Oakland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nationally there are over 300,000 dog bite injuries per year. It is estimated that there are 17 deaths annually from dog bites. National estimates for hospitalizations associated with dog bites exceed 5,000 per year. The cost of dog bite claims has been on the rise.

The number of people admitted to the hospital for dog bites is related inversely to age. The younger the dog bite victim, the more likely the bite would require admission to the hospital. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, children are the most frequent victims of dog bites. After children, the elderly and then postal workers are the most likely to attacked by a dog.

As an Oakland dog bite lawyer, I have seen how dog bite injuries can be disfiguring and permanent in their effects. Dog owners must be aware of the proper precautions to take to prevent their animals from biting others. Proper training, keeping the dog on a leash, not rewarding aggressive behaviors, and not keeping your dog penned up for long periods of time can help. The Center for Disease Control provides other tips to help reduce dog bites.

Dog owners who do not prevent their dogs from biting others are strictly liable for harm caused by their animals. Dog owners are monetarily responsible for pain, suffering, scarring, disfigurement, and economic losses such as medical expenses, and lost earnings which are caused by dog bites. You should know your legal rights if bitten by a dog.

Resources:

United States Postal Service, Dog Bites on the Rise in Sunnyvale, July 29, 2010

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Hospitalizations for Dog Bite Injuries

On October 26, 2010 a collision between two cars and a big rig truck on Highway 580 killed one woman and left another injured. One car became trapped under the big-rig just east of Grove Way. The driver of that car was pronounced dead at the scene. The freeway was closed for one and a half hours. The accident is still under investigation.

As an Oakland personal injury lawyer, I know that accidents such as these can be complex. It is of the utmost importance to do an immediate investigation to preserve evidence and locate and interview all possible witnesses.

There should be close scrutiny of the truck, the truck driver and the trucking company involved in this accident. Issues such as the experience of the driver, the driver's record, the most recent driving logs, and vehicle "black boxes" should all be investigated. Even steering wheel motion can be indicative of driver fatigue. The trucking industry is highly regulated.Therefore, compliance with all relevant regulations should be reviewed.

Although the California Highway Patrol is investigating the accident, there are often areas that the investigating officers fail to investigate. It is therefore of extreme importance in trucking accidents that a thorough and immediate private investigation of the accident be completed as soon as possible. If the driver and the trucking company are negligent in the ownership, control, or operation of the truck, the trucking company will be liable in damages for the wrongful death of the woman driver.

Resources:

Oakland Tribune, Castro Valley: One killed in crash involving big rig on I-580, October 26, 2010

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, An Algorithm for Detecting Heavy-Truck Driver Fatigue from Steering Wheel Motion

More and more drivers are being injured in accidents where the driver responsible for the accident is either uninsured or underinsured. DMV records show the number of uninsured drivers increasing every year. For the last year where these statistics were available there were over 1.3 million uninsured vehicles in California. The value of these uninsured motorist claims have steadily been rising over the past several years.

Often uninsured motorists flee the scene following an accident. When there is a hit and run situation, your uninsured motorist coverage will protect you, but there are certain steps that you must do to protect your rights.

These steps are set forth in Insurance Code Section 11580.2. First, you must file a police report. Second, you must establish there was a contact between your vehicle and the hit and run vehicle. There need not be major damage but there must be at least some minor contact between your vehicle and the hit and run vehicle. This contact could even be in the form of the hit and run driver hitting some other object which then hits yours. The crucial thing to remember is to document with photographs and area of your car which have been contacted as a result of the other driver's actions. If you have not proof of contact, your claim will be denied by your insurance company.

As an Oakland uninsured motorist lawyer, I have seen many abuses by insurance companies of their insureds who made uninsured motorist claims. If you have been injured in a hit and run uninsured motorist accident, it is important that you know your uninsured motorists rights and take appropriate and immediate steps to preserve those rights.

Resource:

Department of Motor Vehicles, Estimated Rate of Uninsured Motorists, 2004

In July, I reported on a recall of drop side cribs by Pottery Barn. On October 22, 2010, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of Heritage Collection 3 in 1 drop side cribs.

