On June 19, 2016 actor Anton Yelchin was killed in a rollaway car accident in the driveway of his Studio City, California home. Mr. Yelchin, most famous for playing Chekov in the new Star Trek movies, had parked his Jeep Cherokee in his driveway, exited the vehicle and walked down the driveway to check for mail in his mailbox. At this same time, the Jeep came out of gear, rolled backwards, and pinned Mr. Yelchin between the Jeep and the large brick mailbox pillar, killing him instantly.
Three days later, on April 22, 1918, the manufacturers of the Jeep Cherokee, Fiat Chrysler, issued a formal recall on all 2014-2015 Grand Cherokees, 2012-2014 Dodge Chargers, and 2012-2014 Chrysler 300’s because the electronic gear systems needed to have a part added to them for safety reasons.
Wrongful Death Suit and Class Action Lawsuits Filed
Is there a moral dilemma for self-driving cars? As the time nears when autonomous cars may make a full entry into the marketplace, ethical questions regarding their programming may impact both public safety and the actual adoption by the public of autonomous cars. In 2015, 4.5 million people were seriously injured and almost 40,000 people were killed in traffic accidents. A large number of the accidents that occur every year are due to human error. The thought about autonomous cars is that removing the potential for human error will drastically cut down the injury and fatality rates by preventing accidents. A recent study shows a moral dilemma that exists when autonomous cars would be forced to make decisions about protecting the safety of their occupants or instead those of pedestrians.
A recent jury verdict in Santa Cruz County shows how bicycle accidents may involve more than one vehicle, and if the second driver fails to take action to avoid hitting the cyclist, the second driver may be held to be civilly liable and ordered to pay damage for his or her percentage of fault.
As a defective car seatback injury lawyer in California, I have seen, first-hand, how this serious 
A recent case in California demonstrates how the extent and cause of a plaintiff’s injuries may be disputed even when liability itself is not in dispute. In the case, Plent v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court / 
A long-term battle for justice for two 20-year-old women who lost their lives in a tragic accident has just ended in a huge way. Legislatures have just passed a law that governs how rental companies rent out their vehicles. The new law requires auto rental corporations to fix vehicles that are on their lots with recall orders on them. The legislation was passed because of the extremely catastrophic death of two sisters, Raechel and Jacqueline Houck. They lost their lives in 2004 in a crash that sent their mother on a mission to change laws.
The case of Kayleigh McCall v. Coast Line Distributing, Inc. and Paul Anthony Ceja in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court case no. 14CV0535 has taken the nation by storm. The original case was filed back on October 16, 2014 by 27 year-old Kayleigh McCall. Honorable Barry T. LaBarbera presided over the court proceedings in this auto v. auto accident. It wasn’t until March 10, 2016 that a jury verdict was actually reached in the case.
Speeding is one of the most common causes of motor vehicle accidents
A California woman was awarded more than $2.8 million by a jury as compensation for past and future damages for injuries she suffered in a car accident. The verdict appears to rely on a legal doctrine known as the “eggshell plaintiff rule.” Although generations of budding attorneys have learned about the rule in law school, its significance in personal injury cases is oftentimes lost to anyone who has not been subjected to a professor’s lecture about it in a first-year torts class. It is still a useful and practical argument for party’s who have pre-existing medical conditions who suffer emotional or physical harm due to negligence. Such was the case here.