San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

When the state of California took millions in transit aid to reduce its budget deficit, it severely hurt city transportation agencies-since most agencies are already strapped with their own deficit, including our MUNI. Last August, Genesis, a local group of public advocates, along with representatives from the other transportation advocate and agencies from accross the country, gathered in Chicago to speak out and call on Congress to stop the trend of transit service cuts, fare hikes, and operating budget shortages. During the press event, speakers described the dismal fiscal conditions of most of the major transit agencies around the country and offered solutions for how to get them out of the hole. They specifically referenced a report by Transportation for America titled “Stranded at the Station”. According to the report, in 2008, Americans took 10.7 billion transit trips, the highest since 1956. Advocates and community leaders say funding cuts have hurt people living in vulnerable demographics, as cuts to service make it difficult to get work, school or doctor appointments To that, the president of Genesis Reverend Scott Denman says this: “Our government says it is concerned about greenhouse gases, claims that government is by the people, for the people. Nonetheless, Federal policy currently encourages more cars on the road and less help for those who have no cars.”

Just last week, The Mercury News put out a special report on the devastating effects of service cuts on Bay Area residents who rely on public transportation. In the report a graphic depicts just how slow and expensive common regional commutes are on transit. What more will public transit agencies need to pay their bills? Here in San Francisco, Muni has raised fares twice in one fiscal year, increased parking rates and reconfigured service on its bus and train routes to deal with budget problems. If things do not change at the national level and state transit funding is not reinstated, then AC Transit and other regional transit operators will continue to be forced to cut service, raise fares, and continue to debase the transportation system- and consequently remove it as viable option for Bay Area residents. At this point, almost $22 million is still needed to close MUNI’s projected budget deficit, a dilemma that has forced the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), the agency that oversees Muni, to ask its commercial vendors to help ease the transit agency’s debt. The department is requesting that private businesses voluntarily reduce their contracts with the agency by a minimum of 3 percent for the next 2 ½ years. Judson True, spokesman for the agency, believes this will save the agency “several million dollars.”

Another way the (SFMTA) could have raised millions in annual revenue would have been by extending parking meter hours to Sundays and nights, but that recommendation was recently rejected by the mayor. What is truly sad about this crisis is that the people who depend on public transit most are paying higher fares for less service, as some routes have had parts cut or were completely eliminated. As pointed out above, some of the most vulnerable people are now faced with walking longer distances or drive their cars to reach their destinations. MUNI may also become less safe and clean in the future. The SFMTA announced last week that it is going to lay off 24 parking and control officers and four mechanics, 10 people who clean trains and buses and a few others. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we wonder if fewer people will ride MUNI due to all the cuts to service and safety-which may lead to a complete melt down of the system, traffic congestion (that is if those left stranded even own a car)and poorer air quality.

This headline caught our attention: “Teen charged with murder and vehicular manslaughter in death of 66-year-old Oakland woman”. On December 31st, a 17 year old stole a car and was chased by police. During the chase he lost control of the car and slammed into anther, killing a woman and injuring the other individuals in the car. This is a classic case of a robbery gone wrong. This kid, about to turn 18, will now face murder and vehicular manslaughter charges instead of theft charges. In a matter of seconds he went from car thief to murderer. Here at the Brod Law Firm, stories like this leave us wondering why individuals choose crime. We think peer pressure is a critical factor in the life of a teenager who turns to crime. Some teenagers feel lost and join gangs or cave into peer pressure in order to acquire sense of self and belonging. And adult criminals may claim that that hard economic times or difficult childhood forced them into a life of crime.

Hard economic times affect us all, and very few people have had perfect childhoods. However, some people respond to economic pressure by adapting to living with less and hard work. Others respond to adversity by striving to achieve more than what has been shown to them. With that said, sociological explanations for crime are often inadequate when trying to understand all the reasons why a person turns to crime. If such explanations were correct, then we are all potential criminals. Ultimately, it comes down to how each person chooses to deal with adversity, rather than just environmental factors. It is unjustified to assume that a person living in disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances has no other choice than to become live a life of crime. Usually, what lies in a criminal’s psychology is a mystery, a mystery that sometimes not even the most talented sociologist or psychiatrist can decipher or deconstruct. Not all children who grow up in difficult circumstances turn to crime and not all children from families that are stable and loving are law abiding. Here at the Brod Law Firm the personal injury story serves as an analogy to all of this, as our office is like a microcosm of society. We have heard and taken on enough heart- wrenching and tragic cases to feel assured that the individual who has been injured by the negligence of another, despite any compensation they receive, is responsible for how they cope with tragedy and choosing whether or not they move forward with a positive attitude. More often than not, we are inspired by the courage and positive attitudes our clients display during, what is for most, the most difficult time in their lives.

Legislation was introduced this month that would prohibit smoking in public spaces, spaces such as farmers’ markets, outdoor seating areas of restaurants, cafes and coffee shops, and common areas of multiunit housing complexes. Smoking would also be banned from entrances, exits, and windows and vents of all buildings, while waiting in lines at ATMs, theaters, athletic events, concert venues and cab stands. Smoking would be allowed at the curb of sidewalks, streets and alleys. And if there is no curb, then smoking would be prohibited within 15 feet of entrances or exits. Also, smoking would be allowed at least 20 feet from transit shelters, boarding areas and ticket lines. Under the legislation, smokers who break the rules would face a $100 fine for the first offence and up to $500 for multiple offenses. All of these provisions have been introduced to protect residents from second hand smoke.

