Oakland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

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

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

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

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

Here's a safety recommendation for you to keep your car running safely. Every year the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration recalls cars for a variety of reasons. Frequently, the consumer has no way of knowing whether their car has been recalled or not. Now NHTSA has a on-line system which you can enroll in so you can be instantly notified if your vehicle is subject to a voluntary or compulsory recall.

It's simple. You just go to the NHTSA website. Then you specify the year, make and mode of your call and give them your e-mail address. You will then receive notifications of any government recalls of your vehicle electronically.

The NHTSA website also provides other valuable information. You can file a complaint about a vehicle. You can research other consumer safety complaints about any make or model or safety recalls which have occurred. You can also obtain information about any defect investigations which are ongoing.

NHTSA also maintains a Five-Star Safety rating system for any vehicle. This includes NHTSA's evaluation of the crash resistance of the front driver's side, front passenger's side, side driver's side, and side passenger's side, along with a rollover assessment.

As a personal injury lawyer in Alameda, a large part of my legal practice concerns automobile accidents. Therefore, vehicle safety is of the utmost importance to me. Often safety defects in vehicles can be a significant contributing cause to serious personal injury accidents. For example, in recent years, there has been a substantial amount of product liability litigation involving rollovers, especially with sport utility vehicles.

The California product liability laws hold automobile manufacturers strictly liable for manufacturing and design defects which are present in the cars and trucks that they sell. They are also responsible for any known danger inherent in their vehicles which they have failed to warn the consumer about. When a person is injured as a result of a defectively designed car or truck, that person is entitled to recover legal damages for the injuries caused by the manufacturer's conduct.

NHTSA's recall system has been instrumental in helping to identify defective automobiles and to get these cars fixed or off the roads. By use of the recall system, and enforcement of the California product liability laws, we can reduce the number of personal injuries caused by defective cars and trucks. Therefore, I would strongly recommend that you check out NHTSA's website for information about the vehicles you drive or own.

As an Oakland personal injury lawyer for over 27 years, I have seen how simple mistakes when dealing with insurance adjusters can cost client auto accident victims dearly. I have written a brochure to help people who have been involved in accidents, entitled "8 Critical Mistakes that Can Cost You Thousands of Dollars If You've Been Injured in an Accident." I previously blogged about the mistake of signing medical authorizations. Today, I would like to discuss the number 1 mistake people make, which is giving written or recorded statements to insurance adjusters.

Frequently, within days and sometimes within hours of a car accident, insurance adjusters for the other person's insurance company will give you a call to discuss your claim. Invariably, in that initial conversation they will ask for a recorded statement. It is always a mistake to agree to this. Adjusters may say they need it if you wish to settle your claim. Or they may be more brazen and question whether you have something to hide. They will say anything to coax you into giving the statement. You don't have to give it.

What is the problem with cooperating and giving the recorded statement? There are several. First, the insurance adjuster has a distinct advantage over you in terms of knowledge about claims. For most people, giving a statement to an adjuster is a rare event; but for the seasoned adjuster, they have taken literally hundreds if not thousands of statements. Therefore, they know what information is helpful to their position and harmful to yours, and you don't. Second, insurance adjusters will often ask questions about things that they are not entitled to know about. Without proper understanding of the law, the innocent victim has no way of knowing what information the insurance company is or is not entitled to. Next, questions about how an accident occurred or the nature and extent of injuries, can be vague or ambiguous. You may be thinking the adjuster is asking you one thing, when in fact they are really asking you something else. Or you may give an ambiguous statement that is later twisted in its meaning so that the words are used against you. Or you may simply make a mistake in your statement, which you later realize but it is now too late to correct.

The bottom line is there is no upside potential to giving a statement, written or recorded, to an insurance adjuster, and there is plenty of downside. Once the statement is given, it can never be retracted. You can later try to explain what was meant or why you said a specific thing in giving the description of the accident or a description of your injuries, but the insurance company will continually harken back to what you said within days of the accident.

If you have been injured in an auto accident which was caused by someone else's negligence, you have a legal right to file a personal injury claim. Legally, you are entitled to compensation for all of your medical bills, those incurred and those likely to occur in the future, all of your lost earning, past and future, and full compensation for the pain and suffering you have experienced. In the case of serious injuries, the pain and suffering may be a permanent, life long condition. It is truly a tragedy when one who is seriously injured in a car accident does not receive full compensation for these losses due to simple mistakes, which were made when giving a statement to an insurance company, before contacting a personal injury attorney.

