San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

Further Developments in the San Bruno Explosion Investigation

March 28, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Last week, our San Francisco pipeline accident law firm updated readers on safety concerns stemming from the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion. We wanted to follow-up and update our readers on developments being reported in this week’s San Francisco Chronicle.

On September 9, 2010, a pipeline explosion occurred near Skyline Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue in San Bruno’s Crestmoor neighborhood. The explosion and resulting fire left eight people dead, completely destroying thirty-eight homes and damages many more properties. Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”), the company responsible for operating the pipeline, dismissed allegations that the pipeline was being operated at an elevated, dangerous, and illegal level of pressure. The current Chronicle investigation revealed that at least three segments in the San Bruno natural gas pipeline were being operated at an illegally high pressure level.

Federal law gives companies the option to maintain records that justify higher pressure levels but the law requires that companies that do not possess specific information must operate on the assumption that the pipelines are the lowest grade and limit pressure accordingly. PG&E failed to provide the needed information and exceeded the allowable pressure limit on the San Bruno pipeline and thirty other lines in California. Reports suggest that the pipeline pressure may have been twenty percent about the legal limit. Several expert consultants have concluded that the disaster might have been averted had PG&E maintained the legally required pressure level.

Two Recent Pedestrian Deaths Highlight San Francisco’s High Pedestrian Injury Rate

March 27, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Two pedestrians died on Sunday, March 25 after crossing the street mid-block. SFGate reports that Thomas Ferguson (45) was crossing Lombard Street between Van Ness and Franklin when a car struck him. Ferguson died on the scene. Earlier that day, a man was hit by a Muni bus when he emerged between two parked cars to cross Fillmore Street. KTVU.com reports that he was rushed to the hospital, but declared dead shortly thereafter.

According to a study by UCSF, Profile of Injury in San Francisco (2004), more pedestrians died in San Francisco over the last ten years than motor vehicle occupants, while the state average varies from 17.2%-20.2% per year. Moreover, the national average for pedestrian fatalities among all crash fatalities is much lower at around 12%. Part of the higher rate is due to the urban nature of many California cities, including San Francisco. For example, the most pedestrian fatalities and injuries alike were concentrated in downtown San Francisco and other high traffic areas, as shown in the study named Cost of Auto versus Pedestrian Injuries in San Francisco, 2004-2008.

The logical conclusion is that areas with more pedestrian deaths require more measures to protect pedestrians and encourage safer behavior by both pedestrians and drivers. In 2002, San Francisco was one of three cities, along with Las Vegas and Miami, to be chosen for a PedSafe Study because of the high rate of pedestrian fatalities. The study tested various traffic signs and street markings to identify the most effective methods to promote pedestrian safety.

The most effective measures included flashing beacons at crosswalks without traffic signals, signs that reminded drivers to watch out for pedestrians, and head start crossing for pedestrians at intersections where cars make relatively more unprotected left turns.

An article by Wray Herbert on the Association for Psychological Science website, cites a University of London study that found the reason children under 15 years old are more likely to be injured by cars, is not limited to lack of attention to potential dangers. In fact, children are less likely to see oncoming vehicles at all because they are physically smaller. In addition, their brains have a harder time than adults judging the rate at which cars driving at different speeds will approach them.

These two studies help root out the causes of pedestrian injuries and deaths at all ages. One reason appears to be the visibility of both cars and pedestrians. Flashing beacons, head start intersections, and raised curbs help improve the visibility of pedestrians to vehicles, and also help pedestrians assess possible dangers when traversing the street. The above accidents also demonstrate that crossing in designated intersections is important, because pedestrians are more visible to vehicles at crosswalks.

Another reason highlighted by both the March 25 crashes and the studies is the issue of right of way. Although Californian pedestrians always have the right of way by law, traffic measures are implemented to make driving, walking, and biking safer and require that pedestrians sometimes temporarily give up the right of way for their own safety. Pedestrians often cross against lights and without the protection of crosswalks because they are sure they can make it across in time. As the tragic accidents at Lombard Street and Fillmore Street show, this is a dangerous state of mind. However, pedestrians are also struck when they obey all traffic laws. For instance, cars make premature left and right turns through intersections where they are supposed to yield to pedestrians, because, similar to the previous example, drivers think they can “make it” before the pedestrian reaches the end of the intersection. Thus, the PedSafe Study found that signs, markers, and head start intersections successfully reminded many drivers to yield to pedestrians.
Continue Reading ›

Gas Saving Tips From Your San Francisco Auto Accident Law Firm

March 26, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

In addition to being your San Francisco personal injury law firm, the team members at The Brod Law Firm are also proud Northern California residents. As members of the community, we share the concerns of our fellow communities. We hope this blog keeps you informed about legal matters, including matters related to San Francisco auto accidents and other developments in personal injury lawsuits in Northern California. We also hope this site helps you make smart choices in a tough economic time so that you have the peace of mind to enjoy all our region has to offer.