About 34,000 of these drop side cribs were imported into the country from Vietnam. The cribs were sold only in Kmart stores between 2007 and 2008. The company had received 17 reports of the drop side rails detaching from the cribs. Three of these caused injuries to children as a result of being entrapped by the rail.

Consumers are urged to stop using the cribs and call 866-499-2099 for a repair kit.

As an Oakland product liability lawyer, I am concerned about the safety of products put on the market. In particular, I want parents to be aware of the dangers of drop side cribs to prevent their children from serious injury or death associated with these products. California product liability law can compensate for injuries and expenses caused by these defective products. More importantly, safer designs and manufacturer's concern for safety can hopefully prevent these injuries from happening in the first place. If you own one of these cribs, I urge you to call the above number to make the appropriate repairs.

Resource:

UPI.com, Heritage Collection 3-in-1 cribs recalled, October 22, 2010

As an Oakland personal injury lawyer, I am concerned about the safety of our children. In particular I am concerned about the risk of injury to babies from defective strollers and other baby products such as defective drop down cribs.

Recently, 2 million strollers were recalled by Graco Children's Products, Inc. The Consumer Product Safety Commision had received reports of four deaths of babies in the Graco Quattro Tour and MetroLite model strollers. Children under the age of one year old are especially susceptible when they are unstrapped and their heads can become stuck between the stroller tray and set bottom.

The strollers being recalled were sold by Sears, Toys R Us and Target, among others. Consumers who purchased the strollers can call for a free repair kit at 877-828-4046. See the list of recalled strollers here. If you own one of these strollers, I urge you to contact the manufacturer and take all steps necessary to make your stroller safe.

Baby strollers which are unsafely designed and cause injury are considered defective products under California law. When a manufacturer places a dangerous stroller on the market that causes injury or death, it is strictly liable for the damages caused, including damages for medical bills, pain and suffering, and for losses caused by the wrongful death of children trapped in these strollers. These product liability laws are designed to keep the children of our communities safe and to keep manufacturers accountable when they place dangerous products on the market.

Resources:

Bloomberg, Graco Recalls 2 Million Strollers After Four Babies Strangled, October 20. 2010

A shooting occurred at a San Leandro party on October 9, 2010 at the bar and grille at the Monarch Bay Golf Club. Two people were killed and two others injured when gun shots rang out. Four victims were taken to Eden Hospital in Castro Valley and two were pronounced dead upon arrival. The party had apparently been promoted through social networking and the police are trying to identify the promoters who gave false names to the bar and grille when making the rental arrangements. The shooters have not been identified.

What is the legal responsibility of the bar and grille for the criminal acts of these unknown assailants in this San Leandro shooting? Is there owner of the business liable for the wrongful death of these two individuals?

Business owners have a duty to those who come onto their premises to use reasonable care to protect them from the harmful conduct of others on the property, if the owner can reasonably foresee such criminal behavior. If it is foreseeable that criminal activity may occur, there may be legal liability on the part of the business owner for the shooting (See the case of Delgado v Trax Bar & Grill). Foreseeability is often determined by whether there had been similar criminal activity in the past to put the owner on notice that reasonable precautions should be taken.

As a San Leandro personal injury attorney, I receive many inquires about people who have been injured in public businesses by the criminal activity of others. These can include assaults, fights, or even shootings such as in the Monarch Bay incident. Often these victims of criminal assaults are seriously hurt and they are unable to be compensated by a criminal who has either disappeared or is destitute. If the business owner however was also negligent by not keeping his business safe, these victims of violent crime can be helped.

Resources:

Oakland Tribune, Investigators looking into who promoted San Leandro party that turned fatal, October 12, 2010

A recent study by the National Safety Council found that 28% percent of all auto accidents involve people who were texting. The numbers seem to be growing as more and more cell phones are sold. The Auto Club of Southern California has reported that the number of those texting while driving has double since the law banning this practice was passed in 2009. The number of persons injured in personal injury auto accidents appears to be increasing as well.

