Articles Posted in Car and Auto Accidents

The sparkle of elaborate display windows makes the San

Francisco Bay Area a popular destination for holiday shoppers. Downtown San Francisco, Walnut Creek, and malls everywhere see an influx of cars and pedestrian traffic eager to share in the deals and the holiday spirit. Urban cities like San Francisco see an increase in bicycle traffic every year as well. The crowds and the jostle of bags are part of the holiday fun, but they can also lead to claustrophobia and frustration as people unexpectedly duck in and out of the bustle and rush across streets and parking lots to get to their next destination.

San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon is calling for heightened awareness from residents and visitors to prevent tragic accidents. He has teamed up with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and Walk SF to promote safe conduct in order to prevent accidents during the busy holiday season.

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, attorney Gregory Brod and the Brod Law Firm team is grateful for the clients who trust us to guide them through the legal system and to help them through one of the hardest times in their lives. We appreciate you visiting the blog and reaching out to us when facing your own legal matters. We hope you all have a wonderful season and enjoy a lovely meal with loved ones this Thanksgiving.

As Northern California car accident attorneys, we are keenly aware that holiday gatherings often involve alcohol. We see the horrible consequences that arise when people make the decision to drive despite having had too much to drink. Statistics suggest that the largest number of alcohol-involved automobile accidents actually happen at Thanksgiving, rather than New Year’s Eve which many associate more directly with over-imbibing. Perhaps people make plans to avoid driving on New Year’s but neglect to take the same precaution on a day more associated with indulging on a big meal than alcohol. As a reminder, it is illegal in California to drive with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or above. For a 140lb adult, this is typically the equivalent of three alcoholic drinks over a two hour period, an amount easily imbibed at a holiday meal. It is important to recognize that even lesser amounts can result in dangerous impairment. California does allow for DUI convictions at lesser amounts and the danger of accidents rises with even a small amount of alcohol in the driver’s system.

We are attorneys for victims of drunk drivers in San Francisco. We are experienced and able to help victims recover for the financial loss and emotional trauma that follow an accident. We also believe that every DUI accident is preventable. We would welcome a world in which no innocent Californians faced the trauma of an alcohol-involved car accident. We can help victims, but avoiding the accidents from the start is always better than addressing them after the fact. Please take caution this season, both by making alternate transportation plans if you are drinking and by being alert on the roads for other drivers who may not have exercised the same care.

A California appeals court reaffirmed the state’s commitment to cracking down on distracted drivers in a ruling handed down on Monday. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, the court found that cell phone use by drivers is a violation of the law, even if the driver is stopped at a traffic signal.

In the case at issue, the court upheld a fine levied against Carl Nelson who was ticketed for cell phone use while driving in Richmond in late 2009. Nelson contested the ticket, saying that the incident occurred at a stop light and that the law only applied to a car in motion. The court disagreed, finding that the intent and language of the law against handheld phone usage does cover vehicles momentarily stopped on the road, sending a message that distracted driving is a serious concern. The court did not rule on additional scenarios raised by the defense, such as placing a phone call when stuck for a long period of time due to an accident.

Before many other regions, California recognized the dangers posed by cell phone use. The California Vehicle Code section prohibiting the use of handheld telephones by all drivers went into effect in July 2008. Additional legislation effective January 2009 expanded the prohibition to texting while driving, including both reading and composing texts. Motorists under the age of 18 are also prohibited from using hands-free communication devices while operating a motor vehicle. Drivers over 18 are permitted to use hands-free phones as long as both ears are not covered by an earpiece. These rules are detailed in the Wireless Communications Device and Wireless Telephone Laws FAQs assembled by the Department of Motor Vehicles

Our Sacramento car accident lawyer was please to read that a Sacramento jury spoke loudly against companies withholding safety information and applied California corporate negligence law when it imposed a $73 million penalty on Ford Motor Company on Thursday November 10, 2011. The verdict, reported in the Sacramento Bee is an example of the legal system operating to protect our citizens from corporations that may put their bottom lines over the public welfare.

The case against Ford arose out of a crash that killed two and injured two others. The victims were travelling in a van after performing as members of a church musical group. William Brownell, the driver of the van, and front-seat passenger Tony Mauro were killed when the van skidded and flipped three times as the vehicle entered Highway 9. Testimony indicated that the accident was the result of tread separation on the van’s Goodyear tires. Although Goodyear had informed Ford of the defect two years prior, Ford did not share this information with vehicle owners, perhaps because the company was still dealing with the financial fallout from a prior $2 billion tire recall.

