Articles Posted in Car and Auto Accidents

Our San Francisco car crash lawyer sees the victims of careless driving all too often. Driving is a serious responsibility but too many people take it too lightly and treat cars as toys rather than respecting the powerful and potentially dangerous force of a car.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on a San Francisco car accident that took place in the early morning hours on Sunday March 3, 2012. In the incident, an SUV jumped over the curb and landed in the San Francisco Bay. A thirty-eight year old man named Agatito Hernandez, was reportedly driving the vehicle and doing “donuts” immediately prior to the Fort Mason area accident. The driver and his three teenage passengers escaped without injury. Hernandez has been charged with multiple counts including reckless driving and child endangerment.

It is remarkable that no one was harmed in this accident. If you have had the poor luck to be involved in an accident with a reckless driver, it is important to know your rights. Medical care should always be the first priority but it is also important to document the accident with photos if possible. You should take care to notify your insurance company in a timely fashion. Your policy will likely require notification in a specified time period and failure to meet this requirement can result in the denial of an otherwise valid claim.

California car accidents seem to strike on a daily basis. Because of the frequency of the accidents local community members are prone brush off news of reach each accident that occurs. Unfortunately, our Bay Area car accident attorney understands that most residents don’t think all that much about roadside safety until they are affected themselves. It is one thing to read about a roadside accident, it is another to be involved in a crash yourself or have a friend or loved one involved.

With everyone’s lives moving at a steady clip these days, it is understandable for local residents not to dwell on these events. However, considering the implications and potential harm that result from traveling accidents, it is important to take time now and again to remember the basics of safe traveling. It is not an exaggeration to say that one’s life may hang in the balance. There are reminders every day of that reality.

For example, the Napa Patch reported last week on a fatal crash that struck on state Highway 12. According to the report, one person died and two others were hurt in the accident. The California Highway Patrol continues to investigate the situation and more information is expected to come out later. However, it is known that the accident occurred shortly before six in the evening last Wednesday on Highway 12 just east of Red Top Road. As many as four vehicles may have been involved. Officials have yet to release many details of the accident. But it is known that at least one person was pronounced dead at the scene and two other were rushed to local hospitals with serious injuries.

In 2000, Mayor Willie Brown, Jr. implemented the San Francisco Municipal and Transit Agency (SFMTA) Traffic Calming Program. The purpose of the program is to increase safety for drivers and pedestrians by reducing speeding, reckless driving and road rage, and traffic spillover from main roads onto residential streets.

Methods of traffic calming are numerous and address specific problems. Traffic calming projects that reduce speed include traffic circles, speed bumps, narrowing roads at certain points. Other projects focus on pedestrian safety, such as traffic islands in the middle of crosswalks and bulb outs on the street corner that increase visibility and reduce the physical distance between sidewalks.

The SFMTA takes certain factors into account when evaluating the feasibility and necessity of a project. These factors include requests for traffic calming, evidence of excessive speeding, traffic volume, and the relative prevalence of accidents. Other considerations include the proximity of a site to schools and tourist attractions, population density, and ensuring that traffic calming projects are spread equitably throughout the city.

Residents have responded positively to the efforts by the SFMTA, which is demonstrated by the backlog of projects on the SFMTA’s plate. Requests with the required number of signatures may take one to five years to reach the top of SFMTA’s list of sites to improve. Once a request is approved, there is than a public comment and planning process that may take another two to five years. The requests have become so numerous that SFMTA is no longer accepting requests while it goes through the current list of requests and prioritizes projects. The SFMTA lists 23 current projects in the implementation stage and another 15 that are named as future projects. Funding is the key component to completing these 38 city wide traffic calming projects already in the pipeline and for numerous projects languishing on the waiting list.

San Francisco has one of the highest vehicle pedestrian collision rates in the country. Seemingly endless requests for roadway improvements indicate the dangerous conditions at many intersections and high traffic areas. When an accident occurs, many injury victims sue the driver who caused the accident. However, there is another common defendant- the City and County where the accident occurred. Cities are responsible for maintaining public roadways, therefore, a city may be liable for the dangerous condition of public property if, for instance, the dangerous nature of a roadway, was a substantial factor in causing a serious injury accident.

