Articles Posted in Uncategorized

A great game, recreation and good company are usually among the highlights one looks for when attending a sporting event at a stadium. Certainly injury or even death is not something one would expect to happen in such a venue but, as we were reminded by a fan’s fatal fall at a San Francisco 49ers game Sunday, these unfortunate tragedies do occur. And an injury or loss of life suffered by someone attending a sporting event always triggers the question of exactly who is liable for the victim’s misfortune.

Ill-Fated 49ers Fan Was Traversing Pedestrian Walkway
As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, a 32-year-old man identified as Kevin Hayes of Hayward was walking with his brother outside Candlestick Park before the kickoff Sunday between the 49ers and the Green Bay Packers when he fell from a pedestrian walkway and died from his injuries suffered in the fall. Witnesses said that Hayes appeared to be intoxicated when he fell from the Jamestown Avenue overpass. A toxicology report is pending from the medical examiner’s office.

Sad to say, the death at the 49ers season opener was far from the only fatality that has occurred in recent years at sporting events in the United States. Indeed, according to the Institute for the Study of Sports Incidents, the fatality at Candlestick was one of more than two dozen cases of fans falling at stadiums in this country during the last 10 years. Only last month, a man fell to his death from the upper level of Atlanta’s Turner Field while watching the Atlanta Braves play the Philadelphia Phillies. And one of the more high-profile such incidents occurred in July 2011 when a 39-year-old firefighter fell to his death while attempting to catch a ball that star outfielder Josh Hamilton tossed to him at a Texas Rangers game in Arlington, Texas. In that tragedy, the victim’s 6-year-old son witnessed his father’s demise.

Reasonable Care Required for Safety of Visitors to Sports Events
In all cases involving the injury or death of someone attending a sporting event, the central legal issue raised that is important in determining who is responsible is one called premises liability. The legal theory starts with the premise that when someone enters your property they have a reasonable expectation of not suffering an injury or death. Thus, the property owner has premises liability and is responsible for maintaining a relatively safe environment. Fans attending sporting events are included among the invitees, guests and licensees who are present at a stadium at the consent of the owner and should expect the stadium owner to exercise reasonable care for the safety of such visitors. The determination of whether a stadium owner or other property owner has met the required standard of reasonableness toward fans or other invitees revolves around four main factors: 1) the circumstances under which the visitor entered the property; 2) the foreseeability of the incident that occurred; 3) the purpose or use to which the property is put and; 4) the reasonableness of the property owner/possessor’s attempt to repair a dangerous condition or to adequately warn those who visit the property.
Continue Reading ›

This post is part of a new series that we’ll be sharing occasionally. Instead of focusing on a subject specifically tied to personal injury law, this series will deal with more general legal topics including legal process and courtroom rules. We believe these posts will help people understand the legal system and leave readers better prepared for being involved in a civil lawsuit in California, including working with our San Francisco and Sacramento personal injury law firm and our Northern California small business attorney. In this post, we focus on the hearsay rule and what it means for the admissibility of statements made outside of court.

Hearsay Defined

Many people have a passing familiarity with the term “hearsay,” perhaps from legal television shows. Hearsay is an evidence rule, contained in both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the California Evidence Code (Sec. 1200). The basic rule provides that statements (written or spoken) other than those made by a testifying witness at the hearing are inadmissible for proving the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. The basic concerns are that these statements were not made under oath, the judge/jury cannot observe the speaker (aka the “declarant”) for signs of honesty, and the opposing side was not able to cross-examine the declarant. As such, hearsay is thought to be unreliable.

As stated many times on this blog before, it is the Brod Law Firm’s firm belief that the rules of the road must be followed by all users, whether motorist, pedestrian, or cyclist. All too often, especially in the Bay Area where residents enjoy various means of transportation, we have seen individuals failing to follow simple safety rules, leading to injuries both minor and more serious, as well as fatalities. We again, saw this a month ago in San Francisco in an unfortunate collision between a bicyclist and a garbage truck.

Fatality on 16th Street and South Van Ness

Twenty-one year old Dylan Mitchell was riding along 16th street going east when the collision occurred. Mitchell, who was not wearing a helmet, was fatally struck by the garbage truck of Recology when it made a right turn to turn onto South Van Ness, leading to Mitchell colliding with the rear end of the truck. This all occurred at approximately 6:45 a.m. Police say the truck driver stopped and is cooperating with authorities and that additionally, drugs and alcohol do not appear to be a factor in the incident.

