California Accident Attorneys Blog

Published on: April 8, 2015

Sacramento Injury Verdict Demonstrates “Eggshell Plaintiff Rule”

According to Juryverdictalert.com , a jury in Sacramento California rendered a verdict of approximately $360,000 in a case of “disputed injury”in the matter of “Doe v. Landis” Case No. 34-2012000133121. (See jury verdict summary here ). The summary of this case and the things I find interesting about the claim are as follows:

Facts of the Case: Plaintiff was rear ended while sitting at a stop light. She claimed immediate neck pain at the scene of the accident. She underwent several months of physical therapy and, when this did not fully resolve her pain, she underwent trigger point injections. At the time of trial, she still claimed to have residual pain. The plaintiff had a history of fibromyalgia and chronic pain and headaches prior to the car crash.

Rules of Law that Can Be Drawn from This Verdict: Cases where a party is injured due to negligence or wrongdoing but, had a pre-existing medical condition prior to the incident are not uncommon. California law basically states that the defendant is not liable for prior medical problems, but, to the extent that these problems were exacerbated by the incident complained of, the defendant is still liable. Furthermore, if any prior medical condition caused the plaintiff to be more susceptible to injury, it is immaterial to liability. Specifically, these rules are stated as follows:

Published on: March 25, 2015

Los Angeles Pedestrian Accidents on the Rise

by Steven M. Sweat

Many pedestrian accidents occur every year in Los Angeles, and their numbers are increasing. The organization “Los Angeles Walks” studied this issue carefully and developed a map that lists the busiest intersections where many of the collisions between pedestrians and motor vehicles occur. Their purpose is to make walking in this city safer for everyone.

According to the organization, 49 pedestrians were hit and killed by motor vehicles in the popular Hollywood and Highland intersection. However, this was not the worst. A total of 51 such collisions occurred at 7th Street and Spring Street in downtown LA. This means that there were exactly 100 pedestrian deaths in just these two intersections, and Jessica Meaney of the organization mentioned above thinks that this “not acceptable.” She hopes that the city’s leaders will take the map to heart and do something to reduce the number of pedestrian injuries and deaths. This expectation is a tall order because 19,000 pedestrians were hit by motor vehicles between 2003 and 2009, and many of these people lost their lives.

Santa Monica Boulevard and Vermont Avenue is another example of a dangerous intersection where an average 40 pedestrians are hit by motor vehicles each year. Local resident Kelly Smith is well aware of the danger because she spends a lot of her time walking and jogging in the area. She complained that cars come very close to hitting her on a regular basis because motorists often drive carelessly and are not paying as much attention as they could to what is going on around them.

Published on: March 16, 2015

Record Personal Injury Jury Verdict in Sonoma County CA

by Steven M. Sweat

In what is believed to be a new record high jury verdict for a personal injury claim in Sonoma County, CA, a woman was awarded $13.4 Million related to a crash that happened approximately 4 years ago. (See article here). The plaintiff alleged that a vehicle driven by her father wrecked and caused her major spinal trauma which required fusion surgery of four vertebrae and permanent placement of a metal rod to stabilize her spinal column. The plaintiff alleged that she is still in constant pain and cannot sit for longer than 20 minutes at a time without feeling a high level of discomfort. The jury award consisted of $6.4 Million to pay for past, present and future medical expenses and related out of pocket costs associated with future care and $7 Million to compensate for physical pain and emotional distress caused by the accident and the lingering medical issues.

Things I find interesting about this verdict as a California Personal Injury Attorney:

From the description of a horrific traffic collision and a spine injury causing permanent and lifelong pain, I am glad that the jury was able to see in their hearts to award a high amount. More rural areas of California like Sonoma County, tend to have more conservative jury pools and this can lead to lower awards for plaintiffs. I am glad this particular jury was able to understand the effect this event had on the plaintiff and what impact it will have for the rest of her life. What is more remarkable to me is that the award was made in a lawsuit by a daughter against her father. Why is this? We all know that, under California law, all drivers and registered owners of vehicles must carry automobile liability insurance. What the jury was not able to know because of the CA rules of evidence is whether or not the father had any such coverage. In fact, they were instructed on this issue as follows:

Published on: March 11, 2015

California May Require Adults to Wear Bike Helmets

by Steven M. Sweat

The first U.S. state to require bike helmets for adult riders could be California. The bill that Senator Carol Liu introduced would impose a $25 fine on adults who ride their bicycles without helmets.

Statistics on Bike Helmet Laws and Serious Injury to CyclistsCollisions caused many fatalities on U.S. roads, and two percent of these were to bicycle riders. In these instances, head trauma was the most common serious injury. With this being the case, a helmet law may reduce the severity of head injuries that many bicyclists suffer in accidents. In a study, researchers discovered that helmets reduce the risk of head trauma by as much as 85 percent.

The District of Columbia and 21 U.S. states have laws requiring that bicyclists wear helmets. The difference between these laws and the proposed California law is the fact that they only apply to children, and it appears as if they make a difference. Since 1975, bicycle rider fatalities under the age of 20 decreased by 86 percent. In contrast, deaths of bicycle riders 20 years old and above increased by 195 percent during the same period of time.

