San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

Sacramento Pedestrian Death Raises Questions of Fault in Complex Accidents

September 7, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

We hear many tragic and disturbing stories in our role as your Sacramento personal injury law firm. Each story calls to our hearts which leads to our dedication to injured victims. Still, some stories are particularly difficult to read such as The Sacramento Bee’s report on a recent accident in our region.

On Tuesday night, a West Sacramento police officer was en route to a vehicle pursuit in progress. The officer had his sirens and lights on as he sped down West Capitol Avenue. At the same time, thirty-one year old Brandon Louis Nickolas, a local transient, was walking nearby. Witnesses report that he appeared drunk as he staggered through the area, talking incoherently to himself. Nickolas was jaywalking when the officer’s car slammed into the man. The force of the crash was strong enough to send the pedestrian’s torso through the windshield of the police cruiser. Nickolas’s body was severed, his legs landing some distance away and his clothes ending up strewn across the roadway.

At the time of the crash, the officer was trying to join the pursuit of an unnamed seventeen year old. Allegedly, the suspect was driving a stolen vehicle and had refused to stop for police. Officers apprehended the teen and took him to Yolo County juvenile hall. According to the law, West Sacramento police booked the suspect on murder charges, in addition to the auto theft charges, because his actions led to the chain of events culminating in Nickolas’s death. The Chief Deputy District Attorney, Jonathan Raven, stated that he has not yet decided whether to proceed with the murder charge or whether the suspect should be charged as an adult.

Questions Arise Over San Francisco Carpooling Companies

September 6, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority (SFMTA) spokesperson, Paul Rose, acknowledged to the press that there is a dearth of taxi medallions being issued to cab drivers in San Francisco, according to the California Watch. While names of drivers languish on the waiting list, San Franciscans and visitors alike complain about the price and unavailability of taxis around the city. Standing on the corner of a busy intersection is no guarantee that an open cab will pass you by, but calling a cab company for pick up can be just as frustrating. The long wait times and lack of communication leave customers fed up, and they just may have left already by the time the taxi finally arrives.

According to the SFMTA website, it has sent out only 12 offer letters to purchase a medallion in all of 2012 to drivers on the waiting list. It had, however, issued 142 single operator permits as of May 2012. While the city drags its feet, entrepreneurs have been streamlining the idea of carpooling with a cash incentive for drivers. Companies like Lyft and Sidecar have entered the San Francisco market in recent years. Drivers may sign up with one of the services if they have a clean driving record, pass a criminal background check, and who have a valid driver’s license, proof of registration and insurance, among other basic requirements. Pedestrians looking for a ride use a mobile app to determine which car is closest to them, then they send out a ride request. Payment takes the form of a “donation”, meaning the passenger pays what they think is fair. Patrons often pay less than they would for a cab, the driver keeps the “donation”, and Lyft or Sidecar, takes 20% off the top. Sidecar also allows passengers and drivers to rate each other on its mobile app.

In an interview with Time, the co-founder of Lyft, John Zimmer, responded to questions about the potential for push back from San Francisco taxis rather optimistically saying, “We haven’t heard from them…I think they’re watching very closely to see if they can learn something.” Instead, taxi owners have complained that these services are running illegal taxi companies. They bristle when comparing costs for themselves and for the ride share drivers. Taxi drivers must maintain million dollar insurance policy, they must purchase a taxi medallion, and they must pay the other costs of a highly regulated industry. Meanwhile, the ride share drivers are required to have the minimum insurance required in California for personal policies, as the companies maintain they are a matching service and not a transportation carrier.

The SFMTA has not decided what to do about the up and coming pay per ride carpooling industry. It remains to be seen whether a basic car insurance policy is sufficient to cover damages in the event of an accident involving a passenger who signed up for a ride with one of the carpooling services. Once damages go beyond the insurance policy’s limits, will the service provider be liable as well? According to Lyft’s Terms of Agreement, “Such Driver will be solely responsible for any and all liability which results from or is alleged as a result of the operation of the vehicle such Driver uses to transport Riders, including, but not limited to personal injuries, death and property damages.” Sidecar’s Terms of Agreement also denies the company has any responsibility for damages associated with a ride matched through its service. In the future, the city of San Francisco or other governmental entities could have the last say.
Continue Reading ›

Understanding Auto Insurance Coverage in California

September 5, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

We pay for insurance not only because it is often a legal obligation but also because we want the coverage to be there when we need it. As your San Francisco insurance coverage law firm, the Brod Law Firm team is dedicated to helping people recover compensation when an unforeseen event occurs.