People often turn a bit of a blind eye to underage drinking, accepting it as a typical part of teenage life. This is unfortunate because, as we know all too well as an Oakland drunk driving injury law firm, underage drinking can have serious consequences. In this post, we wanted to focus on the reasons for the drinking age and applaud an initiative by one Bay Area community to enforce underage drinking laws.

History and Statistics Support the Minimum Drinking Age

Almost every teenager has asked the question at least once, and many parents and educators have struggled to provide an answer beyond “it’s the law” – Why 21, why not 18 (or 16, or no restriction)? Mothers Against Drunk Driving takes a look at the age restriction in a series of articles on their website. Perhaps surprisingly, historically most states set their drinking age at 21. There was a movement to change this in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when 29 states lowered their drinking age to mirror the newly-reduced voting and military enlistment ages. MADD’s research reveals that this was followed almost immediately by a significant increase in the number of drunk driving accidents and fatalities in those states and in border-regions, referred to as “blood borders” because of a high accident rate that developed as teens crossed state lines to drink and crashed on their return trips. These results led 16 of the 29 states to return to a minimum drinking age of 21 by 1983. Federal efforts followed and legislation enacted in 1984 led all states to sign on to the age 21 rule by 1988.

It may seem like a perfect option for seniors who can no longer live alone but do not require nursing home care. California currently has approximately 7,500 Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (“RCFE”), non-medical facilities that range from large assisted living centers to small, home-based locations. Families and seniors may prefer the homey feel of some RCFEs to more institutional options, but our Sacramento elder abuse law firm knows that elder abuse can lurk in even the friendliest looking settings.

Years of Complaints Culminate in the Death of a Senior at a Sacramento Care Facility

Earlier this month, the Sacramento Bee reported on a woman charged with felony-level involuntary manslaughter following the death of a woman in her care. Silvia Cata ran a small RCFE out of her home in the Gardenland neighborhood of Sacramento for over 17 years. In that time, Super Home Care was the subject of numerous complaints, citations, deficiency reports, and fines. Cata received at least 40 citations, including 26 Type A deficiencies, the most serious charges representing a direct and immediate threat to the health, safety, or personal rights of residents.

Along with people across the nation, the team at our San Francisco insurance law firm watched in disbelief as the news of a massive sinkhole in Florida hit the airwaves. When we think of sinkholes, the pictures that come to mind are often of roadways opening up, empty cars clinging to broken asphalt around a hole that looks remarkably like a Hollywood image of a meteor strike. However, the potential terror of sinkholes was made more vivid with the story of the ground suddenly opening beneath a home on an otherwise quiet weeknight and claiming the life of a Florida man. Upon hearing the story, our thoughts immediately went out to the victim and his family. As members of a legal team, we also know that the family may soon face a battle over insurance coverage for the tragedy.

Florida Man Dies in Residential Sinkhole Tragedy

Witnesses told CNN that a deafening noise broke the quiet Thursday night in the Tampa suburb of Seffner, Florida. Jeremy Bush said he heard his brother, Jeff, scream and ran to his bedroom. Jeremy found that the entire room had been swallowed by a massive hole and, without thought for his own safety, he jumped in to try and rescue Jeff. A sheriff’s deputy later pulled Jeremy from the rubble, uninjured but clearly in great distress as was captured by news cameras the next day. Four others also escaped uninjured.

It is not often that an elder care death captures headlines nationwide. Like many others, the team at our San Francisco nursing home law firm is shocked by the story out of Bakersfield, California. It is a story that demands attention and discussion. It also demands action, both at the individual level and in senior care facilities nationwide.

Woman Dies After Nurse Refuses to Perform CPR Despite Pleas of 911 Operator

The San Francisco Chronicle and the Associated Press, along with news outlets across the country, recently reported on the death of an 87 year old woman at a Bakersfield retirement facility. The woman, identified as Lorraine Bayless, was a resident of the independent living section of Glenwood Gardens, an area that is separate from the facility’s skilled and assisted nursing departments. Bayless collapsed around 11 A.M. on Tuesday February 26 and a staff member called 911. Despite the dispatcher’s insistence that the caller perform 911, the nurse refused. In doing so, the nurse told the dispatcher that performing CPR was against facility policy. According to 911 tapes, the dispatcher said, “I don’t understand why you’re not willing to help this patient.” An ambulance arrived at the facility several minutes later and transported Bayless to the hospital where she was pronounced dead.

