Orange County Personal Injury Law Blog

[trautfirm]

Car Crashes into Guardrail, Killing Two

In a matter of seconds, your life could change in unimaginable ways on the road.  Just a split second of negligence or recklessness on the road could result in an accident that could leave you, your passengers, and other innocent bystanders on the road crippled, or even dead.  This comes to mind when considering today’s tragic story.  A man driving a 2008 Mercedes eastbound on the 118 freeway near Chatsworth crashed into a guardrail near the DeSoto Avenue off-ramp, then plowed through a chain-link fence before the car landed upside-down.  Both the driver and a female passenger in the car died at the scene.  According to the Los Angeles Times, the California Highway Patrol reported that the driver of the vehicle made an “unsafe turning movement” right before crashing into the guardrail.  The CHP also reported that it was windy at the time of the crash.  The crash is still under investigation.

While we do not yet know the full details surrounding the cause of this tragic accident, if it is found that the driver of the vehicle caused the accident by driving in a negligent or reckless way, it is very likely that we will see the family of the female passenger suing the driver’s estate for damages associated with the crash.  For example, the family may sue for pain and suffering, funeral and burial expenses, loss of companionship, loss of anticipated financial support or household services, and perhaps loss of consortium (if the person suing is the passenger’s spouse). Of course, unfortunately, no money damages will ever be able to reverse the loss of life.

[trautfirm]

Unsafe Driving Caused Fire Truck to Crash into Restaurant

You may recall last spring an article on this blog about a fire truck that collided with another fire engine, causing the fire engine to careen into a restaurant in Monterey Park.  The collision caused 15 people to be injured.  A California Highway Patrol report was just released indicating that unsafe driving was the cause of the accident.  Apparently, the two fire trucks were both responding to a fire reported in a home in Monterey Park.  According to the report, which is described in today’s Los Angeles Times, both trucks were approaching the intersection of Emerson and Garfield Avenues, but the one truck “failed to ensure that the intersection was safe to enter against the red signal light,” thus causing the collision, after which one of the trucks careened into a person, then a street pole, and then a restaurant.  Thus far, no charges have been filed against the fire truck that was at fault.   

While typically more challenging, a person who is injured by an emergency vehicle can file a civil lawsuit against a government entity for damages stemming from such injuries where the collision was due to the fault of the government employee driving the emergency vehicle.  Such damages can include medical expenses stemming from the injuries sustained in the accident, lost wages, and pain and suffering.  There is, of course, great leeway generally given to government entities in control of emergency vehicles because they often have to disobey traffic laws in order to do their job in protecting the public, but there are times where the emergency vehicle is still driving in an unsafe manner and can be found liable for causing an accident.

[trautfirm]

Drop in Gas Prices Might Not Translate Into Drop in Public Transit Use

If you have been living in Southern California for a while, you may have noticed a significant drop in gas prices in the past months.  Indeed, gas stations around greater Los Angeles are offering gas at prices up to 40% cheaper than they were earlier in 2014.  This has raised some concern for proponents of public transit in Los Angeles County, as they worry that a drop in gas prices will mean more people return to using their vehicles to make their commute.  But according to a recent Los Angeles Times article, experts say that drops in gas prices do not really affect rates of individuals using public transit because the large majority of people who use public transit do not have access to a vehicle in the first place.  In fact, according to an expert, the fall in gas prices has only affected ridership by zero to two percentage points.  Of course, as the economy continues to improve, perhaps more individuals will start buying cars, but then the effect on ridership will be due to the condition of the economy, not the price of gas.

The rates of people in Southern California using public transit will likely have an effect on the rates of personal injury litigation in Southern California. More people using cars on the road means an increased chance that someone will make a mistake and cause an accident.  And of course, where someone’s mistake on the road causes an accident that results in injury to another driver, the driver who was negligent will more likely than not be facing a personal injury lawsuit.  If Southern California’s public transit system continues to expand as it has been over the past few years, it will be interesting to see whether personal injury suits decrease.

[trautfirm]

Law Firm Slapped With Malpractice Suit After Firm Failed To Obtain Class Action Status for Plaintiffs

The law firm of Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP is now facing a legal malpractice lawsuit for failing to obtain “certification of separate shareholder class action litigation” for its clients, who were suing EFT Holdings Inc. for fraud, law360 reports.  The plaintiffs in the suit are claiming $200,500 in damages, the amount the clients paid Edward Wildman to represent them.  The clients, thousands of Chinese and American consumers, had hired Edwards Wildman to represent them against EFT for fraud after EFT had collected millions of dollars in investment money from the consumers and used that money to “manipulate the price of EFT stock and loot the company.”  Apparently when the firm filed for a motion for class certification last October, the U.S. District Court judge refused to grant the certification because the firm failed to file for certification on time (in accordance with local rules). 