Insurance is complicated. There are a number of different types of coverage types when it comes to automobile insurance in California. Key categories include:

1. Collision damages – Often when people refer to “full coverage” policies, they are really talking about collision coverage. This coverage applies to physical damage incurred on the insured’s own vehicle. The fullest form of collision coverage includes replacement if your vehicle is totaled. Often, companies require you to hold collision coverage if you lease your vehicle.

San Francisco Toxic Chemical Attorney on the Continuing Danger of Lead Exposure

September 3, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Sometimes health threats seem so widely known that we assume they should no longer be an on-going problem. According to the Center for Disease Control (the “CDC”), children in at least four million households worldwide continue to be exposed to lead, despite the fact that the dangers of exposure have long been known. In just the U.S. alone, approximately half a million children under age five have dangerous levels of lead in their blood (above five micrograms per deciliter). Our San Francisco lead poisoning lawyer remains committed to helping individuals and families whose health has suffered as a result of exposure to lead and other dangerous toxins.

While lead poisoning can impact nearly every system in the human body, it often has few or no obvious early symptoms. High levels of lead can damage kidneys, cause high blood pressure and other forms of heart disease, cause gastrointestinal and neuromuscular problems, and impact both male and female reproductive systems. Lead can pass from a mother to a baby while in utero, leading to a risk of miscarriage, premature birth, and developmental problems in childhood. Lead is particularly dangerous to the nervous system and while damage to some systems may be reversible if treated, damage to the central nervous system cannot be reversed. Children’s nervous systems are especially at risk with lead exposure causing decreased brain volume and other neural damage that may lead to learning and developmental disabilities. Memory, reasoning skills, reading ability, attention span, and social skills can be harmed at very low blood levels, particularly in the fast-developing brains of younger children. Lead exposure can also shorten life span and lead to increased death rates from a number of related causes.

The CDC has created a Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program aimed at eliminating blood levels in excess of 10 micrograms per deciliter by 2020. Program officials note that lead is often a bigger threat to people in poorer areas, although it has been reported in a range of social classes. While the U.S. banned the use of lead-based paint for housing purposes in 1978, it remains present in many older homes. Certain workplaces can contain high-levels of lead, such as place that manufacture radiation shields and ammunition as well as some industrial plants. Parents may be exposed to lead at work and carry dust home leading to their children being exposed to the toxin. Lead has also been found in toys, particularly those imported from nations with less regulation.

Sports Injury Lawsuit Filed After Attack at 49ers Game

August 31, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Confusion often exists in the civil justice about who may be held responsible for various injuries. Most understand that a San Francisco injury lawsuit may be filed against another party who acts negligently (or recklessly or intentionally) and causes harm. But, it is harder to understand how that basic template applies in some unique situations. That is because many accidents or incidents are more complex than they seem at first blush.

Take something as simple as a car accident. Many assume that the accident was one party’s fault and that the person at fault can be sued for the harm caused. While that is true, there may be many other parties who also contributed to the accident. For one thing, both drivers may share responsibility. In addition, there may have been a problem with the car itself which means that manufacturer could face liability. Perhaps the street or safety barriers were not properly maintained, implicating the government agency responsible for the accident. Maybe there was debris in the road left negligently by another car which was not even in the incident. Mechanics, pedestrians, and many other parties could also have contributed–in full or in part–to the ultimate incident. The point is that many accidents are far more complex than they first seem. A San Francisco injury attorney is trained in understanding all the possible factors and investigating to get to the bottom of the issue.

Mercury News recently reported on a new lawsuit that involves similar, third-party liability issues. The San Francisco injury lawsuit was filed by two 49ers fans who were attacked during a preseason game by Oakland Raider fans. The tussle was quite serious–one man was beaten unconscious and his friend was shot four times when he tried to help. Of course, the intentional misconduct of the attackers themselves make them liable for the harm caused.

Follow up on Fight Between California Doctors and Aetna

August 31, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Our San Francisco insurance attorneys have been following a big California insurance story as it continues to unfold. In July, this blog discussed a lawsuit filed by groups of California doctors against Aetna insurance for denying patients access to out-of-network doctors, even when the patient purchased a policy that allows for this out-of-network option (see post here).

