Justia Lawyer Rating
badge - Top 100 Trial Lawyers, The National Trial Lawyers
badge - Lead Counsel Rated
badge - Avvo Rating 10, Gregory J. Brod, Top attorney
badge - American Bar Association
badge - Member of San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association
badge - Super Lawyers

Americans are obsessed with all things Extra Large, from pizza to popcorn and from sodas to café mochas (with extra whip cream, of course). This, in turn, leads to another American obsession: Weight Loss. While some turn to the time-tested method of diet and exercise, others look for a shortcut that makes the process easier and faster. Sadly, many of these quick fixes involve dangerous diet pills. If you took a product looking for a weight loss solution (pill or powder, “cure” or supplement, or even just a little help in the process, and it made you ill (or if a diet pill claimed a loved one’s life), our San Francisco and Sacramento diet drug danger attorney.

Overview of the Diet Pill Debate

pills2.jpg As discussed in a recent San Francisco Chronicle piece, there is an increasing tendency to treat obesity as a medical disorder that should be treated as such. The drugs are almost always intended to be used in conjunction with diet and exercise and the majority of doctors still prefer those approaches. Two new drugs are gaining attention, notably following on the heels of “a rash of prescription weight-loss lemons” that have led the Food and Drug Administration to view the treatments with a cautionary eye. Both of these new drugs, Belviq and Qsymia, were approved last year after having been initially rejected and with the requirement that longer-term trials be performed to check on stroke and heart-related risks. One doctor said he’s wait to see results over 3 to 5 years, stating: “At this point, any benefits are outweighed by unknown risks.” However, others believe even a small weight loss can lead to major benefits and see the drugs as necessary treatments.

This post is part of a new series that we’ll be sharing occasionally. Instead of focusing on a subject specifically tied to personal injury law, this series will deal with more general legal topics including legal process and courtroom rules. We believe these posts will help people understand the legal system and leave readers better prepared for being involved in a civil lawsuit in California, including working with our San Francisco and Sacramento personal injury law firm and our Northern California small business attorney. In this post, we focus on the hearsay rule and what it means for the admissibility of statements made outside of court.

Hearsay Defined

Many people have a passing familiarity with the term “hearsay,” perhaps from legal television shows. Hearsay is an evidence rule, contained in both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the California Evidence Code (Sec. 1200). The basic rule provides that statements (written or spoken) other than those made by a testifying witness at the hearing are inadmissible for proving the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. The basic concerns are that these statements were not made under oath, the judge/jury cannot observe the speaker (aka the “declarant”) for signs of honesty, and the opposing side was not able to cross-examine the declarant. As such, hearsay is thought to be unreliable.

riding-a-bike-1192075-m.jpg Four-percent of the Bay Area population uses a bike to commute to and from work-a statistic that is unmatched anywhere else in the country. The large population of bicyclists and motor vehicles results in a great deal of tension that complicates the interpretation of bicycle and motor-vehicle accidents.

In March 2012, San Franciscan bicyclist Chris Bucchere was riding his bike southbound on Divisadero toward Market when he struck and killed Sutchi Hui, a 71-year-old pedestrianwho was crossing the street. The thirty-second traffic video shows that cars had stopped in response to the ending yellow, prompting a few pedestrians to start walking early before the light turned red. Then, at about 25-30 mi/hr, Bucchere is seen riding, through the intersection in the last few seconds of the yellow, and as he mentions in a blog post, the crosswalk was filled “almost instantly”, and he had to “plow through the least populated” side he could find ultimately colliding with Hui, killing him.

There are many factors that contribute to the difficulty of assigning fault in this situation. First, the fact that the pedestrians began walking early may have contributed to the difficulty Bucchere had in readjusting his trajectory to avoid them. On the other hand, Bucchere was riding between 25 and 30 mi/hr through an intersection when all other vehicles had stopped for the imminent red. In addition, Bucchere had reportedly sped past two red lights just before the intersection in question. Together, the pedestrians walking early combined with Bucchere’s speed created a difficult situation to get out of unscathed. The pedestrians who walked early and Bucchere were being too aggressive amidst the rush hour pressure, expecting the other parties to behave in a way that accommodated the other’s intentions. Unfortunately, those expectations collided, resulting in the death of Hui.

