San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

Researchers Focusing on Safer and More Economical Road Surfaces

August 10, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

As your Oakland car accident law firm, The Brod Law Firm knows that collisions are often the result of a number of complex factors. An important part of our practice is reconstructing crashes to determine what happened. Often, a negligent driver is the primary cause of a crash. However, many other factors can contribute to the occurrence of an accident and the severity of any injuries. The Oakland Tribune recently interviewed a researcher who is studying an important element of safe driving – the quality and condition of the road itself.

Eighty-five year old Carl Monismith has spent his career studying pavement. Monismith recently retired from his role as director of the University of California Pavement Research Center. During the years following World War II, the highway system was in poor shape and the state assigned the program the task of testing pavement materials to help improve a highway system. The state Department of Transportation wanted to find a way to design and maintain road surfaces resistant to rutting and other decline. The program was boosted in 1989, with a National Strategic Highway Research Program that led to a $9.5 million asphalt testing project, and in 1994, with Caltrans’ interest in an accelerated pavement test program.

The Center uses two heavy vehicle simulators to run real wheels across pavement samples. Those machines allow the researchers to better understand the various substances that compose our roadways. Other pieces of equipment at the Center focus on the impact that water has on samples with results ranging from deformed to nearly-perfect surfaces. As Monismith notes, pavement failure stems from decay over time rather than a sudden event and the project seeks to mimic those conditions.

What to Do About Earthquake Insurance

August 8, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

As this blog discussed in a previous post, most Californians do not have earthquake insurance, despite living in the so-called “Ring of Fire” where about 81 percent of the world’s biggest earthquakes occur. Our San Francisco insurance claim attorneys saw some interesting articles on earthquake insurance in recent weeks, and thought it would be a good time to discuss the topic again.

The San Francisco Chronicle published an interesting story in July on the issue, answering some policyholder questions about earthquake insurance. For example, some incidental damage caused by an earthquake indirectly would be covered by homeowners insurance, such as if a fire was started due to an earthquake. Also things such as theft or vandalism due to an earthquake would be covered by homeowners insurance, not earthquake insurance. But most other types of related damage caused indirectly by earthquakes are not covered by homeowners insurance, such as water main breaks that flood your home, or landslides due to earthquakes. Damage from these incidents would be covered by policies issued by the California Earthquake Authority, and not by standard homeowners or renters insurance.

Another recent article talked about the practicalities of earthquake insurance in California. In California, a high risk earthquake state, the CEA’s average rates are about $4.50 per $1,000 of coverage. In less risky states, that ratio is more like 50 cents per $1,000. There are other things Californians can do to save money and avoid high premiums, though. The CEA offers a 5 percent discount to residents who retrofit their homes to make them more earthquake resistant, for example. This retrofitting can consist of improvements such as bolting or bracing the structure to the foundation, putting sprinklers in your home, installing metal straps to the walls and roof, or using different trusses. Also, there are discounts for homes built after 1979, when stricter building codes were enforced and for wood frame houses, because wood houses hold up better in earthquakes than brick or masonry.

Richmond Refinery Leak Sparks Fire and Respiratory Concerns

August 8, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Earlier this week, we told you about a gas line break in San Bruno, an accident that shook a community that is all too familiar with the possible dangers associated with the oil and gas industries. The city of Richmond also knows that the energy industry, while vital to fueling our nation and also a key part of our local economy, carries the potential for tragedy. In 1999, an explosion rocked the Chevron refinery. On Monday, another blast shook the plant. Our Richmond refinery injury attorney is following as the story develops in this latest oil accident.

Early Tuesday morning, Chevron held a press conference to discuss the events of the prior day. According to The San Francisco Chronicle, spokeswoman Heather Kulp told reporters that the first reports of a leak involving a hydrocarbon similar to diesel came at 4:15 on Monday afternoon. The leak grew and officials evacuated work crews from the plant at 6:30. A short time later, the fuel ignited. The plant manager, Nigel Hearne, reported that all employees had been accounted for and that none of the plant workers suffered serious injury. Kulp did add that three workers had been treated at the scene for minor injuries.