California has long been known for our driving-oriented culture. As a result, the increase in prices at the pump hits out region particularly hard. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Sunday that the average price per gallon of gasoline nationwide has risen eleven cents in the past two weeks. Nationwide, the average price per gallon of regular grade fuel is $3.93. In California, the statewide average did fall a penny but remains significantly higher than the national average at $4.31 per gallon. Prices in Fresno are the lowest in the state while the Los Angeles area has California’s highest average price.

Fuel prices impact our residents directly and can also have a significant effect on the tourism industry. Here are some tips for making the most of your gas money:

Bryan Stow’s Negligence Claim against L.A. Dodgers Will Not Be Included in Bankruptcy

March 23, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Delaware bankruptcy judge, Kevin Gross, approved an agreement between the family of Bryan Stow and the L.A. Dodgers on March 19, 2012. The agreement provides that Bryan Stow’s family will be able to continue their suit against the Dodgers for negligence once the club completes its bankruptcy proceedings and is sold to a new owner. Initially, the club tried to include the pending lawsuit in its bankruptcy, taking advantage of the protections afforded by bankruptcy to avoid monetary liability. The Dodgers organization argued that the lawsuit would make it too hard to sell the team, but facing criticism it agreed to allow the claim as long as the Stow family agreed to sue only the team’s insurance provider and not Frank McCourt, the current Dodgers owner.

Sports stadiums have been subject to the same liability as other premises owners since the late 1950’s, with the caveat that a spectator that has notice of the dangers inherent to a specific sport waives some of that liability. For instance, a baseball fan probably knows that fouls are hit into the fan area and assumes that risk by sitting in the stadium. In the Stow case, Bryan Stow had a reasonable expectation that he could attend a baseball game at Dodger Stadium without fearing an attack, at the very least because the stadium provides security and ejects rowdy spectators.

Since the injury was caused by a third-party, in order to bring a successful suit the Stow family will have to argue that the Dodgers negligence contributed to the attack and that the Dodgers could have reasonably foreseen such an attack. The plaintiff’s complaint argues that the Dodgers were negligent because the club cut security to save money for its upcoming bankruptcy and that the lighting in the parking lot where Stowe was beaten was inadequate. The complaint also alleges that the Dodgers had knowledge that there was a criminal element in the spectators and that the stadium encouraged the over-consumption of alcohol during the highly charged opening game, which substantially contributed to the beating.

Controversial Pesticide Pulled By Manufacturer From California Market

March 23, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

As your San Francisco dangerous chemicals law firm, the team at The Brod Law Firm believes that it is vital for both companies and regulatory officials to prioritize consumer safety. We are prepared to help victims of chemical exposure file San Francisco products liability lawsuits and other related claims to help residents recover when dangerous chemicals cause illness or injury. We fundamentally believe, however, that preventing the community from being exposed to harmful chemicals upfront is always preferable to dealing with illness and injury in the aftermath of exposure.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported this week on a positive move towards safety in California’s agricultural arena. Manufacturers of methyl iodide, a pesticide used in growing strawberries, have announced that the product will be pulled from the market in California and throughout the United States. Arysta LifeScience Corporation, a Japanese company, has cited economic factors in the decision to discontinue sales. The company has also voluntarily cancelled its registration permitting the sale of methyl iodide in California.