However, a government entity is not the typical defendant. In general, an injured party has two years to bring a personal injury case. When a government entity is involved, injured parties must pay attention to two different statutes of limitations. In the case of dangerous condition of public property, they have six months from the time of the injury to make a claim that substantially complies with the requirements set forth in Government Code §910 directly to the government entity which controls the property in question. The claim must be denied before the potential plaintiff may file a civil action against the government entity. The plaintiff has one year from the date of the injury to file suit.

There are three main elements to the action of dangerous condition of public property set out in Government Code §835

• The property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury;
• That the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition;
• That the dangerous condition created a reasonably forseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred; and
• The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.

This is one of the toughest elements to prove.

Requests for traffic calming to the SFMTA could reasonably be considered constructive notice of the dangerous condition of roadways.The dangerous condition of some San Francisco roads not only causes disruption to residents, but also may substantially contribute to serious injury accidents. However, Government Code §830.8 states that “neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable under this chapter for an injury caused by the failure to provide, traffic or warning signals, signs, markings or devices” unless such a measure was necessary to warn of a dangerous condition which would not be reasonably anticipated by a person exercising due care. An attorney will be able to evaluate whether the controlling public entity could be liable.
Continue Reading ›

An impatient shuttle driver rushed a turn through a crosswalk and pinned a man for twenty minutes, according to ABC Local News. The accident, which occurred on February 15, 2012, was captured by surveillance video set up at Empire Market in the Tenderloin District and showed the pedestrian had the right of way.

The driver of the Paratransit shuttle stayed on the scene and was cooperative with police. Police officers determined that the incident was an unfortunate traffic incident and no charges will be brought against the driver, who was shuttling a van load of disabled passengers.

Injured parties, such as the victim of this accident who was trapped for twenty long minutes under the shuttle and suffered multiple broken bones, may feel that it is unfair if no charges are brought against the person who caused their injuries.

Persons injured in an accident should remember that the court system has two tracks: one for criminal actions and one for civil actions. Every criminal action is brought by the state or federal government on behalf of its residents. Convicted defendants are punished with jail time, fines, and other penalties in order to achieve justice and deter the convict and others from committing future crimes.

The District Attorney may not pursue a criminal action against someone who, for instance, causes personal injury or property damage for a variety of reasons. In this case, it is possible that the driver mitigated the situation because, although he made a mistake, he stayed at the scene and cooperated fully with the police investigation of the collision. Before bringing a criminal action, the District Attorney weighs the costs of a potential criminal suit with the necessity to serve justice and the public good.

Whether or not a defendant is convicted in criminal court, the victim does not receive any compensation for pain and suffering or the expenses brought on by the incident. The remedies provided in criminal and civil court serve different purposes. The criminal court provides a castigatory remedy against defendants which are found guilty. The civil courts provide a forum for victims themselves to protect their private rights and property. Individuals, entities, and the government alike may bring a civil suit against the defendant to seek a remedy, usually money damages.

The burden of proof required to find against a defendant is also different in criminal actions from civil actions. In criminal actions, because the defendant is often being deprived of their Constitutional right to liberty, the defendant must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in a civil action in order to make a viable claim against the defendant a plaintiff must only prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the defendant caused the plaintiff damage. In other words, the plaintiff must only tip the scales of justice in their favor to recover in a civil action. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is a key element in both civil and criminal actions. As soon as an incident occurs, the injured party should keep evidence in mind and immediately start to gather and preserve proof of any possible claims.

For example, if the pedestrian in this case were to gather proof for a civil action, he should immediately request the police report for the incident, the surveillance video which captured the accident, his medical records describing his injuries and the progress of his recovery, and records from any jobs showing past wages lost as a result of his injuries.

Injured parties should remember that just because a criminal action was not brought against the party which caused them damage does not mean that an injured party should not bring a civil action. Furthermore, even if a criminal action is brought against the other party, they will not receive any compensation unless they file and prevail in a civil action.
Continue Reading ›

As your San Francisco auto accident attorney, Gregory Brod knows the danger of drunk driving. Another group that is well aware of the perils of mixing alcohol and driving is the police department. Law enforcement personnel know the dangerous fallout from drunk driving and should also be operating as a model of proper, safe behavior for the community. This makes is especially upsetting when local law enforcement authorities are involved in San Francisco DUIs.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Saturday that three police officers have been arrested in the past month on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. The latest arrest involved Officer Michael Wars, the head of the Union City Police Officers Association and a twenty-two year veteran of the Union City police department. Ward, age forty-three was pulled over by California Highway Patrol just after midnight on February 8. He was driving in Pleasonton on Bernal Avenue and was operating a hand-held mobile phone when he was pulled over. The Highway Patrol officer determined that Ward had been drinking and arrested him on suspicion of a misdemeanor DUI charge.

