San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

Oakland-San Francisco Attorney Comments on Elder Abuse

October 25, 2010 | Gregory J. Brod

Recently, a man has pleaded guilty to raping a 94-year-old woman in a Northern California nursing home. According to the San Jose Mercury news, 43 year old Roberto Cruz Recendes pleaded guilty to a sex count, elderly abuse and an enhancement of inflicting great bodily injury, and he is facing a 17 year prison sentence. Recendes was arrested in Mexico in 2008, six years earlier the police arrested the wrong suspect. Under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Section 15657 expresses the remedies available and states: Where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is liable for physical abuse or neglect, and that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of this abuse, the specific remedies (as provided by law) shall be applied. The Act is based on legislative findings that explain how elderly persons and dependent adults are a disadvantaged class, that cases of abuse of such persons are seldom prosecuted as criminal matters, and that few civil cases are brought in connection with this kind of abuse due to problems of proof, court delays, and lack of incentives to prosecute these suits.
Even though the Act is was written in 1991, it is still young and there remains some uncertainty regarding the issue of fighting a claim for civil remedies under the Act. That is why anyone who believes they have a claim should seek out an experienced attorney who is aware the delicacy of the law of and knows how to fight such cases, as each case must be specifically dealt with in relation to its facts in compliance with rules requiring specifics based on fact. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we have over ten years experience fighting for the rights of victims and are prepared to handle any type of elder abuse claim. Whether they deal with neglect, physical abuse, recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice–we will carefully and astutely fight for the victim.

Oakland Injury Attorney Comments on Distracted and Unsafe Driving

October 22, 2010 | Gregory J. Brod

Did you know an employer could be held liable for its own negligence in failing to adequately warn employees about the risks of use of electronic devices while driving or failing to take other measures to reduce those risks? Put another way, there is the potential for an employer to be held vicariously liable for employees who use a cell phone the employer provided and not prohibited from using while driving. During the recent past, companies have been forced to settle costly cases arising from such circumstances. Consequently, issues of safety and liability regarding employers not having policies in place that ban the use of electronic devices while driving are becoming harder to ignore. As such, employers need to create and incorporate new policies into their everyday operations.

For these reasons, and because the leading cause of worker fatalities year after year is motor vehicle accidents, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), in conjunction with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA), has increased efforts to encourage employers to enact safety policies prohibiting employees from using electronic devices while driving. This initiative conicides with President Obama’s Oct. 1, 2009, Executive Order that bars federal employees from texting while operating government owned vehicles. In addition, the DOT earlier this year announced, under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, a ban on texting by drivers of commercial vehicles. Approximately 30 states have existing laws to prevent some drivers from using cell phones or text messaging while driving. However, some states have laws that target only a segment of drivers, such as teenagers or those with learner’s permits.

Speaking of teenagers, another bit of good news regarding their safety on the roads, as well as those who share the road with them, was reported yesterday. According the Associated Press, fatal car crashes involving teen drivers fell by about a third over five years. The CDC says that the number of deaths tied to these accidents has fallen from about 2,200 in 2004 to 1,400 in 2008. The CDC credits the drop in accidents to a range of factors, such as safer cars with air bags and highway improvements. The main reason, however, is credited to the fact that most states are getting tougher by tightening restrictions on when teens can drive and when they can carry passengers.

San Francisco-Oakland Injury Attorney Comments on Car Sharing

October 21, 2010 | Gregory J. Brod

Spride, a provider of personal vehicle sharing services, and City CarShare, a Bay Area nonprofit car sharing organization have announced the availability of the first personal vehicle share program within a car sharing fleet. The new Spride Share pilot program enables car owners to loan their vehicles to members of City CarShare, which has more than 13,000 members, by equipping their cars with City CarShare’s access and tracking technology. The launch of the program is directly related to Assembly Bil 1871, a bill that Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed into law. The new law establishes that personal vehicle sharing does not constitute a commercial use of the automobile, eliminating the primary barrier to broad adoption of personal car sharing opportunities. Prior to the law, car owners ran the risk of losing their personal auto insurance if they received compensation for sharing their cars.

