California Accident Attorneys Blog

Published on: December 11, 2014

Uber Wrongful Death Lawsuit Shows Flaws in Ride Share System

Uber Technologies, Inc. has fast become the largest of a new breed of transportation companies commonly known as “ride-sharing” nationwide and especially in large urban areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco. Unfortunately, it appears that the growth of the company is outpacing the planning for safety and consumer protection. One high profile incident in San Francisco involving an Uber driver who struck and killed a 6 year old girl has now spawned both criminal charges against the driver and a wrongful death lawsuit against Uber. (See discussion here: Insurance Journal).

How do ride sharing companies operate in California?

Ride sharing is a good concept in theory. People “volunteer” to use their own vehicles to pick up and drop off passengers based through an app that is installed on a smart phone. It tracks where drivers are in relationship to potential passengers and allows people to request a “ride” at a moments notice as an alternative to calling a taxi. As I have discussed in other posts (see here), the California Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) was one of the first public agencies to attempt to regulate these services and provide some basic requirements for operation. They enacted provisions which require Uber, Lyft, SideCar and others to conduct background checks on drivers, to train drivers on safety and to provide insurance above and beyond the limits of the auto accident policy for the vehicle or the driver.

Published on: November 13, 2014

Mercury Insurance Can’t Avoid Payment of CA Judgment Based Upon Claimed Exclusion

by Steven M. Sweat

Mercury Insurance is one of California’s largest auto insurance carriers. In a recent decision, Mercury Cas. Co. v. Chu, 229 Cal. App. 4th 1432, 178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 144 (2014) the Fourth District California Court of Appeal has upheld a $333,300 judgment despite protests by the insurance carrier that the claim was not covered.

Facts of The Case:

Mercury Casualty issued an insurance policy to Hung Chu insuring his automobile. Chu was driving with his roommate, Tu Pham, when Chu collided with another vehicle, injuring Pham. Pham filed a personal injury action against both Chu and the driver of the other vehicle. Mercury agreed to provide Chu with a defense to the lawsuit under a “reservation of rights” but, asserted that Pham’s injuries were not covered because Pham qualified as an “insured” under the policy due to the fact that he resided with Chu at the same address. The policy broadly defined an “insured” to include “residents,” defined as, “an individual who inhabited the same dwelling as the insured.” According to Mercury, the permitted exclusion authorizing auto liability insurance to exclude coverage for bodily injury claims brought by an insured applied and they should not have to pay the judgment against Chu by Pham.

Published on: November 3, 2014

Hotel Injury Claims in CA – Lawrence v. La Jolla Beach Club

by Steven M. Sweat

I saw an interesting appellate decision out of the California Fourth District Court of Appeal (Southern California) regarding tort liability of hotel operators. The case was Lawrence v. La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club, Inc. – decision rendered October 31, 2014 (Reference Daily Appellate Report @ 14737).

Facts of the Case: On October 5, 2008, Jeff and Nan Lawrence checked into the La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club Hotel with their three sons. This was a family vacation and a celebration of the sixth birthday of their two twin boys. Nan made a request to be placed on the first floor of the hotel but, at the time of check-in, was informed that there were no first floor rooms and was given a room on the second story of the building. Nan opened the window in their room to hear the ocean. The three boys were playing and eating grapes inside the room. Jeff was working on his computer and Nan was planning a schedule when they heard a scream from one of the children. They ran to the window to find that their son, Michael, had fallen out of the window and onto the concrete pavement below. Michael suffered major head and brain injuries.

It appeared that when the little boy fell against the window, the screen popped out and fell to the ground. The window sill was approximately 25 inches above the floor and about 4-6 inches deep. The plaintiff testified in a deposition that he had placed his foot on the window screen and leaned forward to look out of the window just before falling out.

Published on: October 30, 2014

Halloween Child Pedestrian Accidents in California

by Steven M. Sweat

Halloween child pedestrian accidents in California are still a major problem, as they are across the United States. We all love to see our kids dress up in costumes and be able to go from door to door trick or treating but, according the “Safe Kids USA” and the Centers for Disease Control, children are more than twice as likely to be struck by a car on Halloween than any other day of the year ! This is even more true in densely populated urban, residential neighborhoods like we have in Los Angeles, Orange County and other parts of Southern California.

What are the most common scenarios for minors being struck by cars on Halloween:

Most fatal child pedestrian accidents occur between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on October 31st with 6-7 p.m. being the peak hour for such incidents

Published on: October 10, 2014

Car Crash Resulting in Multiple Teen Deaths in Orange County CA

by Steven M. Sweat

A car crash resulting in multiple teen deaths in Orange County, CA was reported by the Los Angeles Times to involve the following all too common factors in traffic collisions involving younger persons as follows:

The auto accident happened at approximately 2:10 a.m. as the teens were returning from Knott’s Berry Farm.
There were five total occupants in the vehicle at the time of the crash (A driver and four passengers).

Published on: September 4, 2014

PG&E Fined $1.4 Billion for Deadly Gas Explosion

by Steven M. Sweat

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has issued a fine of $1.4 Billion against Pacific Gas & Electric, a California Utility Provider for the gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno California that killed 8 people including a mother and her 13 year old daughter. The explosion engulfed an entire suburban neighborhood in flames. The fine is believed to be the largest ever issued by the CPUC, the CA administrative agency charged with regulating commercial utility providers. It follows a prior order for PG&E to pay over $600 Million to repair and upgrade the gas pipelines. The decision is expected to be appealed.