Although the company did not cite safety concerns in their statements, environmental groups have been lobbying against the product since it was first approved for use in our state. In 2007, federal authorities approved the use of methyl iodide as a temporary bridge between methyl bromide, a product known to contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, and to-be-developed environmentally friendly options. In 2010, the pesticide was specifically approved by the state for use by California farms. Opponents to the product, including many in the public health arena, believe that the company is a possible carcinogen and that use of methyl iodide exposes residents who live or work near treated fields to fumes that might raise their cancer risk. Use of the pesticide has been limited, likely due to a high-profile campaign against the chemical

California Insurance Agent Gets Jail Time for Selling Annuity to Elderly Dementia Patient

March 21, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

This week, a California insurance agent, Glenn Neasham, was sentenced to 90 days in jail after being convicted of felony-theft by a jury for selling an annuity to an 83 year old woman with signs of dementia. As San Francisco insurance attorneys, we are always especially concerned about the vulnerable being preyed up on by unscrupulous insurance companies and agents. (see another post about the elderly here)

Hopefully this case sends a clear message that California will not tolerated this. When the insurance agent was arrested in 2010, then Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner said agents “who steal from vulnerable seniors will not get away with their shameful tricks.” Mr. Neasham may be the first insurance agent ever put behind bars for selling an annuity. His bail was set at $20,000 and needs to be posted by April 18 to be allowed to remain free while his appeal is pending, but Mr. Neasham, once earning $500,000 a year, claims to be “financially ruined” from this case.

Mr. Neasham claims that the elderly woman, Fran Schuber, came to him in 2008 with her octogenarian boyfriend, Louis Jochim, who had bought a similar annuity from him years before. The annuity he sold Ms. Schuber was an “indexed” annuity, meaning that it pays interest based on the performance of stocks and bonds. The buyer is guaranteed not to lose the money they put into it-the principle-but they face very steep penalties for withdrawing the money early, sometimes being required to keep their money in the annuity for more than a decade. The annuity was to be through Allianz SE. Mr. Neasham denies that he noticed any signs of dementia in Ms. Schuber at the meeting.

Safety in the Wake of the 2010 San Bruno Pipeline Explosion

March 21, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

As your San Francisco pipeline accident law firm, we are continuing to follow the response of area companies in the wake of the deadly San Bruno pipeline explosion that took place in September of 2010.

A massive explosion occurred in San Bruno’s Crestmoor neighborhood at 6:11 P.M. on September 9, 2010. The explosion, which occurred near Skyline Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue, and resulting fire led to eight deaths and destroyed 38 homes while damaging many others. According to fire officials, it was between sixty and ninety minutes after the explosion before the gas in the area was shut off. Firefighters were not able to extinguish the resulting blaze until after eleven the following morning. PG&E owned the pipeline, a thirty inch steel transmission line, that was involved in the San Bruno disaster. The company reduced operating pressures following the incident by twenty percent in the wake of concerns the pipelines may have been installed improperly. In the aftermath of the incident, the California Public Utilities commission required PG&E re-evaluate the method it uses to determine peak operating pressure throughout 1,800 miles of pipelines. The company failed to meet an initial March 2011 compliance deadline but it unveiled a plan in August 2011 to modern the system and enhance safety. During subsequent strength testing, on November 6, 2011 another explosion occurred in the Woodside area. Luckily no deaths were reported.

This week, executives from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) defended their plan to have customers finance the area safety program. The current estimate places the price tag at $2.2 billion but PG&E authorities have suggested the price tag could exceed $11 billion when future work is included. The price includes pipeline testing and replacement as well as the installation of a number of automated shutoff valves in the natural gas pipeline system. A judge is currently considering the company’s request to pass eighty-four percent of the costs on to customers. PG&E has defended its plan to pass on the costs because the company suggests the financial outlay is due to regulatory requirements and is not a direct result of the 2010 incident. However, it is notable that investigations after the accident found PG&E lacked strength records for approximately one-third of the company’s urban natural gas pipelines. Government investigations also concluded that the presence of automatic shut-off valves could have limited the damages from the explosion.

An Introduction To Class Actions

March 19, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

When a man-made disaster impacts our state, our California class action attorney is prepared to help. In cases involving toxic torts, such as a California oil refinery accident, The Brod Law Firm is prepared to use the tool of either a federal or state class action to ease the burden on individual plaintiffs and allow an entire group of victims to prove their case collectively.

The most likely reason to bring a class action suit in federal court, instead of state court, is the diversity doctrine. This means that the suit involves at least one plaintiff who is a citizen of a different state than one or more of the defendants. For these purposes, companies are citizens of the state where they have their principle place of business. In order to file as a federal class, the plaintiffs must show four things: 1) Commonality (one or more issues is common to the whole class and, often, these common issues dominate over individual matters); 2) Adequacy (the selected representative can effectively protect the interests of all members of the class); 3) Numerosity (the class is large enough that individual lawsuits are not practical, making a class action a better method for resolving the matters); and 4) Typicality (the claim of the representative stems from a wrong to the class and is typical of the claims of the class members). These requirements aim to make sure that a class action is the best method for resolving a dispute and that a proper lead plaintiff is selected to represent the class in court.