Ward is the third police officer in the southern Alameda County area to be accused of driving while intoxicated in the month of February. The earlier arrests involved two Fremont police officers who were arrested in separate incidents on February 3rd and 11th. All three officers were off-duty at the time of their arrest. The CHP has not revealed the blood alcohol level in the cases. Parties involved in the cases note that officers err on the side of making a charge and arrest when dealing with a borderline DUI case involving law enforcement in order to prevent an appearance of leniency. Officers charged with DUIs face potential department sanctions, including the possibility of losing their job, in addition to the usual legal sanctions.

When we think of Northern California DUI accidents, we tend to think of alcohol. As your San Francisco personal injury law firm, the Brod Law Firm knows that other substances can also be dangerous when mixed with motor vehicles.

CNN reported last week on a study regarding marijuana and driving by a British Medical Journal. In the recent article, the journal reviewed nine prior auto accident studies involving nearly 50,000 participants. The authors, including Professor Mark Asbridge of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, concluded that the use of marijuana nearly doubled the risk of a vehicle collision. U.S. studies have found that marijuana is the most common illegal drug in vehicle crashes that result in driver fatality or injury to other individuals.

Alcohol is dangerous primarily because it limits reaction times, resulting in drivers who are unable to respond to ever-changing road conditions. In contrast, the primary danger of mixing marijuana and driving lies in the drug’ impact on spatial recognition. These limitations can lead a driver to follow too closely or to weave in and out of traffic lanes. Many users do not realize that their spatial ability is limited and may feel overly confident in their ability to drive after using marijuana. The impact also varies significantly from person to person based on differences in how cannabis is metabolized. In general, the active impact of marijuana lasts three to four hours.

As your Sacramento drunk driving accident law firm, we know that all too many preventable tragedies occur on our local roadways. We are here to represent those injured by drunk drivers in Sacramento, San Francisco, and all of Northern California. We also believe in prevention and know that education and law enforcement can help prevent fatalities and injuries.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on an alcohol-involved fatality this week near Sacramento. Forty-one year old Christopher Rigsby was driving the wrong way, travelling east in the westbound lanes of Highway 50 near Folsom Boulevard in Gold River when his Honda CR-V collided with a Pontiac Aztec. The impact of the collision caused the Pontiac to flip and killed three of the vehicle’s five occupants, including two who were thrown from the car. The Pontiac’s driver, Gustavo Sandoval-Gonzalez, age thirty-one of Sacramento was taken to UC David Medical Center due to chest pain and injuries to his hand and knee. The three deceased victims were a man and two women in their fifties whose names had not been released at the time of the Chronicle’s report. A fifth passenger in the Pontiac, fifty-nine year old Pedro Cornejo, suffered major internal injuries and was taken to Mercy San Juan Medical Center for care.

Rigsby was also taken to UC Davis Hospital after being freed from his vehicle by rescuers. Police officers reported that Rigsby was intoxicated at the time of the accident and was arrested on charges of felony drunken driving. This does not appear to be his first run-in with the law – records with the California Department of Motor Vehicles show Rigsby’s driver’s license had been suspended between 2001 and 2004 due to another drunk driving incident.

Most drivers instinctively improve their driving habits when passing police stations. Not so with one taxi driver, who cut off a bus while trying to make a right turn on Thursday, January 26. The Yellow Cab driver pulled the aggressive maneuver right outside the Bryant Street Police Department and the Hall of Justice, which houses the Traffic Division of the San Francisco Superior Court.

The SF Appeal reports that the taxi caused the bus to collide with it rear right bumper, sending it spinning into a fire hydrant. Luckily, none of the bus’s passengers was harmed and the fire hydrant remains intact. However, the taxi’s passenger was taken to the hospital with minor injuries.