A recent San Jose auto accident points out the importance of kids using proper car seats. On March 16, three people were ejected from a SUV when the vehicle had a flat tire and rolled over on Highway 101 near Blossom Hill Road. One of those ejected was a one year old boy who was in a car seat which had been catapulted to the side of the road. Fortunately, the boy received only minor injuries. However, the accident points out the necessity of not only using car seats, but having them properly installed.

Car accidents are the leading cause of death and personal injury for children under the age of 14. In 2009, the State of California issued over 16,000 tickets to parents, and others who failed to properly secure children inside their vehicles.

California law requires that children under the age of six or weighs less than sixty pounds must ride in a federally approved child car seat. A child may not ride in the front seat if he is under the age of one, weighs less than 20 pounds or is riding in a rear facing child passenger restraint system.

In April 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics promulgated new guidelines for the use of car seats. They advocate that parents keep their children in rear-facing car seats until age two or until they exceed the weight or age limit for the particular type car seat which is being used. A 2007 study showed that children under the age of 2 were 75% less likely to die or be severely injured in a car crash if they were in a rear-facing car seat.

The rear-facing car seats are more effective in preventing personal injuries to children in car accidents because of the way the forces on the body are distributed. This type of seat supports the head, neck, and spine of the children. Therefore, in a car crash the forces tend to be evenly distributed throughout the body, reducing the likelihood of injury.

In order to be effective in preventing personal injuries, the car seats must be properly installed. This will prevent the seat from malfunctioning as in this San Jose auto accident. According to Dr. Alisa Baer, 95% of car seats are being misused. Common mistakes include routing the seatbelts incorrectly; not putting the seatbelts in lock mode, using both the lower anchors of the LATCH system and the seatbelt, forgetting to use the tether, not putting enough weight on the seat as it is being installed. Parenting.com lists 11 other common safety seat mistakes.

In addition to being properly installed, the seats should be routinely inspected for defects. There are numerous child safety seat inspection stations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a listing of locations of inspection stations. Parent may also call any CHP office to set up a free appointment with a car seat technician to make sure the seats are properly installed and inspected.

As a San Jose personal injury lawyer, I have personally seen how the proper use of car seats has reduced the severity of injury to young children. Conversely, I have seen how young children have been seriously injured when the car seats and booster seats for children are not used or are used improperly. In order to keep our children safe, it is imperative that we are aware of the risks of serious injury to our kids if they are not placed in properly installed car safety seats.

Resources:

San Jose Mercury News, Injury to toddler in San Jose prompts CHP reminder about car seat safety, March 22, 2011

Last night the driver of a stolen car caused a serious personal injury accident. The accident occurred at 60th and Camden Street in Oakland. The driver of a stolen Toyota slammed into the side of another vehicle driven by a mother who had her four daughters in the car. All four children were taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital. The driver of the stolen car fled the scene on foot.

Stolen cars are generally not covered by liability insurance. The reason for this is that only the named insured and persons whom the owner of the vehicle gives permission to drive the car are covered by the insurance. In this accident, since the car was stolen, the owner did not give the driver permission to use the car and therefore, there will be no insurance coverage for the negligence of this driver. However, the mother and her children will be covered for their personal injury damages under their own insurance plan if there is adequate uninsured motorist coverage on her vehicle.

Uninsured motorist protection will protect people who are hit by uninsured drivers, hit and run drivers, and stolen vehicles. As long as there is an actual contact between the uninsured vehicle and the insured vehicle the coverage will apply. In other words, it will not apply to a hit and run situation where someone is run off the road, but there is no actual contact between the fleeing driver and the insured.

The uninsured motorist will be able to recover against their own policies for all personal injury damages that they would have been able to recover against the uninsured hit and run driver, had that person had insurance. Therefore, a person who is injured in an auto accident by a hit and run driver can recover compensation for pain and suffering, for their medical bills, both past and those likely to occur in the future, and lost wages and loss of earning capacity. The claim is only limited by the amount of the uninsured motorist coverage purchased.