Outside of the plant, residents reported hearing two explosions around 6:15. Kulp, however, said that there the leak did lead to a fire but stated that no explosion occurred. Hearne stated that the fuel leak fed a fire in the plant’s No. 4 Crude Unit. The blaze created a smoky black cloud that spread across the East Bay area. Contra Costa County health officials issued a “shelter-in-place” order, meaning residents were directed to remain sheltered at their current location, closing windows and turning off HVAC systems. Authorities have not determined what was in the cloud, but they did lift the order around 11:30 P.M. on Monday night. Despite the order, more than 350 residents sought treatment for respiratory problems at emergency rooms in Richmond and San Pablo. Officials did add that neither Kaiser Permanente in Richmond nor Doctors Medical Center in San Pablo admitted any patients in connection with the smoke cloud.

Is Bicycle Insurance Available in California for Accidents?

August 7, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Bicycling is a great way to commute around town. It allows riders to get in some exercise and has the advantage of alleviating traffic and pollution. However, bicyclists share the road with motorized vehicles of all sizes and are subject to the same traffic rules. Bicyclists are also subject to the same dangers on the road as other vehicles, yet while insurance is required for automobiles, no such requirement exists for bicycles.

Therefore, both avid and casual bicyclists might be asking themselves when and how they are covered by insurance policies in the event they are involved in an accident. For now, comprehensive insurance that is specifically tailored for bicyclists is limited. However, there are a couple of options out there for commuters that want total peace of mind. In California, the Irvine based company Spoke Bicycle Insurance specializes in providing auto like insurance for bicyclists, including liability insurance and uninsured motorist’s protection. They also offer extra options for medical payments and roadside assistance. Spoke currently offers insurance to bicyclists in eight states, including its home base of California, and it would like to expand its services to all fifty states. The Portland based Better World Club offers liability insurance for bicyclists and other coverage options either in conjunction with or completely separately from its auto insurance plans. Better World Club offers coverage nationwide.

Bicyclist specific insurance may be especially desirable in the case where a commuter does not own any other vehicles. However, before seeking out an insurance policy, bicyclists should evaluate any current insurance policies to see whether they may already be covered. For instance, a bicyclist that does not own a car may still be covered in some circumstances if they have home or renter’s insurance– and not just for bicycle theft. Many such policies include personal liability coverage for injuries caused to others on or off their residence. In the case of a bicyclist who hits a pedestrian, their personal liability could be covered up to their policy limits by their home/renter’s insurance policy. It is of course important to be aware of what the limits of the policy are and to determine if additional coverage through an inexpensive umbrella policy may be warranted.

However, personal liability insurance that is available as part of a home/renter’s insurance policy will only cover injuries to the other person in the event of an accident. Bicyclists that also own a car may want to review their auto insurance policy to get the most out of their coverage when traveling by bike too. As an example, uninsured motorist’s coverage not only covers injury victims who were struck by an uninsured motorist while driving their car, but also when bicycling or walking. Once again, it is important to review your current policy and discuss it with your provider to see what is and what is not covered.
Continue Reading ›

Minor Pipeline Accident Brings Back Hard Memories of the 2012 San Bruno Explosion

August 6, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

On September 9, 2010, an explosion rocked San Bruno’s Crestmoor neighborhood. The tragedy led to eight deaths and destroyed thirty-eight homes, with firefighters battling the resulting blaze until late the following morning. In previous blog posts, our San Francisco explosion law firm has discussed the accident and the investigation that focused on pressure levels in gas pipelines owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”). Damage was compounded when, according to fire department officials, it took between sixty and ninety minutes before oil was shut off to the area around Skyline Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue. The neighborhood was left in ruins and both government and industry groups continue to try and understand the events to establish fault and prevent future tragedies.

With those events still fresh in resident’s minds, it is hard to imagine the fear that must have enveloped the neighborhood when news of a gas line break filtered through the community on Thursday August 2. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the initial report of the break at the corner of Glenview Drive and Earl Avenue in San Bruno sent shivers through the body of Deputy Fire Chief Dave Downing. He quickly dispatched five fire engines and two battalion chiefs to the neighborhood. Thankfully, the incident was nowhere near the scale of the 2010 explosion. While the fire department did evacuate fourteen homes, Downing was able to call the all-clear and allowed the residents to return home after only thirty minutes.

According to PG&E and city officials, a contractor working in the area punched a hole in a two-inch plastic gas pipe with a back hoe. The rupture occurred at 10:45 A.M., a mere thirty feet south of the 2010 blast. The line was capped without damage within about thirty minutes. A spokesman for PG&E, Joe Molica, acknowledged that the workers should not have used the heavy machinery for digging a hole that was only three feet below the surface. He added that hand-digging would have been a safer choice.

