surviving the initial drowning, only 4% on average will live longer than a week. Those that do often suffer severe brain injuries requiring life long medical care.

As a swimming pool accident attorney, I see first hand the devastating effects that can be caused by unsafe pools and poor pool supervision. Product liability laws, and safety standards are there to protect all swimmers. By complying with these safety laws, and using good swimming pool safety practices, we can all do our part to help prevent these types of life threatening injuries and deaths.

Resources:

USA Today, Drain cover recall could close thousands of pools, May 27, 2011

CPSC, Eight Manufacturers Recall Pool and In-Ground Spa Drain Covers Due to Incorrect Ratings Covers Pose Possible Entrapment Hazard to Swimmers, May 26, 2011

As an Oakland personal injury lawyer, we often see clients who have been seriously injured in truck accident collisions. Two new legal cases involving truck accidents illustrate the duty of care that professional truck drivers owe to the motoring public. Both cases involve accidents where the truck drivers negligently parked their vehicles causing serious personal injuries and death.

In the case of Cabral v Ralphs Grocery Company, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that a truck driver can be held responsible for personal injuries he causes by negligently parking his truck on the side of a freeway. The case involves a motorist who was driving down Highway 10 when he lost control of his vehicle and slammed into the rear of a tractor trailer parked on the side of the roadway. The driver of the truck had stopped on the side of the highway to have his lunch. He was parked in an emergency only parking area.

The driver of the vehicle died in the collision. His family then brought the subject wrongful death case against Ralphs Grocery Company alleging that the truck driver was negligent in the manner in which he parked his truck on the side of the road. The wrongful death case went all the way to trial and the jury found that the driver was 90% at fault and the truck driver 10% at fault in causing the accident. Ralphs Grocery then appealed from the judgment against it.

Ralphs Grocery, which employed the driver, argued that it owed no duty of care to the decedent driver. Another words, Ralphs tried to argue that it could park its trucks wherever it wanted without any repercussions. The Supreme Court felt otherwise. It held that a truck driver must use reasonable care in choosing when and where to stop alongside of a freeway. In doing so, it upheld a jury verdict in favor of the family of the decedent.

In another recent truck accident case, the California Appellate Court, Fourth District, ruled that a professional truck driver can be legally responsible for personal injuries caused by the way a truck driver parks its tractor trailer, even if the truck is legally parked. In the case of Lawson v Safeway, the truck driver in question parked his tractor trailer near an intersection in a legal parking spot. The manner in which he parked the truck however interfered with the vision of drivers who were approaching the intersection. As a result, a motorist pulled up to the intersection but could not see an approaching motorcyclist because the truck obscured his view of oncoming traffic. Due to his obstructed line of site, he collided with the motorcyclist causing him severe personal injuries. In that case, the jury found that the Safeway truck driver was 35% responsible for the damages caused to the motorcyclist.

The general rule followed in these both of these truck accident cases is clear. All drivers have a legal duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of others in the operation of their trucks. In these two cases, the juries found that the truck drivers acted unreasonably in the manner in which they parked their large vehicles. In one case, the tractor trailer was an unnecessary obstruction on the side of the highway. In the other case, the trailer was an unsafe sight obstruction along the side of the road. Where truck drivers park or operate their large tractor trailers in an unreasonably unsafe manner, the law will hold them responsible for personal injuries and wrongful deaths caused by that conduct.

Resources:

Cabral v Ralphs Grocery Company

Lawson v Safeway

This Saturday, May 14, 2011, Alameda will be hosting its first "Tour de Tracks" bike tour. The event is being hosted by the City of Alameda, the Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA) and BikeAlameda. This will be a fun event where riders will travel a course through Alameda along the old railroad stations.

The tour traces the railroad line which was first established in 1864. There are stops on Encinal and Lincoln at the following stations: High Street, Versailles, Chestnut Encinal, Morton, Bay and Grand Station. Riders can pick up raffle tickets along the way at participating GABA member businesses and win prizes including a brand new bicycle.

There will be free registration for the event at Lincoln Park starting at 9:00 a.m.. Group rides will begin at 10:00 a.m.

As an Alameda personal injury lawyer and as an avid bicycle rider myself, I've come to know a lot about bike safety and how to avoid accident resulting in serious personal injuries. Here are a few tips to keep your ride on Saturday safe.

Use proper safety equipment, including a certified helmet. Bright clothing is also useful so you are visible to drivers of cars and trucks.

Obey all traffic safety laws: Bikes are required to obey all traffic laws just like motorists. Additionally, riders are required by law to ride as far to the right of the road as safely practical except when preparing to make a left turn or overtaking other bikes or vehicles. Parked motorists who open their doors directly in front of cyclists is a common cause of bike accidents. In order to avoid getting "doored" bicyclist must ride sufficiently to the left of parked vehicles so that if a door suddenly opens, their bike will still be clear of the door. Another good tip is to look for driver's in parked cars, or brake lights. These can be signs that the motorist is about ready to pull into traffic. Always stay in the bike lane if one is provided.

As always, it good to know your legal rights and obligations if you are riding a bike or have been involved in a bicycle accident.

I will be out volunteering to help at the Bay Street Station near Pagano's on Saturday. I look forward to seeing you there and I wish you a fun and safe tour.

Resource:

The Alameda Sun, New Tour de Tracks Event Invites Cyclists to Visit Alameda History, May 11, 2011