We know the dangers of texting. As noted recently, tests have shown that driving while texting impairs a driver more than driving with a blood alcohol of .08. The reasons appear obvious as drivers must look down, often at their lap, for extended periods of time while typing a text or responding to one.

As an Oakland personal injury lawyer, I am particularly concerned with this trend as we see more and more car accident injuries caused by texting. As a parent of four kids, I am also concerned about this trend. Anyone who has young children or teenagers is acutely aware of the ubiquity of cell phones and texting. It's hard to have dinner without the cell phones going off or texts coming in. I can only imagine the challenge our kids have to ignore those texts or calls while they are driving. As parents we must continuously remind ourselves and our children of these dangers and not take texting while driving lightly.

Resources:

Contra Costa Times, Barnidge: Driving and texting: one of the worst marriages ever, October 18, 2010

National Safety Council, NSC Estimates That at least 1.6 million Crashes are Caused Each Year by Drivers Using Cell Phones and Texting, January 12, 2010

On October 5, 2010, the Alameda police were involved in a serious injury accident. A police officer chased a suspected drunk driver into the Webster Tube. The drunk driver had been pulled over by the police and then abruptly took off entering the tunnel against traffic. The drunk driver then crashed his car into an oncoming vehicle causing serious injuries to that driver. The injured driver was transported by ambulance in critical condition to Oakland's Highland Hospital. In August, Oakland police injured innocent bystanders when they engaged in a high speed chase on the streets of Oakland.

Police chases such as these seem to becoming more frequent. Predictably, police chases often result in serious injury accidents. According to a study by the California Highway Patrol, 29% of police chases ended in accidents during the time studied.

What is the legal responsibility of a city for injuries caused in a high speed police chase? Under California law, a city is responsible for any injury caused by the negligent driving of its employees (Vehicle code section 17001). Officers must comply with the traffic laws unless they are using their red lights and siren. However, a city is immune from liability for automobile accidents caused in high speed chases if it adopts a written policy pursuant to Vehicle Code section 17004.7. The policy must cover such items as when and under what circumstances a chase should be initiated and terminated.

As an Oakland personal injury lawyer, I question the usefulness of most high speed police chases. Often we see that police are causing serious injuries to the innocent driving public, in pursuit of criminals suspected of relatively minor offenses. Are the risks to the public really worth the benefit of catching a petty criminal?

Resources:

Oakland Tribune, Alameda: Police arrest two afte collision in Webster Tube, October 5, 2010

KTVU.com, Oakland Police Pursuit Ends In Injury Crash, August 20, 2010

The Governor signed a new law, AB 2284, on October 1, 2010 which will give car accident victims in Alameda County and throughout the State quicker and less expensive access to the court house.

The majority of Alameda personal injury auto accident cases generally involve less serious injuries such as neck and back sprains and strains. For years now, insurance companies have taken a hard stance on settling these claims and have forced many of them to trial by offering very low settlements. The trials would often last three to four days and would be expensive for the injured person to litigate. It was not uncommon to see insurance companies pay more to their lawyers and expert witnesses than they would to actually settle the claim of the injured person.

This new law will allow the parties to have their day in court, but will severely limit the expenses involved. Each side will be given three hours to put on all of their evidence. There will be a smaller jury panel (8 instead of 12 jurors). It is the intention to have cases heard in one day, including the jury selection.

As an Oakland personal injury lawyer, I believe this law will go a long way to providing justice to those involved in less serious automobile accidents. The injured parties will get their day in court without expending exorbitant amounts of money. Jurors who will not have to spend days or weeks in trial, will also be happy with this expedited process. The law will become effective on January 1, 2011.

Resources:

Consumer Attorneys of California, Governor Signs Expedited Jury Trials Act, October 1, 2010

Two years ago, Thomas Avery, a Northern California man in a wheelchair was being hoisted onto a paratransit bus when the hoist broke. As a result, the man fell backwards falling six feet and causing him to hit his head. This bus accident caused him severe brain damage.