At The Brod Firm, we are committed to advocating for the health and safety of Northern California nursing home residents. Our San Francisco nursing home lawyer believes that a vital component of nursing home safety is having care plans in place for all residents and being prepared to respond to the unexpected. This includes having plans in place in case of an area-wide emergency, an issue highlighted in a recent report on the failure of many care facilities to prepare for severe weather and related natural disasters.

A Case Study: Nursing Homes Struggle Following East Coast Storm

According to an Associated Press article carried by ABC news, Superstorm Sandy called attention to the failure of nursing homes nationwide to properly prepare for natural disasters. Despite efforts undertaken in the wake of Katrina and the general readiness atmosphere in place since 9/11, nursing homes and assisted living facilities in Sandy’s path struggled to evacuate some 6,300 residents when the storm caused flooding and widespread power outages. Problems included confusion about where to send residents and trouble keeping families informed about where patients have been sent. Some facilities became overwhelmed with more evacuees than they could care for, leading to some patients being moved multiple times. Medical records did not always move along with the patients.

The use of buses as a means of transportation up and down the state of California has been growing in popularity in recent months. Just a couple of months ago, Megabus, a bus and coach company that runs throughout Europe, the United States, and Canada offered a special holiday deal for trips between southern and northern California that started at $1 one way. Travelers flocked to purchase this deal, hoping the cheap deal would get them to their destination in a timely and safe manner. These types of bus deals and tour buses offer their clientele an alternative to costly plane tickets and for the most part, are used without incident.

Tragic Bus Accident on the State 38
Sunday night however, a tour bus group of approximately 38 Mexican passengers, including the bus driver and tour guide, was involved in a horrific accident on the California State Route 38. Interbus offers Mexicans near-daily bus tours to western U.S. from Tijuana. On Sunday, this particular group was heading back to Tijuana from a snow trip to Big Bear Lake when the bus rear-ended a Saturn sedan, flipped, and hit a Ford pickup truck. An individual involved in the investigation said the bus had been slowly making its way down the hill when it suddenly sped up for an unknown reason. Following its contact with the Saturn, the bus traveled about a mile until it finally came to a stop, ending sideways across both lanes with its windows blown out, front end crushed, and part of the roof peeled back.

There have been 8 reported fatalities with dozens more transported to hospitals with injuries ranging from minor to severe. 17 victims are still hospitalized. A California Highway Patrol Officer stated that the death toll was expected to rise. As the accident occurred just last night, an investigation is still ongoing to determine the cause of the accident, with fault most likely either lying with mechanical or driver error. Jordi Garcia, the marketing director of Interbus, stated that his company had rented the bus from Scapadas Magicas, which is based in National City, California, and that everything points to faulty brakes. The bus driver said that the vehicle had brake problems and further information shows that the bus had recorded 22 safety violations in about a year, including problems with its brakes, windshield, and tires. In fact, the company itself has failed more than 1/3 of federal vehicle safety inspections in the last 2 years. The national average stands at 21%.

In the days following this tragic accident, many questions of who is at fault will be asked. Victims and the public alike will want some party to be held accountable for the surely unavoidable accident. Until an official announcement is made about the results of the investigation, no cause can be said for sure. For now, signs point to the negligence of the bus company to maintain their buses to the safety standards set forth by federal law. Victims will likely file claims in order to receive compensation for the injuries and suffering sustained. Bus accidents are no small matter. Injuries sustained in accidents involving buses are often serious due to the size of the vehicles. If you or a loved one has been involved in a bus accident, contact our Bay Area bus/car accident injury firm today for a free consultation today.
Continue Reading ›

Residents of the Bay Area are sure to remember the Chevron oil refinery fire that occurred back in August of 2012. The diesel leak at California’s Richmond refinery led to a series of explosions and fires in the evening that caused thick black smoke to billow in the sky. Residents of the area were alerted to stay indoors to prevent breathing any potentially tainted air as winds carried smoke and pollutants throughout the neighborhoods east of the refinery and the Bay Area commute as a whole experienced major chaos.

Chevron Richmond Fire Lawsuit

Following the incident, approximately 15,000 residents made claims against Chevron after experiencing various symptoms including coughing, nausea, scratchy throats, and psychological trauma. Thousands more visited hospitals because of burning eyes and trouble breathing as the main ailments experienced and hoped to receive some sort of compensation for the effects of the fire on their health. Chevron established a claims line and stations in the community for those who sought compensation.