Published on: March 3, 2015

Will Crash Prevention Technology Prevent An Auto Accident?

by Steven M. Sweat

Vehicle safety has come a long way during the past 50 years. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration both conduct several safety tests for new vehicles every year. Their tests determine ratings, and safety ratings are a key role in many families’ buying decisions. However, these features are not enough to provide a 100 percent safety guarantee on the road.

Latest Crash Prevention Technologies

Auto manufacturers add very useful features to modern vehicles. Since the IIHS and NHTSA are continually tightening their safety requirements, newer vehicles must continually improve to keep up with them and earn the highest ratings. These are some of the latest safety features.

Published on: March 2, 2015

San Bernardino County Dangerous Roadway Verdict

by Steven M. Sweat

Interested jury verdict reported today regarding a San Bernardino County auto accident . The claim was brought on behalf of two persons injured driving along a county road in the desert near Barstow in the case of Branson et. al, v. County of San Bernardino and County of San Bernardino v. James Schult (Case No: CIVBS1200331) My summary and analysis as a San Bernardino traffic collision lawyer is as follows:

Facts of the Case: This case arose out of a single vehicle accident which occurred on a dirt road near Barstow. The driver, James Schult, was traveling down the towards a bridge over the Mojave river. Unbeknownst to him, the bridge had been washed out by a flood and there were no warning signs or other indication not to proceed and no berms or barriers that kept cars from traveling towards the washed out bridge. He crashed his truck in the ravine and both he and his passenger, Loren Branson, suffered serious bodily injury as a result.

Plaintiffs contended that the washed out bridge with no warning constituted a “dangerous condition of public property” for which the County of San Bernardino knew or should have known. The County contended that the condition was not “dangerous” and/or that they had taken sufficient measures to ensure the safety of travelers on the road.

Published on: February 27, 2015

California Appellate Decision on Nursing Home Abuse Claims

by Steven M. Sweat

In a recent California Court of Appeal decision, Lemaire v. Covenant Care California, LLC, the court struck down a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in a blow to patient’s rights. My insight in this decision is as follows:

Facts of the Case:

Patient, Laura Clausen, suffered a stroke and was admitted to a skilled nursing facility in California run by Coventant Care. While in their care, she later died. Her daughter brought an action against the nursing home alleging chronic understaffing causing substandard medical care. She further alleged in the lawsuit that the nursing facility was in violation of California Health and Safety Code 1430(b) in failing to maintain clear and legible notes in the patient history records including notes of “how the patient responds, eats, drinks, looks feels and reacts.” Plaintiff was awarded $270,000 as statutory damages under 1430(b)) and $841,842 in attorney fees along with $26,327.45 in costs. Covenant Care California, LLC appealed this award.

Published on: January 26, 2015

Kern County CA $1 Million Wrongful Death Jury Verdict: Auto v. Tractor Trailer

by Steven M. Sweat

The Los Angeles Daily Journal this week reported a $1 Million jury verdict out of Kern County CA involving an traffic collision between tractor trailer and a passenger automobile (Cardenas v. Hettinga Transportation, Inc.; Freddy Garcia and California Department of Transportation, Case No. S-1500-CV-279). My analysis of the verdict, pre-trial settlement discussions, and post trial motions is as follows:

Facts of The Case: The plaintiff was the mother of the decedent, who died instantly when her vehicle broad sided a semi truck. The plaintiff contended that the truck driver negligently operated his vehicle by running a stop sign. The truck driver and trucking company Defendant appeared to concede liability but, disputed the amount of claimed damages. The plaintiff also asserted a claim against CALTRANS for an alleged dangerous condition of public property. The claim against the State of California was resolved for a nominal sum ($10,000) and the case proceeded to a jury trial against the trucker and his freight carrier employer.

Damages and Settlement Discussions: In California wrongful death civil actions , the plaintiff may claim both out of pocket losses such as lost income the decedent was contributing to the family for financial support, funeral and burial expenses, and other similar losses. In this case, it would appear (although not stated in the reported verdict) that plaintiff either did not have such damages or waived them off and simply claimed “general damages” in the lawsuit. So-called “general” or “non-economic” damages in civil claims where someone is killed are awarded based upon California Civil Jury Instruction 3921, which states that a jury must come up with a dollar figure value for the loss of, “love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support.” The second half of this jury instruction states that, in determining this value, the jury is specifically not to consider the plaintiff’s “grief, sorrow, or mental anguish, the decedent’s pain and suffering, or the poverty or wealth of the plaintiff.”