This week, one of the doctor’s groups involved in the lawsuit, the California Medical Association, which is the largest such group in the state with 35,000 members, accused Aetna, the country’s third largest insurance provider, of refusing to negotiate with member doctors and kicking member doctors out of the network in retaliation for this lawsuit. Dr. David Aizuss, an ophthalmologist in Los Angeles and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said Aetna notified him earlier this month that his contract would terminate in November. He claims it is retribution for participating in the lawsuit. The result, says the California Medical Association, is that patients are being further limited in their access to their regular doctors. Dr. Aizuss told the Los Angeles Times, “They are impacting the doctor-patient relationship for thousands of people.”

Aetna responded to this latest argument from the California Medical Association by saying it is fighting on behalf of patients. But Aetna may not be so happy with the outcome, as the director of health insurance studies at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research says many consumers choose their insurance specifically to be able to stay with their doctor, and these actions will probably lose Aetna customers. But Aetna has been firm in claiming that doctors are overbilling insured patients for procedures outside of the network, and filed its own lawsuit to this effect in February. Aetna claims that these doctors are unscrupulously steering patients to out-of-network facilities that they own or partly own for their own profit, without informing patients of this conflict of interest as required by federal law. The company claims these inflated bills jack up prices for patients and increase premiums for all consumers.

The NTSB Releases Analysis on a Dangerous Day at the Races: 2011 Reno Plane Crash

August 30, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced on August 21, 2012 that it has opened to the public its docket relating to a September, 2011 incident in which the “Galloping Ghost” aircraft crashed into spectators at the Reno National Championship Air Races. The crash killed 11 people and seriously injured another 66.

On August 27, it unveiled its analysis of the crash. According to the NTSB report, the pilot of the P-51D Mustang, Jimmy Leeward, made several extensive modifications to the plane without testing or reporting them to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as required. The modifications successfully reduced drag on the plane by making it lighter, but also destabilized the flight controls. Between pylons 8 and 9 of the course, Leeward lost control of the plane when it succumbed to “aerodynamic flutter“.

During flutter, aerodynamic forces act on the vibration of the plane’s structure, causing it to oscillate. In this case the structure of the plane was not stiff enough to resist the forces and combine with airspeed of 512 MPH the plane started to oscillate, or flutter. As the plane took on a life of its own, the plane jolted upward and the gravitational forces reached 17.3 G’s, knocking Leeward unconscious. The plane had been modified with used screws and bolts, which failed within seconds of the plane’s initial pitch higher into the air. Then, the plane plummeted to the ground and right into the spectators and sent debris flying into the crowd.

The NTSB concluded that the weak screws and questionable modifications contributed to the flutter in the first place. The NTSB pointed out that while Leeward took risks as a stuntman and racer, the crowd reasonably believed that the organizers had assured their safety. As early as April of this year, the NTSB released recommendations to the FAA, the Reno Air Racing Association, and the Unlimited Division of the National Air-racing Group, which all had a hand in the event. As of August 22, all three entities accepted the NTSB’s recommendations. The recommendations to the racing groups were:

Require aircraft owners to provide an engineering evaluation for aircraft with any major modification

Evaluate the design of the course and safety areas to minimize near and potential conflicts with spectators and make necessary changes to the course

Relocate the fuel truck away from the ramp area and in front of any area where spectators are present; install barriers more substantial than those currently in place

Provide high g training to pilots

Evaluate the feasibility of requiring pilots to wear g suits when participating in the race

California Considers Bicycle Buffer Zone Law

August 29, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

A bill pending before California lawmakers caught the attention of our San Francisco bicycle accident attorney. On Monday, the state Assembly passed SB1464. The proposed law would require drivers to leave a three foot buffer zone in most cases when they are passing a bicycle rider from behind. Drivers would be permitted to cross a solid double yellow line in order to comply. Senator Alan Lowenthal of Long Beach authored the bill which is being co-sponsored by the City of Los Angeles and the California Bicycle Coalition. Violations of the law would be punishable by fines of up to $35. SB1464 now returns to the state Senate for a final vote before making its way to the Governor.