The combination of this ambiguity and the fact that the light had not completely turned red made it difficult to eventually convict Bucchere with gross negligence leading to felony vehicular manslaughter, a sentence that carries two to six years in prison. Bucchere is the first bicyclist to be thus convicted, although he was not given the full brunt of the corresponding sentence. Instead of prison time, Bucchere was sentenced to three years of probation and one-thousand hours of community service.

In response to the accident, there has been a great deal of disagreement towards the sentencing of Bucchere. Many believe that it was not a harsh enough sentence given that the accident resulted in the death of a person. One anonymous commentator writes that “cyclists are lazy entitled jerks”, while still others argue that a driver of a motor vehicle would have faced a more severe recourse than Bucherre. While speculative and unsubstantiated, these conversations reflect a tension on the road between motor vehicles and bicyclists that has been seen in various forms, from internet comments to road rage.

Both cyclists and drivers can be negligent-the problem is that sometimes, the difference in the size of the bike and motor vehicle makes it difficult to get rid of observer’s bias as to who is more reckless or negligent. It is important to consider how such biases may affect juries. In a recent case in Boston, there has been a great deal of upset regarding the verdict in a case where a bicyclist was fatally injured by a truck. Despite the fact that there was video footage, and several eye witness testimony insisting that the vehicle that struck him was going too fast, the driver was not charged. The jury’s indictment was seen by many cyclists in the area as a sign that their rights are not equated with those of motor vehicles. However, in examining criminal cases, it is important to keep in mind that the burden of proof in a criminal case is significantly higher than that of a civil matter. In the former, one is innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in the latter, a case is won and lost based upon whether or not a claim can be reasonably affirmed.

Of course, being accident-free is the optimal state of affairs for any driver or bicyclist. To get as close as possible to that standard, it is essential to practice appropriate safety measures to prevent avoidable accidents. For all participants on the road-bicyclists, pedestrians and cars-observing the road with a careful eye, and being considerate of others’ needs are key to sharing the road effectively. For cars and bicyclists, wearing appropriate safety gear such as seatbelts and helmets respectively can help avoid potentially severe injuries.

But accidents do happen, and when they occur, it is important to be proactive in acquiring the facts of the incident. What is done at the scene of the accident is crucial—bicyclists and motor vehicle drivers must collect the raw data at the scene, and exchange contact information. While collecting basic information, it is also important to examine liability issues, namely who may or may not have been following the traffic laws. If there have been injuries, it is important to have a medical professional assess the extent of that injury, and verify whether there is a possible link between the accident and the observed injury.
Continue Reading ›

As a society, we are becoming more aware of the health risks associated with exposure to chemicals and radiation. This awareness translates into a range of duties, including the duty of companies to limit current/future exposure of employees and the public at large to potentially dangerous substances. Additionally, entities often have a duty to remediate prior problems, such as cleaning up the site of a past incident if dangerous substances still lurk in the water and soil. When corporations (and even government entities) fail at these duties and people become ill, the victims may be able to invoke the area of law known as “toxic torts” and seek damages for the harm they suffered. As a lawyer for toxic exposure victims in Sacramento, San Francisco, and elsewhere in Northern and Central California, Attorney Brod knows that these are complex cases, but also believes that toxic tort claims are crucial way to help individuals and protect the health of our nation.

The History of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory

A Sacramento Bee report checked in on the progress of the clean-up at a former rocket test site active during the Cold War. North American Aviation founded the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in 1947, a site spanning nearly 2,900 acres. The aerospace hub, located 30 miles northwest of Los Angeles, saw thousands of tests on rocket space engines over the subsequent four decades, including the testing of engines that flew on the Apollo spacecraft. It was also the site of nuclear research, at one time playing home to 10 reactors. In 1959, there was a partial meltdown released radioactive gases. While the government said at the time that there was no dangerous radioactive release, full details didn’t emerge until two decades later when some UCLA students looked into the event. The nuclear reactors shut down in 1980 (per Wikipedia).