No one will deny that secondhand smoke is harmful . A recent report put out by the Institute of Medicine has confirmed that exposure to secondhand smoke is a significant cause of heart attacks among nonsmokers and that relatively brief exposure to second hand smoke can cause acute coronary events. And the CDC declares that, in addition to protecting people from secondhand smoke, smoke-free laws also help decrease cigarette consumption rates. If the ban passes, the tobacco industry and some businesses will probably challenge the ban, over fears of losing customers.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe smoking bans are good for both smokers and non-smokers. But we wonder, if the legislation passes–and it probably will, as public support, awareness and implementation of similar bans is on the rise in cities around the globe– how city officials will enforce the law? Will heavy fines be enough of a deterrent? We are guessing that enforcement will be driven by complaints made to the police (it is hard to imagine health officials hiring smoking patrols). More than likely, though, the pesky cigarette and smoker will be gone by the time they receive a call or before they have a chance to respond. So it seems a more formalized system of enforcement would still be needed, especially with provisions that have specific distance requirements, such as 20 feet from a bus shelter. What if a smoker is smoking 20 feet and one inch from a bus shelter or only 19 feet? How will anyone know the difference? Will the police start carrying measuring tapes? Plus, there are no guarantees that smoke will completely dissipate once it has lingered up to a distance of 20 feet. Smoke that lingers toward a bus shelter from 19 feet away will not know, under the new law, it is only allowed one more foot. And besides, everyone knows smoke does not have feelings or care if it breaks the law.

Within the month Toyota will begin a massive recall on 4.26 million cars and trucks going back to the 2002 model year due to faulty gas pedals. Toyota claims that the gas pedal design makes them vulnerable to being trapped by floor mats and that the recall aims to reduce the vehicles risk of accelerating out of control. According to the Los Angeles Times, the action follows widespread reports of runaway Toyota and Lexus vehicles. They also reported that sudden acceleration incidents involving Toyota-made cars and trucks have claimed 19 lives since the 2002 model year, which federal officials say is more than all other manufacturers combined, and that at least 1,000 incidents of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles, documented in consumer complaints, have occurred within the last eight years. Toyota said it will cut off about three-quarters of an inch from the bottom of the pedal to reduce the risk of the mat snagging and jamming the gas pedal, replace all-weather rubber floor mats and replace thick padding under the carpeting of certain models with thinner pads to allow more clearance between the pedal and floor . And as an additional precaution, Toyota said most of the software in the vehicle’s engine control system would be modified so that the brake overrides the accelerator if both pedals are pressed at the same time.

For decades, auto makers, not just Toyota, have blamed sudden acceleration on the drivers, denying the fault lies with the cars. We all know how dreadful it feels to have the tables turned on us after someone has harmed us; surely this is how survivors of sudden acceleration feel when they are told by auto makers that they are inadvertently at fault. Since the introduction of electronics into auto design in the 1970’s, electronics control almost every auto function, thus changing the relationship between car and driver. This invention has created the possibility of sudden acceleration and other random electrical faults that are impossible to trace, unlike older, non-electrical engines whose defects were mechanical in nature and could be verified by physical inspection. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we are glad to see the truth about the phenomenon of sudden acceleration beginning to emerge, and we believe this recall will result in fewer injury accidents for Toyota owners.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is back in the spotlight. Recent testing by Consumer Reports of canned foods found that most of the 19 name-brand foods they tested contained measurable levels of (BPA). BPA has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and is restricted in Canada and some U. S. States and municipalities because it has been linked to a wide range of health effects. It turns out BPA is also used to line the inside of canned goods so the metal does not interact with the food and deteriorate. A different report put out by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, back in May, found that participants who drank for a week from polycarbonate bottles, including baby bottles, showed a two-thirds increase in their urine of BPA, suggesting that drinking containers made with BPA release the chemical into the container’s contents– enough to be measured in urine. The results also showed that the participants’ urinary BPA concentrations increased 69% after drinking from the polycarbonate bottles.
Federal guidelines currently put the daily limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight—based on experiments done in the 1980’s. But scientific evidence confirms that BPA at lower doses can be dangerous. Environmentcalifornia.org researchers found that BPA at low doses is associated with developmental problems, lower sperm count, breast and prostate cancers, diabetes and obesity, heart disease, Down Syndrome, behavioral changes, and miscarriage. According to a FOX News report, Dr Urvashi Rangan, the director of Technical Policy, at Consumers Union, a nonprofit publisher of Consumer reports, said,” The lack of any safety margin between the levels that cause harm in animals and those that people could potentially ingest from canned foods has been inadequately addressed by the FDA to date.” The good news is that efforts to bring about change are being made. The Consumers Union recently sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, requesting that the agency act this year to ban the use of BPA in food and beverage-content materials. And the FDA is expected to reassess the safety of BPA and issue its findings by the end this month. Currently, bills are pending in Congress that would ban the use PBA in all food and beverage containers. Here at the Brod Law Firm we would like to see a day when the FDA imposes stricter regulations not just on BPA, but on all toxic substances. All of us born under the nuclear and DDT age have been exposed far too long to too many toxins–such as radiation, pesticides, as well as medications and vaccines–that, now, it’s time for a change.