Now car owners can make their cars available for hourly reservations, and members can conveniently locate, reserve, and gain access to a car using their phone. What is more, car owners can make money by sharing something they already own, while the cost for borrowers is only about $7 dollars an hour. Because choosing reliable transportation in the bay area is always a challenge, car sharing may prove to be bay area resident’s greatest option. The program allows residents to collectively share the responsibility of reducing carbon emissions and eliminating some of the hassle their daily commuting routines, and it may just make commuters feel less harried and frantic, which may, in turn, lead to fewer accidents. Here at the Brod Law Firm we believe the creation of such program proves that citizens can band together to make up for the failures of public transportation, and the dissatisfaction and burden many people feel owning a car.

San Francisco-Oakland Injury Attorney Comments on Driverless Cars

October 19, 2010 | Gregory J. Brod

German scientists have unveiled a self-driving car. They say that the days of humans behind the wheel are numbered, that the cars of today are the horses of yesterday, and that this new technology can slash accidents and help the environment. In addition they claim this new technology will sharply reduce the number of cars on the road, suggesting that people will no longer need their own vehicles so much and will used driverless cars pooled in car-share schemes, instead. They predict that the new technology could be applied to private areas like airports in 10 years, on motorways in 10-20 years, and in cities (once all the obstacles are removed) in 23-30 years. The cars, called the “Made in Germany (MIG), use cameras, laser scanners, heat sensors and satellite navigation to see other vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians, and respond to traffic lights.
Google engineers have recently introduced their own driverless car that uses artificial-intelligence software that can sense anything near the car and mimic the decisions made by a human driver. So far seven test cars have driven 1,000 miles without human intervention, although someone was behind the wheel in case something went awry, and more than 140,000 miles with only occasional human control. Google’s researchers do not have a clear plan on how to create a business plan using the cars, but the project’s inventor, 43 year old director of Stanford Artificial Intelligence laboratory, Google engineer, and co-inventor of the Street View mapping service, is a passionate promoters of the use of robotic vehicles to make highways safer and lower the nation’s energy costs, which also happens to be a commitment shared by Google’s co-founder Larry Page.
Here at the Brod Law Firm we think these cars are a great idea in regards to public safety. For example a human can only see one or two cars in front of them, while these driverless cars can see in all directions at a range of 70 yards. At the same time however, it still remains to be seen how reliable they will turn out to be. Also this technology brings up legal questions. Current law currently states that a human must be in control of a car at all times. So what does it mean if a human is not really driving the car, say, when the car malfunctions and gets into an accident? Google researchers claim to have figured that one out; they say they have carefully examined California’s motor vehicle regulations and determined that because a human driver can override any error, the experimental cars are legal.

San Francisco – Oakland Product Liability Attorney Comments on Avandia Lawsuit

October 15, 2010 | Gregory J. Brod

According to the St. Claire Record former Judge from St. Clair County, Judge Michael O’Malley, is part of a legal team leading two separate product liability suits filed the same day in Madison and St. Clair counties over the diabetes drug Avandia. O’Malley retired as judge on July 30th to join a St. Louis personal injury firm. When he was judge, he presided over at least one class action against drug companies. In 2005, he certified a case against Bay and GlaxoSmithKline, over the cholesterol fighting drug Baycol. The Illinois Supreme Court overturned O’Malley’s ruling in 2009. In the Avandia suits filed October 1st, O’Mailley is taking on GlaxoSmithKline as an adversary.

According to the suit residents Ida Akins and Allen McAllister say GlaxoSmithKline was wrong in selling a diabetes drug without first warning of potential serious side effects from which they suffered. Walgreens is a co-defendant in both suits. Akins and McAllister claim they used Avandia to treat their type 2 diabetes mellitus, but suffered severe injuries, one of which was a heart attack, from their ingestion of the drug. The defendants are being accuses of negligence, negligent pharmaco-vigilance, a breach of express warranty, a breach of implied warranty, fraud, and a failure to warn. They say both GSK and Walgreens are liable for their injuries because they created and heavily marketed Avandia as safe, despite knowing the drug posed a substantial health risk to patients with type-2 diabetes.

