Articles Posted in Wrongful Death

Drivers at fault in an accident in the state of California may derive slight relief from the knowledge that juries award damages based on comparative negligence. Therefore, if a jury assigns liability to both the driver and the city where the accident happened for Dangerous Condition of Public Property, the city will share the liability with the at fault driver. The jury may even decide that the plaintiff was partially at fault for the accident and consequently limit the liability for the defendant. However, drivers who operate a vehicle under the influence cannot expect that the bar that served them that extra drink will be found liable for injuries they might cause as a result.

In the opinion written for Ruiz v. Safeway (2012), Cal.App.4th, the Court expounded on the history of civil liability for businesses that serve alcohol to customers who turn around and drive intoxicated. In the 1970’s, California courts started to question whether consumers were solely responsible for injuries caused by driving under the influence. A series of decisions came down that said that those who served excessive liquor to customers could foresee that intoxicated patrons would be likely to make bad decisions, which could lead to injuries and death. The courts allowed several negligence claims against purveyors of alcohol. However, the legislature did not like the implications of these decisions and, in 1978, it adopted Business and Professions Code 25602. Business and Professions Code 25602 states that no one who sells or gives an alcoholic beverage to an obviously intoxicated person “shall be civilly liable to any injured person or the estate of such person for injuries inflicted on that person as a result of intoxication by the consumer of such alcoholic beverage.” Although the supplier of alcohol cannot be held civilly liable, the statute provides that any such supplier may be found guilty of a misdemeanor.

Drunk drivers are responsible for their behavior in this state. According to statistics from the California Department of Motor Vehicles, in 2010 195,879 drivers were arrested for DUI in California and more than 26,000 were involved in injury and fatal accidents when driving under the influence. Those drivers are subject to criminal and civil penalties within the justice system, which takes a harsh stance against people who take theirs and others’ lives into their reckless hands. Injury victims must also take Business and Professions Code 25602 into consideration because, often, the drunk driver does not have the means to pay a judgment against him or her for the damage caused. The legislature’s decision to indemnify so-called dram shops protects business, but cuts off an avenue for injury victims to be compensated for their losses, pain, and suffering.

The exception that makes the rule lies in Business and Professions Code 25602.1. The statute makes any person who sells, causes to be sold, or gives alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor liable for civil claims. The courts have been cautious to allow claims under this statute. For example, in the cases Salem v. Superior Court (1989), Cal.App.3d and Ruiz v. Safeway (2012), Cal.App.4th the courts threw out claims against businesses that sold alcohol consumed by a minor who subsequently drank and drove. In Ruiz v. Safeway, Morse, an intoxicated minor accompanied his passenger into Safeway where the clerk sold his passenger beer. Morse drank the beer and then killed another driver on the road. The court said it was not foreseeable that Morse would be drinking the alcohol sold to his passenger.

In Salem v. Superior Court, the court found that the corporation that owned the 7-11 franchise could not be held responsible if a franchisee sold alcohol to an intoxicated minor because it did not have any agency in the decision. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the minor must be obviously intoxicated at the time of the sale for such a suit to have standing in the first place. Under the law, minors often have some flexibility when it comes to liability, but the law does not look kindly those that drink and drive, minors or otherwise. Don’t live with the guilt, don’t live with the criminal and civil penalties, don’t drink and drive.
Continue Reading ›

Injuries and even deaths stemming from car accidents are all too common. As an experienced Oakland car accident law firm, our team knows that most accidents are the result of a negligent driver making poor decisions behind the wheel. We strongly believe in helping those injured due to another person’s negligence recover needed compensation. We also believe in the message such lawsuits send, reminding drivers that safety should always be a top priority. However, we also know that most drivers who are responsible for accidents causing injury or death never intended to cause harm.

A case currently pending in Alameda County Superior Court and covered by Oakland Tribune may be an exception to this rule. The events occurred on the night of Saturday June 16, during a street party in East Oakland near the intersection of 61st Avenue and Eastlawn Street. Sifting through a complex story, police have concluded that nineteen year old Deja Lewis was angry, possibly distraught, over events that took place earlier in the night, when she got in her car and proceeded to deliberately hit and kill an Oakland resident. Thirty-three year old Luis Velasco was declared dead at the scene.

In a statement to a police officer, Lewis reported that an unknown man physically assaulted her earlier in the evening. Lewis said that, following the assault, she drove about two blocks to her home where she reported the event to her sister and some friends. The group returned to the scene, where they got out of the vehicle and confronted a group of men gathered near a street party. According to Officer Leonel Sanchez, Velasco was among the group of men but he was not acting in a confrontational or threatening manner. It is unclear if he had been at the party during the claimed assault or if he had arrived in the interval between Lewis leaving the area and returning with her sister and friends.

Working with family members in the aftermath of tragedy, our Sacramento wrongful death law firm knows the emotional turmoil that follows an unexpected and untimely loss. While we can help families recover damages in civil court, money that can be essential to paying final expenses and other financial repercussions, we know that nothing can bring back a lost loved one. However, organ donation can allow families to turn their loss into hope for others.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that there are currently 114,729 people who are waiting for a donated organ. A patient is added to this list approximately every ten minutes. The shortage of donated organs means that an average of 18 people will die every day waiting for an organ to become available. While these statistics are upsetting, there are other numbers that carry much more hope. Every day, on average, 79 people receive a much-needed organ transplant. A single donor can save up to 8 lives.

Some organs can be provided by living donors including a kidney, a portion of a liver (which can regenerate to allow both donor and recipient to have a full-sized organ), and all or a portion of a lung. Living donors must go through both mental and physical examinations to ensure suitability. Most donations, occur after death. Those who want to donate should enroll in a donor registry, a process that is often as easy as checking a box when obtaining or renewing a driver’s license. It is important to also let your family know about your wishes. Since a match is more likely when the donor and recipient have similar ethnic backgrounds, it is vital that a diverse population register as donors.