Uninsured motorist coverage is required by law in every policy of automobile insurance that is sold in the State of California (Insurance Code Section 11580). However, the insurance can be waived, if the insured does not want the coverage and signs a written waiver. Some people make the mistake of waiving this coverage in an effort to lower their insurance premiums. I see this frequently with minimum coverage policies and insurance companies that write insurance for high risk drivers. However, this is always the wrong decision to make.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles reports that there are over 1.3 million uninsured drivers in the state. As auto insurance becomes more expensive, the number of uninsured drivers will only increase. Therefore, I strongly recommend that you carry uninsured motorist limits in an amount as high as your own liability limits. If you are unaware of what your limits are, you can refer to the declaration page of your automobile insurance liability policy.

As an Oakland uninsured motorist lawyer, I see in my daily practice of representing personal injury victims, the importance of having adequate uninsured motorist coverage. For more information on the do's and don'ts of uninsured motorist claims, see my articles on uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist claims.

Resources:

The Oakland Tribune, Driver of stolen Toyota broadsides car carrying mother, four daughters in East Oakland, March 17, 2011

As a personal injury lawyer for the past 27 years, I have helped a lot of clients who have been injured in car accidents. Many of them have come to me after they have spoken with an insurance adjuster. In fact, many of them have come to me because of the way they have been treated by insurance adjusters. Unfortunately, often times people make serious mistakes when dealing directly with adjusters. Often these mistakes hurt their person injury case.

In order to help those injured in California auto accidents, I wrote an article entitled "8 Common Mistakes That Can Cost You Thousands Of Dollars When Dealing With Insurance Adjusters." The most common mistake is giving the adjuster a written or recorded statement which I wrote about in a previous blog. The second biggest error is signing medical authorizations.

The main problem with signing a medical authorization is the scope of the authorization. The releases frequently permit the insurer to obtain any and all records, whether the records relate to the accident or not. Thus, people are divulging their entire medical history, often times, without their knowledge. This should never be done as sometimes previous, unrelated medical treatment is used as a pretense by insurance companies to argue that those unrelated problems are the cause of the current symptoms, and not the car crash.

As a personal injury attorney in the Alameda Oakland area, part of my job when a client comes in is to obtain the relevant and appropriate medical records. Only these records are provided to the insurance company at the time of the settlement of any claim. In this way, the client's privacy is always protected, and the insurance company is still provided with all of the necessary documentation to show the nature and extent of the injuries suffered in the accident.

The next time you are out driving, see how far you can go before you have to make a left turn. Better yet, see if you can avoid left turns altogether. If you drive for UPS, that's just what you would be doing.

A few years ago, UPS initiated a system where their drivers avoid left turns. The company started using a computerized system called "package flow" which maps out the drivers' routes to avoid left hand turns whenever possible. The company found that their drivers were wasting lots of time, and therefore burning lots of fuel while waiting for traffic to clear before making left hand turns. So they decided to route around them. The company found that by reducing the number of left hand turns, they reduced their driving miles by over 28.5 million and saved roughly 3.5 million gallons of gasoline!

It is well known that one of the most common types of auto accidents is the left turn collision occurring at an intersection. It is estimated that 27% of all intersection accidents in the United States are related to left hand turn crashes. As an Oakland personal injury attorney, I would add that these left hand turn accidents also tend to cause severe injuries. This is due to the fact that the impacts are virtually head on, or in some cases to the side of the vehicle where there is far less protection.

So do yourself a favor. Avoid left hand turns at intersections whenever possible. You'll be saving gas, reducing polluting emissions, and reducing your risk of personal injury accidents all at the same time. What a deal!

Resources:

New York Times, Left-Hand-Turn Elimination, December 9, 2007

United States Department of Transportation, FHWA, Permissive/Protected Left Turn Phasing

A recent poll conducted by Consumer Reports shows that 63% of drivers under the age of 30 admitted using a cell phone while driving. Perhaps even more frightening, 30% of these younger drivers admitted to texting while driving. 70% of those polled felt that it was not dangerous to drive while using a cell phone. Car crashes are the leading cause of teenage deaths.

As an Alameda father of four kids, and a personal injury lawyer who frequently sees the consequences of negligent driving, this poll scares me. We must take steps to educate our younger drivers of these dangers.

Clearly, drivers are distracted by using a cell phone or texting while driving. Studies show that texting while driving has proven to be more dangerous than driving under the influence of alcohol. The National Safety Council found that 28% of all auto accidents involved mobile phones and or texting.