The verdict, believed by reporters to be the largest of its kind, is in addition to specific awards to the families of the deceased and to two others injured in the crash. The jury used California comparative negligence law to find that 59% of the fault fell on Ford Motors and this calculation did impact the injury and wrongful death awards. The reported testimony suggests that the two individuals who died in the crash were not wearing their seatbelts. While at one time a finding that the victims shared some fault might have entirely eliminated the potential for recovery on injury and wrongful death claims, the law now weighs the different factors involved and determines the degree of fault for all involved parties. The negligence of a victim can result in a reduced award but it no longer eliminates it entirely.

However, the reduction does not apply to the $73 million in punitive damages. This type of penalty is allowed under California Civil Code Section 3294 in certain cases when the evidence shows malice, oppression, or fraud by the defendant and is intended to punish the defendant and make an example of their poor actions. This Sacramento car accident lawsuit verdict serves to warn companies that they cannot act with disregard for human lives and public safety. Clearly, the jury felt that Ford knowingly withheld the recall information from the public, likely in order to protect the company’s reputation and profits, and that this blatant disregard for public safety was a key factor in the crash at issue. The verdict punishes Ford for this decision and warns other companies that similar actions will not be tolerated by the state of California.
Continue Reading ›

Cell phones are all but unavoidable in the United States these days. People use their cell phones while walking down the street, in stores, and while driving. Talking on the phone while driving is the subject of much debate. Many safety experts insist that drivers using cell phones invite accidents. Others insist that talking on the phone while driving is no more dangerous than playing with the radio or talking to a passenger in the back of the car. Nevertheless, many states, including California, have strict laws regarding the use of cell phones by motor vehicle drivers. Still, as our San Francisco car accident attorney has experienced, the use of cell phones can be an integral part of a legal battle after a San Francisco car accident. An accident that occurred in Concord last night may an example of that conflict.

As the San Francisco Chronicle reported this morning, one driver was killed last night when a driver using a cell phone crashed into his car. The events began around 6pm Tuesday night when the Concord police saw a man in a white pickup truck conversing on a cell phone without a required hands-free device. The officer attempted to pull the driver over, but instead of stopping, the truck driver led the police officer on a chase. The chase ended when the truck hit a BMW on Solana Way, near Highway 242. The driver of the BMW died as a result of the collision. Police chased the pickup truck driver on foot and apprehended him. Officials have not released the name of either man.

Scenarios like this are ripe for lawsuits, because much neglect and reckless was involved. Not only was the driver of the pickup truck violating the law when used his phone without a hands-free device, but he likely violated several traffic laws during the police chase. While any criminal charges would have be filed by the Contra Costa County’s district attorney’s office, surviving family members can file a civil suit against the truck driver.

One frequently used legal tool in cases like this is wrongful death action. A wrongful death claim allows surviving family members to collect damages, or money, to compensate them for the death. For example, the family can try to recover financial support to make up for the salary the deceased would have earned. A successful suit can also cover funeral expenses and the value of household services the late family member would have performed. In some instances, family members can also recover for noneconomic damages, such as loss of companionship.

When family members face the death of a loved one, contacting a lawyer is typically not high on their list of priorities. But finding legal representation sooner rather than later can be important since wrongful death actions have a statute of limitations. With some exceptions, a suit must be filed before the second anniversary of the person’s death.
Continue Reading ›

Quite often, serious accidents are the final and tragic result of a long chain of events consisting of bad luck and small mistakes. When many factors contributed to the accident, determining the most important cause of the accident can be a daunting task for a San Francisco car accident attorney. In other cases, it can be obvious what caused the accident, but determining who is more responsible for the mishap can be a challenge. For example, in a recent San Francisco car accident, two drivers bear some responsibility for a collision that injured both drivers and six passengers.

Last night, as described in an article in the Mercury, there was a two car accident. At 12:39 am a minivan broadsided a car in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood, at the intersection of 10th and Howard streets. The sedan was stopped a red light when the speeding van ran a red light and struck the car. In addition to the driver, the sedan contained five passengers, while the van had two occupants. All eight individuals were taken to local hospitals for serious injuries. Everyone is expected to recover fully.

For the drivers, however, the event did not end with a trip to the hospital. When police arrived
on the scene, they arrested both drivers. Officials suspected that both had been driving while intoxicated. In addition, police arrested one of the van’s passengers for possession of cocaine. Officials are also investigating whether or not the van was involved in a hit-and-run accident earlier in the evening.