Class actions can also be brought under state law. A few examples of the types of claims that might give rise to a class action in California are employment law violations, defective products claims, and consumer protection litigation. The rules governing class actions in California are a mix of guidance from statutes passed by the legislature and interpretations developed by state courts. Some of the basic requirements for a state class action mirror the requirements under federal law. California courts will also be more likely to grant certification of a class if doing so will serve a benefit to the class or to the citizens of the state as a whole and if the claims would be unlikely to be heard individually.

Lack of Money Should Not Deter You from Pursuing an Injury Claim

March 16, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

In San Francisco last week, SF StreetsBlog SF StreetsBlog reported that a bike and a car collided after both made a right hand turn. According to the report, the bicyclist, Ian Long, claimed the driver of the car was following aggressively behind him and swung to make the right turn around him, then slammed on his brakes making the bicyclist crash into him. The bicyclist sustained injuries to his hands. However, when asked if he might bring legal action he responded that he did not have sufficient funds for a lawyer.

Brod Law Firm takes injury and product liability cases on a contingency fee basis. Because we work on contingency, if we do not recover monetary damages for you, you do not owe us any legal fees. Contingency fees allow greater access to the legal system to those who otherwise could not afford it. The Brod Law Firm takes pride in offering an ethical and reasonable fee agreement to help its clients navigate courts and legal processes. Brod Law Firm works tirelessly to get the best settlement or judgment possible for every one of its clients. We specialize in vehicle accidents, pedestrian accidents, slip and fall, construction accidents, elder abuse, dog bites, product liability, toxic torts as well as other tort claims.

Injury victims face a strenuous ordeal and some may think a personal injury case may be more trouble than it is worth after already dealing with so much pain and hassle. However, Brod Law Firm works hard for you, so you can move on from the traumatic incident which caused you harm. We give personalized legal services to our clients and use our experience and energy to move cases forward to a quick resolution. As the case progresses, we communicate updates to our clients without barraging them with the stresses of a lawsuit.
Continue Reading ›

Staying Safe After a Collision: Second Crash Kills UC Berkley Student

March 16, 2012 | Gregory J. Brod

Our Oakland car crash law firm is always concerned when we read about collisions in our area. Each Oakland car accident is unique but we try to take lessons from each story we come across to try to prevent future incidents.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting on a fatal early morning crash in the Oakland hills. The crash occurred around 4:20 A.M. on Highway 13 in the area south of the Park Boulevard exit. A large tree that reportedly measured nearly forty feet in height had fallen into the roadway, spanning all southbound lanes of the freeway. Four passengers were in Toyota Camry when it hit the fallen tree. The driver stopped the car in the center median and all four passengers stepped into the right shoulder of the highway. A second vehicle, a Ford F-150 pickup truck, then hit the tree, causing the truck to become airborne and strike the occupants of the Camry. Nineteen year-old Kevin Lacanlale, the driver os the Camry was killed. Lacanlale, who was living in San Leandro, was a UC Berkeley student and originally came from Washington state. One of the Toyota’s passengers was trapped when the crash knocked a portion of the fallen tree onto an embankment. She was freed by Oakland firefighters using a chainsaw. The driver of the pickup-truck, a fifty-nine year old man from Pittsburg, and the surviving passengers from the Camry were taken to the hospital and treated for injuries that were not life-threatening.

It can be difficult to know what to do in the moments following a crash. Safety should always be a first priority. If you are unable to get out of your vehicle, or it would be unsafe to do so, remain seated with your seatbelt fastened and put on your hazard blinkers to alert other drivers to your situation. If your car is not too severely damaged, you should not leave the scene of the accident but should move the vehicle to a safe location and turn on the hazard lights. If you have an emergency kit, set up cones, warning flags, or emergency flares in the vicinity of the accident. As soon as you and your passengers are safe, call 911 to alert the authorities and get additional assistance. Be sure to tell the dispatcher if you and your vehicle are in an area where a secondary crash is possible.