An attorney committing legal malpractice can cause serious harm to a client.  To have a successful legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff must show three things: that the plaintiff had an attorney-client relationship with his attorney (and that the attorney therefore had a duty to the plaintiff/client), that his attorney acted in a “negligent” way or violated that attorney-client relationship, and that the attorney’s acts were the cause of the plaintiff’s injury.  There are many ways in which an attorney can violate a duty to his client.   In this case, for example, the firm violated its duty to its client by missing crucial deadlines and not following Court rules, thereby causing harm to the plaintiffs’ case.  Other examples include an attorney who acts in a way that is harmful to his client because of a conflict of interest, or an attorney who steals money from his client. 

[trautfirm]

Actor Dies After Being Hit By Metrolink Train

Actor and model George Gregory Plitt Jr. was hit by a Metrolink train last Saturday while standing on the Metrolink tracks, the Los Angeles Times reports.  According to reports, the actor was in the midst of filming at around 4p.m. on Saturday when a Metrolink train heading southbound struck and killed him.  Suicide has been ruled out, and officials are still trying to figure out who was filming at the time, and for what. 

While we do not yet know if Plitt was filming for work at the time of the accident, we may be seeing Plitt’s estate suing for wrongful death and other damages if he was in fact filming for work at the time of the accident.  As we have already discussed on numerous occasions on this blog, when an individual is injured (or, in this case, killed) on the job, whether that individual will be able to sue the person who hired him to do the job will depend on whether that individual was, under the law, an employee or an independent contractor.  Where an employer hires an employee for work, the employer is required under the law to obtain workers’ compensation insurance, and that insurance would have to pay for the employee’s injuries.  However, if an business hires another individual as an independent contractor, then the business will, in most cases at least, not be liable for the independent contractor’s injuries on the job.  However, there are exceptions, one of them being when an independent contractor is asked to do what courts consider to be inherently dangerous work.

Of course, it is always important for businesses to remember that just because you label someone an independent contractor does not mean that they are necessarily an independent contractor under the law.  

[trautfirm]

Driver Fails to Stop at Light, Causes Crash

A driver who failed to stop at a light in Hawthorne caused a two-car crash, sending one car crashing into a fire hydrant and causing the intersection to flood with rapid streams of water.  According to reports, the traffic light in question had been out due to a power outage at the time of the crash.  According to the Los Angeles Times, Hawthorne police lieutenant Jim Royer said that while it was unclear whether the power outage cause the accident, “obviously someone didn’t stop.” Three people were taken to a nearby hospital with injuries due to the collision, though it is not yet known how severe those injuries were, or what current condition the injured individuals are in.

If you have taken the driving test in California, you know that the California Vehicular Code requires that where a traffic light is not functioning (like in this case, due to a power outage), drivers are to treat the traffic light as a stop sign.  If it is determined that one of the cars failed to yield the right of way at that traffic-light-converted-to-stop-sign, the driver of that car will likely be liable for negligently injuring the others involved in the accident, and will likely be facing a lawsuit.  This means that the negligent driver could be liable for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, property damage, and other damages, caused to the other people involved in the accident, and stemming from the accident that the negligent driver caused by failing to yield.   

[trautfirm]

Suspected DUI Driver Collides With Disabled Car, Killing One Person and Injuring Another

If you have been following this blog, you already known that driving under the influence is unfortunately one of the most common causes of car accidents, injuries and death on the road in Southern California.  Worse yet, such accidents could in most cases be avoided if drivers would drink responsibly and not drive when under the influence.  A driver under the influence is not only risking his or her own life on the road, he or she is risking the lives and well-being of other drivers on the road.  We have seen people sustain permanent injuries, lose limbs, sustain traumatic brain injuries and/or spinal chord injuries, and even lose their lives, due to drunk drivers on the road.  And while a person may sue a drunk driver for damages sustained in such an accident, including damages for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, property damage, and even wrongful death, money damages unfortunately can only go so far in returning an injured person’s life back to normal. 

This all comes to mind when considering this week’s crash on the 91 Freeway in Corona, when a man driving under the influence plowed into a disabled car on the freeway, killing the passenger in the disabled car and severely injuring the driver.  According to the Los Angeles Times, the disabled car had been stopped in one of the lanes due to an earlier accident, when the drunk driver plowed into it, causing the disabled car to burst into flames.  While the driver was able to escape the car, the passenger was not so lucky, and she died at the scene.  The drunk driver sustained minor injuries.

[trautfirm]

School Bus Driver Criminally Charged For Not Disclosing Medical Condition That Caused Bus Crash Last Year

A former school bus driver is facing criminal charges for allegedly not disclosing a medical condition that made him prone to seizures and blacking out, after his medical condition resulted in a severe crash last year.  According to KTLA, the bus driver was transporting a busload of students in Anaheim Hills last year when he blacked out, causing the bus to lose control down a hill, veer off the road and crash into trees.  All children on the bus were injured, with four experiencing major injuries including broken bones, traumatic brain injury, shattered spines, and, in the case of one child, an amputated toe.

The school bus driver was working for the Orange Unified Student District.  According to the Orange County District Attorney, the driver had failed to disclose to his employer that he has a medical condition that causes him to experience dizziness, seizures, and blackouts.  He has been charged with child abuse and endangerment (a felony), and perjury, in addition to “sentencing enhancement for causing great bodily injury.”  The driver could be facing 19 years in prison.