Lawsuit Over Auto Insurance Ballot

August 3, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Our San Francisco insurance attorneys know everyone in the US is paying close attention to this year’s upcoming election. In California, aside from the presidential election, there are also several state issues to be decided in November. One of these is a ballot initiative dealing with automobile insurance, and we have talked about it in a previous blog post. The issue is Proposition 33, which if passed would allow insurance companies to offer discounts to new customers who can prove they have had auto insurance for the last five years. It addresses Proposition 103, which requires personal auto insurance rates to be determined using factors in decreasing order of importance: insured driver’s safety record, number of miles driven annually by the insured, and number of years driving experience of the insured. A similar measure was narrowly defeated in 2010. And as with that initiative, there are two sides to the debate about the proposal.

Proponents say that the 2012 version includes consumer protection language not included in 2010, although they argue this could be harder to convey if the language in the sample ballot is kept, according to reports from the campaign. The Prop 33 campaign is taking issue with both the ballot description of the proposition and the opponent’s language, saying that those who wrote the language may not understand the California insurance industry. Proponents filed a lawsuit over this issue in the Superior Court of California last week, naming Secretary of State Debra Bowen, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, and Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey Rosenfield as respondents. It was filed on behalf of American Agents Alliance’s executive director Michael D’Arelli, one of Prop 33’s major backers. The case is expected to be heard next week, before the August 13 deadline for the copy of the ballot.

The current language of the ballot label states: “Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage. Allows increased cost for drivers without history of continuous coverage. Fiscal Impact: Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues.” The Prop 33 campaign says the problem is with the phrase “allow insurance companies to set prices”. They claim this language is highly likely to prejudice voters into voting no on the measure, and is unnecessary. Instead, the group prefers the language: “Changes current law to allow an insurance company to offer a continuous coverage discount based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company.”

Safety and Legal Concerns in Northern California Amusement Parks

August 3, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

From a bounce house at backyard birthday party to a twisting and looping roller coaster at a theme park, amusement rides and equipment capture the attention of the young and the young at heart. Part of the fun is enjoying a thrill while trusting that you and your children are ultimately safe. However, injuries can and do occur. When fun leads to injury, our San Francisco amusement park injury law firm is here to help.

The San Francisco Chronicle is covering a recent scare at a local amusement park. On Sunday, the new Superman Ultimate Flight roller coaster stalled and stranded riders nearly 150 feet above Six Flags Discovery Kingdom in Vallejo. Firefighters arrived and assisted a park official in using a park crane to deliver water bottles to the riders. Thankfully, the crane was not needed for a rescue and a mechanic successfully restarted the ride, returning the stranded riders to the ground without any injuries. While the park ruled out mechanical issues, they have not identified a cause for the stall.

Surprisingly, while the United States Consumer Products Commission regulates the manufacture of fixed-site amusement rides, no federal agency sets uniform safety standards or investigates serious accident at permanent amusement parks. The State of California, however, does have state-level amusement park regulation, inspection and reporting requirements. In general, fixed-site rides do have a fairly strong safety record. An industry group found that approximately 290 million visitors enjoyed 1.7 billion rides at fixed-site U.S. parks in 2010. Those rides led to an estimated 1,207 injuries with only 59 listed as “serious,” meaning the injury required overnight hospital care.

Passenger Cited for DUI in Geyserville, California

August 2, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

In a rare turn of events, a passenger was slapped with a ticket for driving under the influence on Friday. According to CBS local news, Brent Franco’s girlfriend was driving him home, but the situation became dangerous when the intoxicated Franco became aggressive and started making threats against her. Franco’s girlfriend was traveling around 65-70 miles per hour on the highway when the he pulled the emergency brake sending the car out of control and over the embankment. He then fled the scene, but police found him at his home and booked him for DUI and criminal threats. Thankfully, no one was injured in the incident.

California Vehicle Code section 23152(a) states, “It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.” In the above case, it is important under the law to determine that the passenger of the car was also the driver of the car. California Vehicle Code section 305 defines the word driver as “a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.” Therefore, by pulling the emergency brake Franco took control of the car from his girlfriend and became the driver even though he never touched the wheel.