As a member and supporter of the San Francisco and Marin County Bicycle Coalitions, Attorney Greg Brod knows the countless benefits of bicycling, including the extensive health benefits to the rider and the environmental benefits that help keep all of us healthier. As a San Francisco bicycle accident attorney, Greg Brod sees the tragedies associated with riding on two wheels, especially in a society focused on four wheels. This is an upsetting contrast and a true problem evidenced by both injury crashes and the great loss associated with fatal bicycle crashes. These tragic fatalities are the focus of today’s post.

Fatal Bicycle Crash in South of Market Neighborhood

A short article in this week’s San Francisco Chronicle focused on the death of a 24-year old woman from San Francisco. Amelie Le Moullac was riding her bike in the South of Market neighborhood, travelling east on Folsom Street just past 7 o’clock on Wednesday morning. She was in the bike lane when an eastbound truck hit her while it was attempting to turn right on Sixth Street. LeMoullac succumbed to her injuries and was pronounced dead at San Francisco General Hospital. Officer Tracey Turner reported that the truck driver, who remained at the crash scene, was not cited.

From bachelor and bachelorette parties to trips to the ballpark, party buses have become increasingly popular. In many cases, the buses are converted vans that have been outfitted with sound systems, elaborate lighting, and upgraded seating. Some party buses even include extras like smoke machines, dance floors, and stripper poles. While the buses can be a safer alternative to driving where alcohol is involved, they can be dangerous if not properly constructed and operated. Careless operation, or perhaps companies placing profits over safety, has led to serious party bus accidents in California and nationwide. Our office has the knowledge and experience needed to serve as a law firm for party bus accidents in San Francisco and throughout Northern California. We can help victims seek monetary compensation from those responsible for turning a night of fun into a night of tragedy.

Off-Duty Party Bus Involved in Fatal Crash

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, one of two people aboard a van died on Sunday when the vehicle spun out on Interstate 280 near Portola Valley. It was approximately 10:50 P.M. when the vehicle slid down an embankment in the area south of Alpine Road, killing the sole passenger (later identified as Adam “Maximo” Blomquist). Forty-three year old Jason Quinonez, the van’s driver, fled the accident scene. Office Amelia Jack of the California Highway Patrol reported that Quinonez was found walking nearby and later arrested on charges of manslaughter, hit-and-run, and drunk driving.

It starts in law school and continues at backyard barbeques and fancy cocktail parties. No one hears (or, truth be told, tells) as many lawyer jokes as lawyers, especially those in the personal injury arena. Our legal team has a sense of humor and appreciates a good joke, even at our own expense! However, it is upsetting to hear so many jokes about attorney ethics. Like most in our profession, we take our ethical duties very seriously. These duties include obligations to both clients and the court system and are reinforced by state bar requirements. We also take breaches of these duties seriously and believe strongly in our work representing victims of legal malpractice in Sacramento, San Francisco, and throughout Northern and Central California.

scales.jpg Duties to Clients

Attorneys in California and throughout the U.S. owe their clients a number of duties, including a general duty to act ethically in representing the client and a duty to act in the client’s best interest. Many of the duties stem from the attorney’s role as a fiduciary. The general duties also translate to many specific duties such as the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, provide competent legal service, keep client funds separate from the attorney’s own monies, and follow a client’s direction in handling the client’s legal matters (assuming the directions are legal). Attorneys must also communicate promptly and thoroughly with the client, providing all relevant information to help guide the client’s decisions.

championship-of-jet-ski-351701-m.jpg
We in the San Francisco Bay Area are blessed to live in a spectacularly beautiful juncture between land and water, and during the summer months the region’s waterscape proves a particularly alluring setting for recreational activities such as boating. But while boats and personal watercraft are vessels that can provide memorable entertainment for family outings, all too often they can be even more dangerous than motor vehicles to operate, sometimes with tragic consequences. A boating accident in the Sacramento Delta on Sunday was but one example of how deadly collisions involving boats can be, and is a reminder of the relevance of personal injury actions in some cases.