Taxi drivers are culturally regarded as aggressive drivers. Thursday’s accident may not help improve that image. Studies by both University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and University of Sydney, Australia posit that a combination of factors may make individual taxi drivers more likely to drive aggressively. Two factors that affect taxicab driver safety are the relatively low income and low regard that drivers receive in exchange for their work. Drivers feel pressure to increase the number of fares they have in a day, thereby raising their income, but also increasing the threat of accidents. Taxi drivers in the UCLA study cited avoiding the loss of income brought on by an accident as the biggest negative incentive to aggressive driving, rather than the importance of customer satisfaction.

In addition to income pressures, taxi drivers also deal with long hours in consistently stressful situations. A taxi driver’s job is essentially to commit to an endless commute. A driver may stay behind the wheel for longer hours than expected in order to make extra fares. Long hours and missed breaks contribute to driver fatigue and increase the chance of an accident.

A University of California, Berkeley study set out recommendations to tweak the taxi medallion system used in San Francisco since 1978. The medallions limit the number of permitted taxi drivers in the city, increasing income as a whole for taxi drivers, therefore alleviating the pressure to engage in risky behaviors in order to increase the number of fares. San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency is also looking into possible schemes for increased access to health care for taxi drivers. After everything is said and done, the Berkeley study lukewarmly asserts that a San Francisco taxi ride is reasonably safe. Of course, individual driver personality is a substantial factor in driver behavior. Therefore, it is impossible to generalize about the safety of taking any particular cab.
Continue Reading ›

The Brod Law Firm, your San Francisco car accident law firm, knows that anger and driving can be as volatile a combination as alcohol and driving. In our personal injury practice, our team has seen the danger of putting emotions before safety and we represent San Francisco road rage victims harmed by drivers whose emotions overtook their sense of due care.

Road rage made headlines again this week. In the early morning hours of Wednesday, January 25, a minivan and a truck collided on Interstate 80 in Richmond. The minivan, a Ford Aerostar, was driven by Ronald Zerangue who was travelling west on I-80 in the vicinity of Carlson Boulevard. The van struck a GMC pickup truck travelling in the carpool lane before crashing into the center divider and flipping repeatedly. Zerangue, 63 of El Sobrante, died at the scene of the crash. The unidentified driver of the pickup and his passenger only suffered minor injuries.

Although the accident remains under investigation, The San Francisco Chronicle suggests road rage is being investigated as a cause. The California Highway Patrol believes that Zerangue may have been attempting to “brake check” the pickup truck at the time of the collision. Brake-checking is the practice of intentionally swerving in front of another vehicle and then stepping on the brake. The Chronicle reports that Zerangue had attempted to cross in front of the truck but clipped it instead, sparking the chain of events that led to the fatality.

As a San Francisco law firm for car accident victims, The Brod Law Firm knows firsthand that car crashes are often much more complicated than they seem. It may seem simple to assess fault and the temptation to stop the analysis at the driver may be especially strong in cases involving DUIs. However, it is important to dig deeper to examine the many factors that contribute to drunk driving accidents. This process is vital to preventing future accidents and to ensuring justice is served for the victims.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported this week on charges filed against two adults stemming from a fatal car accident involving an intoxicated teenage driver. The details are in dispute but it appears fifty-one year old Amelia Chin accompanied Margaret Qaqish, a seventeen year old friend of Chin’s daughter, to the Good N Rich Dairy Market where an alcohol purchase was made. The involved parties debate who made the purchase, but the alcohol appears to have been a factor in a car crash during the early morning hours on the following day. The driver, seventeen year old Sean Quintero, was intoxicated and reportedly debating music choices with his passengers when he failed to notice that the car in front of him had stopped. Quaqish, the teen involved in the store visit the prior day, was sitting in the middle rear seat when the car collided with the stopped vehicle. She was thrown forward and died at the hospital the following day.

In November, Quintero, the teenage driver, pled no contest to charges including misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter and felony drunken driving. His blood alcohol level was 0.15% at the time of the crash, nearly twice the limit for drivers under California law. His sentence will be handed down next month. This week, additional charges were filed relating to the accident. Chin, a resident of Alameda, has been arrested on suspicion that she furnished alcohol to the teens. Additionally, Abduhl Azeem Buksh, a co-owner of the Dairy Mart and the clerk involved in the alcohol sale, has been charged with selling alcohol to minors. As noted above, there remains a dispute regarding who made the alcohol purchase and there are likely other specific facts that need to be clarified to determine how these charges will play out in court.