After accidents like this, injured parties are often reluctant to seek legal advice. Many people believe that if they contributed to the events that injured them, such as getting into car with a driver who had been drinking, the legal system will not help them. Depending on the facts of the specific situation, however, contributing to the accident is not always an absolute bar to legal recovery. Traditionally, under the theory of contributory negligence, defendants who had a role in causing an accident could not sue the plaintiff and recover.

But today, in most state, including California, contributory negligence is no longer the rule. Instead, comparative negligence governs lawsuits. Under the comparative negligence system, plaintiff who played a role in causing an accident can recover in a lawsuit, but their recovery is limited by the amount of their fault. So if a passenger was 15% at fault for getting into the car with an intoxicated driver and damages are determined to be $10,000, the plaintiff will only receive $8,500. So the plaintiff will not recover his or her full damages, but could still collect a significant amount of money.
Continue Reading ›

Our San Francisco car accident attorney knows that motor vehicle accidents come in all shapes and sizes. Perhaps the most typical accident involves two cars that collide into each other. But crashes involving just one car occur on a regular basis as well. Depending on what the car hits, the results can be extremely serious. When a car hits a pedestrian, especially a young child, the potential for heartbreak is even greater.

Fortunately, it appears that the child victim of a recent San Francisco pedestrian accident will recover. As was recently reported in the Mercury News, an eight year old boy was hospitalized after he was struck by a car in the Western Addition neighborhood of San Francisco. The accident took place at around 3:45 pm last Friday afternoon at the intersection of Laguna and Turk streets. The youngster was crossing the street when he was struck by a car. The driver stop to assist and the boy was taken to San Francisco General Hospital. His injuries are not considered life-threatening. Police are investigating the accident.

In incidents like this, depending on the results of the investigation, a lawsuit may not be warranted. But in the event that the analysis of the accident shows that the driver failed to take proper precautions, the victim and his family may decide to file a negligence suit. A negligence suit is a classic example of a civil suit. In a civil suit, the case is initiated by a private party. This is in contrast to a criminal suit, which is always initiated by the government.

In addition to having different initiators, civil and criminal suits have different punishments. A defendant in a criminal case can end up in jail but a defendant in a civil case is only required to pay monetary damages. But civil and criminal suits have many similarities. The violation of a law can be critical in both. For example, if a pedestrian is hit because a driver was speeding, the driver can be found criminally liable for breaking the law. Evidence of speeding can also be used in a civil case. Speeding can be per se evidence of negligence. In layperson’s terms, the fact that someone broke the law can be automatic evidence that they violated the duty of care, an essential element of all negligence suits.
Continue Reading ›

For most Americans, getting in a car is an everyday activity. Most individuals drive to work in the morning, home in the evening and use their car to run errands. Since driving is such a common place activity for most people, we often forgot how dangerous it traveling on our roadways can actually be. Consequently, many drivers are not as cautious as they should be. But as our San Francisco car accident attorney knows, deadly car accidents are a much too frequent occurrence, especially here in a dense urban area.

Brandon Solem, a 33 year old man and San Francisco resident, recently died after his car rear-ended another vehicle in the area around the University of San Francisco. As The Examiner reported, the accident occurred last Thursday, just past midnight at the intersection of Fulton and Stanyan streets. Mr. Solem was driving west on Fulton street when he hit another car that was stopped at a red light. The impact was enough to cause the other car to turn over. Both drivers were taken to San Francisco General Hospital. Mr. Solem’s injuries were severe, and he died several hours later. The other driver, a 27 year old woman, is expected to survive. Police are still investigating the cause of the accident and additional details are not yet available.

At first glance the situation seems clear enough; a car did not stop for a red light, causing an accident. But an investigation will explain the “how” and “why” of the accident, not just the “what.” Understanding all the circumstances surrounding this crash and other San Francisco car accidents is critical.. Details can often mean the difference between a successful lawsuit and an unsuccessful one. For example, if one party was driving drunk the legal repercussion are very different from a case where the party was unable to stop because of defective breaks. Knowing if any laws were broken is also significant.

Generally, in order to hold the opposing side liable for the consequences of the accident, legal negligence rules require that the plaintiff show the defendant had a duty and breached that duty. In some instances, however, a violation of a law, such as the failure to stop at a red light, can be prima facie evidence of negligence. In other words, evidence that a law was broken means that the plaintiff can satisfy the first hurdle in a lawsuit without going through each individual step. Rather than requiring the plaintiff to show all the elements of his or her case, a prima facie case allows the plaintiff to move forward automatically and puts the burden on the defendant to rebut the charges.
Continue Reading ›