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, a man died after his Jet Ski struck a Wave Runner, both of which are personal watercraft, near Bethel Island in Contra Costa County. The cause of the crash is still under investigation, but the county sheriff’s marine patrol found that “both operators had limited experience and no boating education,” according to the story in the Chronicle.

According to United States Coast Guard statistics, operator inexperience was the No. 2 primary contributing factor of recreational boating accidents in the nation in 2012. Other top primary contributing factors in last year’s boating accident statistics include operator inattention, improper lookout, machinery failure, excessive speed, navigation rules violations and alcohol use. All in all, there were 4,515 boating accidents reported to the USCG last year, of which 578, or 13 percent, resulted in a total of 651 deaths. The USCG also counted 3,000 injuries and approximately $38 million of property damage as a result of recreational boating accidents.

As in accidents involving motor vehicles, water craft operators are at fault in a boating accident if they act negligently. And as in motor vehicle accidents, a significant number of water craft accidents often involve an operator who is under the influence of alcohol. Boating under the influence (BUI) is criminalized in all 50 states. Indeed, alcohol use was the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; the USCG listed it as the primary factor in 17 percent of all such accidents in 2012.

With the USCG reporting 12,101,936 recreational vessels registered by the states last year that are often cruising – and unfortunately colliding in – the nation’s waterways, it’s no surprise there would be numerous cases involving accident liability. Those who are found negligent for whatever reason in a boating accident may incur civil liability and even criminal liability. Boating accident victims may sue another boater for property damage, medical expenses and other losses suffered as a result of the incident.
Continue Reading ›

gavel2.jpg From single-vehicle car crashes to major industrial accidents, we believe in learning from tragedy. This is a value we share with the victims who come to us for help after their lives have been shaken by injury or loss. Preventing future incidents is one of the goals of injury litigation, a process that helps compensate victims and also helps avoid future tragedy by uncovering the cause of past events. It is a goal that can be especially important in the cases we handle as an Oakland industrial accident law firm and one we are reflecting upon this month as we note the one-year anniversary of the 2012 Chevron refinery explosion.

Public Demands Action Following Chevron Plant Explosion

A recent article in The Oakland Tribune recalled the events of August 6, 2012 when a unit at the Chevron refinery in Richmond burst into flames, sending a dark cloud of smoke across the neighboring communities. For many, the incident recalled the accident at the Tosco refinery in 1999 that left four workers dead. While no fatalities were attributed to the Chevron fire, some 15,000 residents sought medical attention in the aftermath of the explosion and several workers incurred minor injuries.

The Asiana airplane accident that occurred in early July of this year has been the subject of much press this week as more claims are filed against defendants allegedly responsible for the tragic crash. The crash occurred on a San Francisco landing strip on July 6, a clear day by all accounts. When the plane crashed into the tarmac on that day, it left 181 people injured and two teenagers dead. Complaints against the airline, airplane and airplane parts manufacturers, and other parties are now mounting as victims heal from the wreck.

According to a news report by Claimsjournal.com this week, victims have filed suit against several defendants. The laws governing suits against airline carriers may guide plaintiffs and their attorneys how they select which party to sue. Under the Montreal Convention of 1999, an international convention regarding compensation for airline accident victims, victims cannot file a lawsuit in the United States if their final destination was not, in fact, the United States. In sum, the convention gives jurisdiction to the country in which the airplane ticket was purchased. At least one legal expert notes that this may not be advantageous for people traveling to destinations outside the United States, because the United States tort system, which governs personal injury and product liability cases, may be more generous to plaintiffs.

Some plaintiffs have filed product liability suits against Boeing, the manufacturer of the airplane involved in the Asiana crash. It is important to note that the Montreal Convention does not protect such defendants, and therefore passengers on the Asiana flight who were traveling outside the United States may bring such suits. Some of the facts upon which the suits are premised include that oxygen masks allegedly did not deploy as they should have, the sliding ramps did not deploy properly, and the seatbelts in the airplane had to be cut with a knife to release passengers.

Contact Information