Avandia’s potential risks and side effects have led critics to suggest that Avandia should be removed from the shelves. Yet, the FDA has not bothered to properly warn the public of its potentially fatal effects. Instead they merely issued a black box warning. In 2007, a study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic and published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that Avandia increases the risk of a heart attack by 43 percent and concluded that Avandia increased the risks of cardiovascular death by 64 percent. Now accusations have been made that the drug’s manufacturers, GlaxoSmithKline, withheld data that showed problems with Avandia and neglected to properly warn the public and users of the drug of its potentially fatal side effects.

San Francisco-Oakland Attorney Comments on Santa Rosa HIt-and-Run

October 14, 2010 | Gregory J. Brod

According to the Press Democrat, the CHP is looking for a maroon-colored SUV in connection with a hit-and-run collision that seriously injured a cyclist in Saturday’s GranFondo ride, a 103 mile ride through northern California. Witnesses told officers it could have been a ford Explorer or something similar. As of yet, officers don’t have a description of the driver or a license plate. The cyclist, Anoush Zebarjadian, a 57 year old veteran bike rider of San Francisco, was on Graton Road at around 4pm when he was hit. He was knocked unconscious and suffered serious head injuries, and he remained in the hospital Wednesday in serious condition in ICU at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital. A CHP officer, as of yesterday, was continuing to try to learn the driver’s identity and find the vehicle. A witness to the collision said the driver drove aggressively as he passed riders on a downhill slope just prior to hitting the cyclist. The witness also said that as driver passed the cyclist, he pulled the large vehicle to the right and hit the cyclist and his bike. At that moment Zebarjadian hit the ground and the driver did not stop.

These rides are often on windy roads with skimpy or no bike lanes at all that make it nearly impossible for drivers and cyclist to share the road safely, but that is no excuse for drivers to become impatient and angry, and then drive aggressively. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we think perhaps the planners of these rides need to provide better info to the public by alerting drivers– days before as well as the day of the ride–of possible delays and perhaps provide detours during the rides so that cyclists are not put at such a risk. The most seasoned rider, as we have seen here with Zebarjadian, can become a victim of hit and run in an instant. Zebarjadian will obviously need the public’s help finding the hit-and run driver, because there may not be enough of an effort on the part of the police put into solving this crime, and also because, even though there several witnesses, no one was able to provide a thorough description of the car or license plate. Sometimes other witnesses and people who have information don’t bother to speak up because they assume that others will provide the information.

If you are loved one were the victim of a hit-and-run accident, please contact our office. We have over 10 years experience fighting for victims of hit-and-run accidents, and we are happy to answer any questions you may have regarding these kinds of cases.

San Francisco-Oakland Injury Attorney Comments on Roller Coaster Accidents and Amusement Park Safety

October 8, 2010 | Gregory J. Brod

According to the Huffington Post, 10 people have been injured in a roller coaster accident at Knott’s Berry Farm in Orange County. The accident happened Thursday night on a rollercoaster called the Pony Express. The injuries reported were minor, however. A spokesperson for the park stated that a train leaving the station didn’t make it over the first hill and rolled back into another train, and one person who getting into a waiting train and nine people on the train that rolled back were injured. All the victims were taken to the hospital. The cause of the accident is now under investigation.

Roller coasters and amusement rides are usually associated with fun for children, adults, and families. Most people who visit amusement parks and ride roller coasters with suffering an injury; however, each year thousands are injured while on roller coaster or any other amusement park ride. Tragically, in the most extreme situations, some visitors don’t leave an amusement park or water park alive. Most amusement park injuries result from equipment malfunction, but people can also be injured on water rides, water slides, in wave pools, and rides that use inflatable devices. Serious injuries associated with amusement parks can include:

• Deadly Falls – riders can die after being thrown from rides.