The facts of this incident are particularly egregious in that the explosion was apparently caused by a faulty weld in a pipe which the utility company had previously reported as “smooth and unwelded.” After significant investigation, the CPUC and federal authorities determined that PG&E was derelict in their duties to maintain the pipes in a safe condition for delivery of natural gas and that they failed to shut off the gas for approximately 95 minutes after the initial blast.

The explosion has prompted numerous wrongful death lawsuits filed. The attorneys representing the victims have alleged and are conducting discovery into the prior lapses of safety procedures that led up to this tragic incident. One such lawsuit alleges that, ““PG&E had knowledge of this pipeline’s defective condition [citing over 411 prior citations for lapses in safety] but put profits ahead of public safety.” (See here).

Published on: August 21, 2014

How does California Law define Elder Abuse?

by Steven M. Sweat

According to the governmental statistics compiled and studies conducted by the California Department of Aging, the population of the Golden State over the age of 60 (considered “elderly”) and over the age of 85 has steadily increased and is expected to continue increasing over the next several decades. In fact, Cal. is expected to have a 112% increase in their older citizens between 1990 and 2020, according to statistical data. While medical advances and other factors have increased both life expectancy and quality of life for older Californians, the fact still remains that, at some point in time, most if not all elderly persons will need the assistance of either a home caregiver or to become a resident in a long term care nursing home or assisted living facility. While the vast majority of these health care providers provide quality and caring service, acts of negligence and even intentional abuse of the elder population can and still do happen with too much frequency. This is why the laws of the State of California have long provided for protection of the elderly through regulation and enforcement of strict guidelines for elder care workers and facilities and through civil remedies for monetary damages for the abuse of the elderly.

Definition of Elder Abuse Under CA law:

Elder abuse is defined as physical, emotional and/or financial abuse of any adult over the age of 65 under California Welfare and Institutions Code 15600 and following. Depending upon the type of abuse claimed, the elements include the following:

Published on: June 3, 2014

Dodger Stadium Negligent Security Trial Begins in Los Angeles

by Steven M. Sweat

The trial of Brian Stow vs. the Los Angeles Dodgers began last week in L.A. Almost three years ago, Mr. Stow was severely beaten in the parking lot after a game between the Dodgers and the Giants. Two assailants, Marvin Norwood and Louie Sanchez, have long since pleaded guilty to the beating and have been sentenced to prison for the attack, which left Mr. Stow with permanent brain damage. The civil suit alleges that the Dodgers organization, through their former owner, Frank McCourt, were negligent in the security operations of the stadium and should be held accountable, at least in part, for the personal injuries sustained by the beating victim. The plaintiff is seeking approximately $52 Million in damages under theories of civil liability for negligence, specifically, premises liability and negligent hiring/retention/training of security personnel.

What is the standard for holding a business responsible for criminal conduct on their property in CA?

In order for an injured person to hold a property owner responsible for their bodily harm, a plaintiff must prove the following four things:

Published on: May 23, 2014

Paul Walker Car Crash Prompts Lawsuit Against Porsche

by Steven M. Sweat

paul walker death, california speeding laws, california auto accidents, los angeles car wrecks

Paul Walker dies in fatal car wreck in Los Angeles County California.

The Paul Walker car crash near Los Angeles last year has prompted a lawsuit against Porsche of North America. The lawsuit alleges various causes of action including negligence and strict products liability. (For full copy of complaint via PDF, click here). The legal action is brought by one of the survivors of Paul Rodas (the driver at the wheel at the time of the crash who was a professional race car driver). The suit also alleges false advertising claims and related violations of the California Business and Professions Code.

What does a plaintiff have to prove in an alleged product design defect claim in California?

Published on: May 6, 2014

Can A Delivery Truck Driver Be Liable for Negligent Parking

by Steven M. Sweat

Can a delivery truck driver be liable for negligent parking under the laws of the State of California? This was the question presented recently to the California Supreme Court in the matter of Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Company 179, Cal.App.4th 1.

Facts of the Case: A semi truck operator employed by Ralph’s Grocery Company pulled off the freeway in San Bernardino California to eat his lunch. He parked his vehicle in a dirt area alongside the interstate highway. He testified that he routinely parked in that spot to eat his lunch. At the request of the California Highway Patrol, CalTrans had previously placed an “Emergency Parking Only” sign near the area as it had become a spot where truckers were pulling off and stopping for non-emergency reasons. Plaintiff was traveling at a high rate of speed and inexplicably lost control of his vehicle and slammed into the rear of the tractor trailer and was instantly killed. There was no indication that the driver was intoxicated prior to the crash and the best speculation was that he may have fallen asleep at the wheel or had some medical condition that caused him to swerve off the road and collide with the semi truck.

Result of the Jury Trial: The jury found that the plaintiff was 90 percent at fault for the accident but, found that the Ralph’s truck driver and (vicariously) Ralph’s Grocer Company was 10 percent at fault for parking the truck in an emergency stopping area without exigent circumstances warranting such a stop. The defendant, Ralph’s, brought a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (so-called “JNOV”). The trial judge granted the motion and nullified the jury verdict for wrongful death in favor of plaintiff’s surviving heirs.