Governor Brown vetoed a similar bill just last year. In related statements, he expressed support for the general concept but concern about the wording of an exception aimed at dense, urban areas. The prior bill called for drivers to slow to 15 miles per hour when they were unable to leave the required clearance. Brown sided with groups including the California Highway Patrol and the American Automobile Association that said the specific speed requirement could lead to traffic congestion and cause rear-end collisions. This year’s version changes that specificity, saying drivers who are unable to leave three feet of clearance must slow to “a speed that is reasonable and prudent given traffic and roadway conditions” and should wait to pass until it is safe. Opponents of the current proposal express safety concerns, especially about applying the rule to twisting and winding roads where it is hard to see oncoming vehicles. They also argue that it would give bikers a false sense of security. Existing law requires drivers to leave a safe distance when passing, whether they are overtaking a bike or another car.

According to the California Bicycle Coalition, many people choose not to use bicycles for either transportation or recreation because they worry about safety, especially when it comes to motor vehicles passing riders. The group says the fear is not simply a matter of rider perception, noting that passing-from-behind collisions are the top cause of bicyclist deaths among adults in California and across the nation. They believe the new rule would help drivers know their responsibility by creating a clear and objective standard. Currently, twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws establishing a specific minimum passing distance.

Toxic Exposure Attorney Comments on Refinery Regulation Following Richmond Fire

August 27, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

At The Brod Law Firm, we continue to field calls related to the August 6 fire at the Chevron refinery. Our team is ready and able to help those who have suffered ill health as a result of chemical exposure in Richmond and the surrounding areas.

Industry Oversight

As noted by The San Francisco Chronicle, there is ongoing debate about regulating the refinery industry. While petroleum business groups suggest they operate in one of the nation’s most regulated fields, others say the oversight regime is filled with gaps and relies too heavily on self-regulation. Critics note that the American Petroleum Institute is both a lobbying organization and the main source and publisher for refinery standards and guidelines. Safety groups add that the group has blocked efforts to require reporting of safety failures.

State Supreme Court Rules Against Insurers in Landmark Environmental Case

August 24, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

contaminated%20%28Tim%20Suess%29.jpg
Our San Francisco insurance lawyers were excited to see the California Supreme Court’s decision in State of California v. Continental Insurance. The case dealt with the Stringfellow Acid Pits, one of the most contaminated sites in the US, which was created in 1956 from the depths of an old quarry. Approximately 30 million gallons of industrial waste were dumped in this site. It was closed in 1972 after the state determined that the waste was seeping into the groundwater. In the late 1990s California was found liable and ordered to clean up the site, which was estimated to cost $700 million.

For years, California sought money from its insurers to pay for the clean up bill. The state collected about $150 million in insurance money but was entitled to much more and fought with the insurance companies in court over this. In the current case, the state was seeking $60 million against Continental Insurance Co, Continental Casualty Co, Yosemite Insurance Co, Horace Mann Insurance Co, Employers Insurance of Wassau, and Stonebridge Life Insurance Co, all of which provided excess commercial general liability policies to the state of California during a 12 year period from 1964 to 1976.

The trial court in Riverside County decided against California, and said that the state should not be able to “stack” multiple policies purchased over the years and that it should not be able to recover more than the policy limits. The court agreed with the defendant insurance companies, who argued that they should only be asked to cover a proportionate share for a single policy period. The trial court’s decision capped California’s recovery at $48 million. At that time, California had already reached settlements worth more than twice that amount, so the trial judge awarded the state nothing. The Fourth District Court of Appeal then reversed that decision.

The Supreme Court in its ruling earlier this month agreed with the Fourth District, and said that “standard policy language permits stacking.” Justice Ming Chin wrote for the court, saying, “If an occurrence is continuous across two or more policy periods, the insured has paid two or more premiums and can recover up to the combined total of the policy limits. There is nothing unfair or unexpected in allowing stacking in a continuous long-tail loss.” The decision also said the insurers must pay “all sums” due on each policy issued. The decision declined to reduce insurer policy payments because the state had gone without private insurance for some periods during the time Stringfellow Acid Pits was in operation. And the court awarded the state $54 million in defense costs, as well.

California insurance claims lawyer agree that this is a victory for policyholders and a clear message for insurance companies on some of the most litigated insurance issues. So it is not only a win for California, but for policyholders all over the state. It is also being heralded as one of the biggest insurance related environmental coverage rulings from the California courts in decades.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Wildfires and Your Homeowner’s Insurance Policy

Travelers to Pay Millions in Refunds and Fines
Continue Reading ›