Driving under the influence is extremely dangerous and reckless. The Center for Disease Control reminds us that alcohol is a factor in nearly one third of all crash deaths in the United States. Alcohol lowers inhibitions and can lead to exaggerated behavior and slow reaction times. A mix of alcohol, aggression, and impulsive decision making may compel a person to take more risks behind the wheel as well as in many other situations. In this case, the intoxicated passenger’s impulsivity crossed the line and prompted him to take control of the vehicle.
Continue Reading ›

Legal Malpractice Lawyer Comments on Disbarment Case Against Walnut Creek Attorney

August 1, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

At The Brod Law Firm, we take our responsibility to our clients seriously. Clients should be able to trust that their legal counsel is trustworthy and will always operate in the client’s best interest. In addition to serving our clientele in an ethical manner, we help people who have been harmed due to legal malpractice in San Francisco and other Northern California communities.

The Oakland Tribune reported this week that the State Bar of California recommended disbarment for Walnut Creek attorney Eugene Hannon, also a decorated Vietnam War veteran, after finding he misappropriated over $28,000 of client trust funds for personal use. Hannon represented the father of three, who agreed to deposit $55,000 into a trust for the children as part of a dissolution agreement for an unmarried Alameda couple. The man sent Hannon more than $28,000 in monthly payments during 2007, money that the minor children expected to put towards their college educations. According to the Judge Lucy Armendariz’s ruling, Hammond spent the money on himself rather than placing it in the trust. In addition to misappropriation, the court found Hammond culpable of three counts of moral turpitude for overdrafting the trust account, bouncing three checks, and lying to the mother’s counsel by saying that he hadn’t spent the money.

Hannon admitted to much of the alleged behavior but said he was careless and did not intentionally spend the trust funds. He claimed that a number of health and mental problems contributed to his behavior. According to his attorney, he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress stemming from his service in the Vietnam War from 1966 to 1969. Hannon nearly died from an intestinal blockage and suffered additional stress due to a house fire. Other health woes cited as causes included alcoholism and depression. Despite the cited woes, Hammond had a clean record for more than 28 years as a litigation attorney.

What are the Risks of Driving While Taking Prescription Drugs?

July 31, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Although you might not know it from the many reports of drunk driving in the news (such as the tragic story of 19 year old Eduardo Perez who recently died after being hit by a drunk driver), most people know the risks of driving under the influence of alcohol. However, the risks of driving after taking prescription and over the counter medication are less well known. For instance, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration found in 2009 that 18 percent of fatally injured drivers had at least one illegal, prescription or over the counter drug in their system. Unfortunately, there is no reliable data that looks the connections between the effects of legal drugs on the ability to drive, apart from alcohol.

It is harder for consumers to assess the risk of driving after taking medications, because for many people taking medication and driving are both daily activities. There are as many medications as there are ailments, and each affects the body’s chemistry differently. These wide variations make it less obvious to drivers whether they are engaging in reckless driving or not.

For that same reason, the states, including California, have not set a limit on the level of drugs in the blood system while driving. Although, California Vehicle Code section 23630 does specifically state “The fact that any person charged with [a DUI] . . . is, or has been entitled to use, the drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense . . . .” A 2010 New York Times article explains that law enforcement is much less likely to cite drivers for reckless driving when it appears they are impaired from prescription drugs rather than alcohol because of the lack of a legal limit. As a result, District Attorney’s tend to pursue criminal charges only when extremely high doses of legal drugs are involved in an accident or if a driver mixed multiple drugs. However, the failure of a District Attorney to file suit in criminal court does not prevent an accident victim from suing for damages in civil court stemming from negligent driving after taking prescription or over the counter drugs.

Many drugs affect the ability to safely operate heavy machinery or complete complex tasks, such as driving. Examples of drugs that make drivers susceptible to drowsiness are: cold medications, pain relievers and, of course, sleeping pills (even the morning after). Anti-histamines found in allergy medications can slow reaction time. Conversely, diet pills and other stimulants are associated with aggressive and reckless behavior on the road. Anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications are associated with drowsiness and also trouble paying attention to the road and keeping to one lane. Anti-hypertensive medications can cause fatigue and dizziness. The website Medscape lists additional medications, common doses, and their effects on driving.

The answer to the question, “Should I take my medication and drive?” is often ambiguous. The Federal Drug Administration recommends that you consult with your doctor in order to be completely informed about the risks. Your doctor can also work with you to adjust the dose of your medication or the time which you take your dose to work better with your driving schedule. Self-monitoring is key to safe driving in any situation, but being aware of particular medication’s affect on your body is extremely important because every person is different.
Continue Reading ›