Investigation after the accident showed that bolts on the lift were either missing or loose. Mr. Adams sued the City of Roseville and the transit company, MV Transportation, for the damages resulting from traumatic his brain injury. A jury recently found the City and the transportation company liable for negligence and awarded the man $6.4 million dollars in compensatory damages.

Bus companies are considered common carriers. Under California law bus drivers and operators are required to use the highest degree of care in transporting their passengers (Civil Code section 2100) Thus, a bus company is liable for even the slightest degree of negligence. Additionally, a bus company or any common carrier, must provide vehicles which are safe and fit for the purposes to which they are put (Civil Code section 2101). In this case, the jury found that the transportation company was 83 per cent responsible and the city of Roseville was 17 percent responsible for this traumatic brain injury.

As an Oakland personal injury lawyer, I understand how persons suffering from disabilities must rely upon public transportation. It's a crime when people such Mr. Adams depend on the bus company to maintain their buses in a safe condition, and the company fails him. In this case, the failure led to catastrophic injuries which will permanently affect the quality of this young man's life.

Resources:

Washington Post, Judgment Against Transit Company, October 13, 2010

cbs13.com, Quadriplegic Man Wins $6M Suit Against Roseville, October 12, 2010

In the early morning hours of October 5, 2010, an intoxicated driver caused a car accident in the Alameda Webster Tube resulting in serious injuries to an innocent driver. Alameda police reported that two officers had pulled a driver over for speeding as it entered Alameda from the Webster Tube. After being stopped, the driver then took off, cut across a dirt lot and then headed back into the tube against the flow of traffic. He then ran head on into a Toyota Corolla causing serious injuries to that driver. That driver is in critical condition at Oakland's Highland Hospital. After striking the Toyota, the drunk driver's car then struck a third car, causing injuries to the two occupants of that car.

Several legal questions arise from this Alameda personal injury auto accident. There will be questions about both legal damages and the apportionment of those damages since three individuals were injured in the accident.

The injured parties will be entitled to compensatory damages for both economic and non-economic losses. Economic losses include such damages as medical expenses, future medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, and other financial losses. Non-economic losses would include damages for things such as pain, suffering, interference with enjoyment of life, and other non-tangible losses. The problem in a case like this however, is that there may not be enough insurance to adequate compensate all three of the victims. California law only requires that a driver carry minimum liability limits of $15,000.00/$30,000. If the drunk driver has a minimum policy, the parties will have to apportion the proceeds in the most equitable manner which could produce an unfair result.

As an Alameda personal injury lawyer, I often see how California's low liability requirements create underinsured problems for victims of car accidents such as this one. In order to protect yourself against a low limits driver, or to protect yourself in the case of an accident with multiple parties, you can contact your insurance agent to request sufficient underinsured motorist coverage to adequately cover you.

Resource:

Oakland Tribune, Police Arrest Two After Collision in Webster Tube, October 5, 2010

There have been several serious car accidents involving catastrophic injury and death in California. Most recently, the plastic surgeon for the stars, Frank Ryan, M.D., died after he drove his car over a cliff while texting about his dog.

Recent studies have shown that texting while driving impairs a driver more than drinking alcohol. This is not to say that driving under the influence is a good idea; but to emphasis the danger of driving while texting or speaking on a cell phone. Car and Driver magazine ran braking tests comparing a man who was driving with a blood alcohol of .08 versus a man texting. The inebriated man stopped 4 feet beyond his baseline performance. Drivers who were texting stopped anywhere from 70 feet to 319 feet beyond their baseline.

Texting while driving is against the law in California (Vehicle Code section 23123). As an Oakland personal injury lawyer, I see that more and more car accidents are being caused by texting. Since texting while driving is a violation of law, a person is presumed negligent if their texting causes an accident. California law holds also that a drunk driver can be held liable for punitive damages for driving under the influence since he drives with a conscious disregard for the safety of the public. Perhaps, texting drivers will also be liable for punitive damages since the dangers appear to be worse and and the risks are now well known.