San Francisco-Oakland Attorney Comments on San Bruno Class Action Lawsuit and New Pipline Safety Legislation

October 7, 2010 | Gregory J. Brod

According to the

Oakland Injury Lawyer comments on Police pursuit accidents

October 4, 2010 | Gregory J. Brod

In 2007, very near Thanksgiving Day, an Illinois State trooper was driving over 100 miles per hour, responding to an accident. The former officer, Matt Mitchell, was reportedly talking on his cell phone to his girlfriend, and sending e-mails on the police car computer, while driving at outrageous speeds. It was estimated that Mitchell was driving approximately 126 miles per hour, and drove across the highway median, where he ran into an oncoming vehicle, and killed two, teenage sisters, aged 18 and 13. The police officer, who pled guilty in criminal court, but did not serve any jail time, has now denied any fault or responsibility in the civil action. In fact, the former police officer has applied for workers compensation benefits to receive payment for injuries he suffered as a result of the crash in which he killed two innocent girls.

Police officers and other law enforcement personnel are not above the law, and must be mindful of the safety of the general public, who they are sworn to serve and protect. In the horrible tragedy in Illinois, the accident that the former police officer was heading towards at the time of the crash, had already been responded to. Undoubtedly, the Illinois State Police are ashamed by this incident, which should have been avoided, and could have been prevented. Ideally, law enforcement agencies around the country will learn from incidents like this, and properly train their police officers to respect the safety of the public when in pursuit, or when responding to an emergency.

At the Brod Law Firm, we fight for people who have been injured due to the fault of others, including police officers driving in a high speed chase, in pursuit, or in response to an emergency. To learn more, please contact us at info@brodfirm.com.

San Francisco-Oakland Injury Attorney Comments on Fisher-Price Recall

September 30, 2010 | Gregory J. Brod

Fisher-Price is recalling more than 10 million products made for infants and toddlers in the US and Canada. The recalled products are linked to 24 reported incidents of injuries to young children. The massive Fisher-Price recall includes 7 million Trikes and Tough Trikes toddler tricycles sold in the US, and 150,000 of the same sold in Canada. According to the recall notice, a child can strike, sit or fall on the protruding plastic ignition key resulting in serious injury, including genital bleeding. The US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) and Fisher-Price are aware of 10 reports of incidents resulting in injury. Six of the incidents required medical attention after young girls, ages two to three years old, fell against or on the protruding disc-shaped and D-shaped pretend key.

Fisher-Price is also recalling Healthy Care, Easy Clean and Close to Me High Chair and includes 950,000 high chairs sold in the US and 125,000 sold in Canada. Children can fall on or against the pegs on the rear legs of the high chair resulting in injuries or lacerations. The pegs are used for high chair tray storage. The CPSC and Fisher-Price are aware of 14 reports of incidents, including seven reports of children requiring stitches and one tooth injury. One of these incidents was reported in Canada. Additionally about 100,000 Little People Wheelies Stand ‘n Play Rampway toys were recalled. The wheels on the purple and the green cars pose a choking hazard to young children, as the are easily removable and are small enough to swallow. Fisher-Price has received two reports of a wheel detaching from a vehicle. So far no injuries have been reported, though.

Also included in today’s recall is are the Baby Playzone Crawl & Cruise Playground, Baby Playzone Crawl & Slide Arcade, Baby Gymtastics Play Wall, Ocean Wonders Kick & Crawl Aquarium (C3068 and H8094), 1-2-3 Tetherball, Bat & Score Goal. The valve on an inflatable ball on these toys can come off and pose a choking hazard to young children. The CPSC and Fisher-Price are aware of 46 reports of incidents where the valve came off, 14 reports of the valve found in a child’s mouth and three reports of a child beginning to choke. Luckily, so far no injuries have been reported.