What can we do to prevent serious personal injuries resulting from this dangerous habit? First, we can lead by example. The same poll showed that 41% of drivers over the age of 30 admitted using a cell phone while driving and 9% admitted to texting. So if we want our kids to drive safe, we should avoid using the cell phone while driving. Second, we can educate them about the dangers. If they don't believe us, they will believe what they see on youtube.com. Have them view this moving video about teenagers who have lost friends and caused serious injuries and deaths in auto accidents. For further information the U.S. Department of Transportation has a website on distracted driving. If all parents had this conversation with their teenagers, I know it would make the road safer for all of us.

Resource:

San Francisco Chronicle, 63 percent under 30 admit driving while on phone, March 7, 2011

A Fresno jury recently awarded 5.7 million dollars to Manuel Orenelas, a man who was seriously injured in an auto accident in 2009. The accident occurred on Highway 168 near Shaver Lake. The man had stopped to put snow chains on his vehicle. He was legally parked on the side of the road completely out of the traffic lane. A utility vehicle, driven by a Southern California Edison employee, was driving without chains and too fast for the conditions when he lost control of his vehicle and ran into the man's van.

Mr. Ornelas seriously hurt his back and pelvis in the accident. The former marathon runner now needs a cane to walk. He can't control his bowels, and cannot sit for long periods of time. He can't pick up his children, mow his lawn, or even push a grocery cart. He incurred medical bills of nearly $160,000.00. Due to his personal injuries, he can't work and he lost $1.2 million in past and future earnings.

Before the trial, Southern Edison only offered him $1.7 million, barely enough to cover his medical bills and lost wages. Then during the trial they raised their offer to $5 million, which was rejected by the injured man. The Southern Edison lawyer told the jury that with therapy Mr. Ornelas could return to work. He told the jury "it was an unfortunate accident."

What is "unfortunate" is the way that Mr. Ornelas was treated by this utility company. They made a minimal offer to settle his case considering the serious injuries to his back and pelvis, and the enormous financial losses he sustained and then forced him through a grueling jury trial. In the trial, they brought in their experts to talk about how he could return to work with proper therapy. Then, when they knew their ship was sinking, they finally offered the man 5 million dollars during the middle of the trial. Why wasn't this sum offered much earlier, long before a jury trial?

As a personal injury lawyer in Alameda for over 27 years, I have seen this pattern repeated over and over. Large companies and insurance companies drag the injured person through stressful litigation, make a low ball offer, and then when all is said and done, throw up their hands, and tell the jury, what an "unfortunate accident" it was. The jury never knows what happened behind the scenes and how the company tried to shirk its financial responsibility by making unfair, low offers, putting extreme financial pressure on the injured party to settle. I am glad to see that justice was done for Mr. Ornelas.

Resource:

Fresno Bee, Clovis couple gets $5.7m in utility-truck crash suit, March 1, 2011

New studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) show the importance of strengthening underride guards on the rear of tractor trailers. Underride guards are the iron bars that you see coming down from the back of tractor trailers. They are the main safety measure to prevent personal injuries caused by cars sliding under the rear of tractor trailers in rear end type car accidents.

The study showed that in roughly 1,000 truck accidents studied by the Institute, 78% of the rear end crashes with trucks involved underride. When this occurs there is a heightened risk of head trauma, traumatic brain injury, or even decapitation. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 423 people die annually, and 5,000 people are seriously injured when the front end of the car slides beneath a truck trailer in a rear end type accident.

Improvements in the safety of the underride guard can and should be made. One study showed that 11% of fatalities and 30% of serious personal injuries could be prevented if trucks were equipped with an energy absorbing system, instead of a rigid type system. Canada has stricter requirements than the United States with regard to the strength and energy absorption of these guards. According to the Institute's studies these stronger requirements help prevent underride and the serious injuries that result from that.

As a Alameda personal injury lawyer, I represented a woman who ran into the back of a truck in the late 80's near Castro Valley on Highway 580. As a result of her car underriding the trailer, she suffered severe permanent brain damage and has been in a skilled nursing facility with full time care since that time. I think of her every time I drive past that spot on Highway 580 where the collision occurred. Stronger standards, such as those already promulgated in Canada, are needed to help prevent injuries like those suffered by my client. I am glad to see that the IIHS is studying the issue and making appropriate recommendations to NHTSA.

Resource:

Insurance Institute for Highway Safeway, Underride guards on big rigs often fail in crashes; Institute petitions government for new standard, March 1, 2011