Resources:

Los Angeles Times, Texters, you'd be better off driving drunk
Studies show that driving while texting is more dangerous than driving under the influence. Our laws and penalties don't reflect that, October 3, 2010

Two United States Safety Agencies and a leading Pediatrics Group has warned parents that baby sleep positioners can trap and suffocate babies. The products often have foam bolsters on the sides that help keep a baby in one position. However, the babies can wriggle or roll and become trapped and suffocate.

These products appeal to safety conscious parents concerned about SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). These products however have not been shown to reduce the incidence of SIDS. The Sleep Positions can be added to the list of dangerous products such as drop side cribs which can endanger infants. The products have been linked to at least a dozen deaths over the past 13 years. FDA officials state the products are "illegal devices" because none has ever been approved by the FDA, which must approve all products which make medical claims.

According to Kids in Danger, parents should know the safest crib is a bare one that has never been recalled, with a snug-fitting mattress with tight fitting crib sheets and nothing else. Babies should be put to sleep on their backs with footed sleepers and sleep sacks should replace loose blankets.

As an Oakland personal injury attorney, and a father of four children myself, I am particularly concerned about the safety of products designed for our kids. Unsafe products designed for our children should be taken off the market. Under California product liability law, manufacturers of unsafe products should be held strictly liable in damages for injuries caused by defective products.

Resources:

Los Angeles Times, Stop Using Baby Sleep Positioners, Safety Groups Warn, September 29, 2010

First it was suddenly accelerating cars; now it's suddenly accelerating lawn mowers. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently announced a voluntary recall of Black and Decker cordless electric lawn mowers. The mowers have been reported to start unexpectedly even after the safety key has been removed.

There have been 34 reports of unexpected start-ups and two of those incidents included injuries to the consumer. The Black and Decker mowers involved in the recall include model numbers CMM1000 or CMM1000R. The Craftsman mowers have model number 900.370520. Over 160,000 mowers have been recalled.

California law covering products liability holds that both the manufacturer and the sellers of defective products are strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products. A product is defective if it fails to meet ordinary consumers expectations as to safety. Therefore, any California resident who is injured by a defective lawn mower has legal rights to recover for their injuries against any company in the chain of distribution of the defective product.

As an Oakland personal injury lawyer, I have represented many consumers who have been injured by defective products, including defective power products such as lawn mowers. If a defective lawn mower or other defective product has caused you injuries you should contact an experienced products liability lawyer in your area to be fully advised of your legal rights.

Resources:

Consumer Product Safety Commission, Black & Decker Recalls Cordless Electric Lawnmowers Due to Laceration Hazard, September 29, 2010

On September 29, 2010, A San Jose postal worker was attacked by two dogs, a pit bull and a German Shephard. The two dogs broke through a fence and then bit the postal worker several times. The letter carrier was later hospitalized for his injuries.

As a San Jose personal injury lawyer who has represented a number of postal workers, I have seen first hand the devastating effects of numerous dog attacks. The Postal Service reports that over 3,000 of its employees were attacked by dogs and suffered serious bites in 2007. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, children, the elderly, and Postal workers are the most frequent victims of dog bites.

In California, the law regarding dog bites holds a dog owner strictly liable if their dog bites anyone. This is true even if the dog escapes from one's backyard or is on a leash. Therefore, in this San Jose dog bite attack, the owner of the dog will be responsible for all of the postal workers, medical bills, time off work, and compensatory damages for pain and suffering. The value of such claims is going up every year, and most recently averaged over $24,000.00 per claim.

Dog bites can leave permanent physical and emotional scars. If you have been bitten by a dog, you should know your legal rights. If you own a dog, you should take all necessary precautions to keep your dog enclosed in your home, and on a leash when you are out walking with it.

Resources:

United States Postal Service, Dog Bite Awareness, May 14, 2009

KLIV News, Postal Worker Attacked by Dog, September 29, 2010