Published on: January 20, 2015

Things We Can Learn from $4 Million California Bicycle Accident Verdict

by Steven M. Sweat

As reported by the various local news stations, a jury in San Francisco California last week awarded the family of a bicyclist killed by a commercial truck a verdict of $4 Million. While this may seem like a lot to many, I’m sure it is a paltry sum for the loss of a daughter to the two plaintiffs (the cyclists’ mother and father). The victim was Amelie Le Moullac, a 24 year old woman who was riding as her normal commute to work and was struck and killed when a large truck made an abrupt right hand turn in front of her on a busy intersection in downtown San Francisco. As a California bicycle rider’s attorney and advocate, I thought I would try to find some lessons out of this terrible tragedy that may be of use for persons like Amelie who use busy city streets in California for cycling. My thoughts are as follows:

Intersection Collisions Between Motor Vehicles and Bikes Are The Most Common Type of Accident Scenario: In urban areas like S.F., Los Angeles, San Diego or other large cities in California or the U.S. as a whole, more bicycle accidents occur in and around busy intersections than just about anywhere else. This makes is extremely important to be extra cautious and “defensive” as a cyclist approaching or traveling through an intersection of any type but, especially one where there is a high volume of vehicular traffic. The scenario in this particular case is all too common. A cyclist is traveling straight along the ride hand edge of the roadway as proscribed and allowed by the California Vehicle Code, a larger vehicle fails to observe the cyclist and makes an abrupt right hand turn and a collision occurs. At a minimum, this results in a broadside collision and can result in the biker being dragged underneath the vehicle and crushed. There are several Cal. Vehicle Code (“CVC”) sections that come into play here including the following: (1) CVC 21200 and following, defines a bicycle as a ‘vehicle’ with the rights to use the roadway like any other; (2) CVC 22107, provides a duty on the part of a driver attempting to turn right to make sure that traffic traveling in the same direction of travel is a safe enough distance away to make the turn without coming into contact with any other vehicles.
Inability/Unwillingness of Criminal Justice System to Deal With Bicycle Crashes: In this case, like many others, the local District Attorney’s office and police were reluctant to charge the driver with any type of criminal offense including but, not limited to reckless driving or vehicular manslaughter. They initially stated there was not enough “evidence” against the driver. The attorney for the victim’s family had to obtain footage from a local surveillance camera to show that the truck never even slowed down and never appeared to look in its side view mirrors prior to turning in front of the cyclist. This was impactful evidence that was very effective in the civil trial for wrongful death and could have certainly been used in a criminal prosecution of the driver.

Published on: January 7, 2015

Will giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants increase the uninsured motorists in California?

by Steven M. Sweat

California has one of the highest populations of illegal immigrants residing in the state of any state in the Union. In fact, it is estimated that the number of illegal aliens in California is somewhere between 2.5 and 3 Million (Reference: Los Angeles Almanac, 2011). After decades of debating the issue, the California legislature has decided that it would be better to allow these persons to obtain a driver’s permit and be legally sanctioned to operate a motor vehicle on the roadways of the Golden State than to continue to have unlicensed persons driving cars on our roadways. (See Los Angeles Times Article: “Historic Day as Immigrants in U.S Illegally Begin Getting Driver’s Licenses”). The question becomes: Will this increase the number of uninsured motorists on our California freeways and roads? Like any other driver, illegal immigrants are required to show proof of insurance as a pre-requisite to obtaining a driver’s license. However, like many other drivers in California, some choose to buy auto insurance prior to applying for a license and then let the policies lapse later. Whether this measure to allow licenses will increase the number of insured drivers or, by contrast, the number of persons who choose to operate without insurance or the number of people who choose low cost, low limits coverage is debatable. Presently the minimum liability protection one must purchase to be “legal” in CA is $15,000 per person and $30,000 per occurrence for bodily injury! This is hardly ever enough to cover the present and future medical expenses much less compensate for physical pain and mental anguish caused by any significant traffic collision.

What is the best way to protect yourself against uninsured motorists in California?

The answer to this question is simple: Make sure that your own auto insurance policy has uninsured motorist coverage! As I have blogged about numerous times, California actually requires each and every auto insurance policy sold in the state to contain both uninsured and underinsured motorist protection. UN-insured motorist (UM) provisions pay for personal injury (including medical expenses and pain and suffering) in the event you are involved in a collision with a driver operating completely without insurance. UNDER-insured motorist (UIM) coverage applies when you are hit by a driver that has a low limits policy which is less than your own limits of coverage. (For example: If the at fault driver has the state minimum of $15,000 for bodily harm and $5,000 for property damage and your own carrier has limits of $100,000 for injury and full repair or replacement value, you would be able to exhaust the $15,000 plus $5,000 limits and then seek the excess ($85,000 for personal injury and additional for car damage) from your own insurance carrier). These coverages are mandatory in the Golden State BUT they can be waived at the time of the sale of the insurance policy. Such waiver must be in writing and contain very specific language as required by the California Insurance Code. In my opinion as an attorney that represents auto accident victims in CA, I think you should NEVER waive this coverage! In fact, you should review your policy or at least the “declarations of coverage” information that is sent to you each year to make sure you have UM and UIM protection. This was always essential and now that there will be thousands more motorists on the road with the potential to have limited or no coverage, it is even more crucial to have this auto insurance protection!