Whether the school bus driver lied about his medical condition in order to get a job as a bus driver is significant not only for his own criminal charges, but for liability his employer might face. As we have already explained on this blog, employers can be held liable for injuries caused by negligent or reckless acts of their employees if their employee’s negligent and reckless acts occurred while the employee was acting “in the scope of employment.” If the employer had, in this case, reason to know of the driver’s medical condition, it could be facing lawsuits from the injured students for negligently hiring an employee who was unfit to safely drive the students.

[trautfirm]

Comedian’s Family Settles with Walmart After Fatal Crash

Comedian James McNair’s family has settled with Walmart following McNair’s death in a car crash with a Walmart truck.  Tracy Morgan, who was also in the car crash and sustained traumatic brain injuries from it, has, to date, not settled with Walmart.  The lawsuits stemmed from an accident back in the summer of 2014, when Walmart employee Kevin Roper rear ended Tracy Morgan’s vehicle on the New Jersey turnpike, severely injuring Morgan and three others in the car, and killing McNair.  At the time, the Walmart employee was, according to some reports, driving 20 miles per hour over the speed limit.  According to NBC News, the Walmart driver has also been charged with death by auto and assault by auto, having not slept for more than 24 hours prior to the accident.  McNair’s lawsuit alleged negligent driving and wrongful death.

As we have already discussed on this blog, an employer is liable for damages stemming from the negligent acts of an employee, if the employee was acting “within the scope of employment” at the time. When considering whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment, courts might consider whether the employee’s acts were incidental to the employee’s work.  In this case, the facts were clear-cut, as the Walmart employee was driving a Walmart truck to an assigned destination.  For this reason the case has not involved disputes regarding whether Walmart is vicariously liable for the employee’s acts.   However in other cases, the facts are not so clear cut, and the Court has to consider whether the employer should have expected that the employee would be doing certain things as a result of the nature of his work.

[trautfirm]

Flight Attendants Sue Employer After Being Fired for Refusing to Work on Flight

Over 12 employees are suing their former employer, United Airlines, for firing them after they refused to fly on a Boeing 747 after they discovered that someone had written the words “Bye Bye” and two happy faces on the tail of the plane.  The flight was set to go from San Francisco International Airport to Hong Kong.  According to the Belmont Patch, the flight attendants set to work on that flight discovered the “threatening words and menacing images” shortly before the flight, and requested that the airline conduct an inspection to confirm that there were no bombs on the plane.  The airline refused to conduct the additional inspection, and so the flight attendants refused to fly on the jet.  The flight attendants were thereafter allegedly fired by United for insubordination.  The former employees hired a law firm to file a “whistleblower complaint” with the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as well as the Department of Labor (DOL), claiming that they were retaliated against for trying to protect themselves and the passengers of the plane-in-question from endangerment.  United alleges that it conducted all the appropriate inspections on the plane, including a security sweep, making the additional inspection (requested by the flight attendants) unnecessary.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are prohibited under federal law from firing (or retaliating against) an employee for raising a safety or health concern with the employer.  Employers are also provided whistleblower protection under California labor law, which protects an employee who reports a reasonable belief of unsafe working conditions in the employment’s workplace.

[trautfirm]

Donald Sterling Sued for Allegedly Sexually Harassing Employee

A former employee of LA Clippers has sued former Clippers owner Donald Sterling for alleged sexual harassment.  According to ESPN, the former employee, Maiko Maya King, alleges that she was working for Sterling and his foundation from 2005 to 2011 while also maintaining a romantic relationship with Sterling, and that in 2011 she attempted to break up with Sterling because of his constant sexually and racially offensive comments.  In 2013, King was hired again by Sterling as a caretaker and personal assistant.  King alleges that at that time, while she was promised $10,000 a month in payment, Sterling refused to pay her unless she had sex with him.  She alleges that she was then fired by Sterling because she refused his sexual advances.

In California, sexual harassment is considered a form of sex discrimination, and is against the law under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  Under FEHA, an employer is prohibited from discriminating in employment because of sex, and/or retaliating against an employee for speaking up against any such illegal discrimination.  Employers are not only prohibited from harassing employees in the workplace: they can even be liable for harassment if they did not know that the harassment was going on in the workplace.  The most common types of sexual harassment claims arise out of: an employee who loses his/her job because he/she refused to engage in sexual activity or because he/she complained about the harassment and was retaliated against; an employee who has to quit his/her job because he/she can no longer tolerate the harassment; or an employee is simply forced to deal with unwanted sexual harassment in the workplace.

[trautfirm]

Winchell’s Employee Sues Driver and Property Owner After Car Crashes Into Winchell’s Shop

An employee who was working in a Winchell’s donut shop when a car violently crashed into the shop, causing her severe burns and injuries, is now suing both the shop’s property owners and the driver of the car, for damages related to her sustained injuries.  According to City News Service, the employee was working on the clock last year when a car careened into the shop, causing doughnut-frying oil to splash on the employee, and burning her.  The employee is of course suing the driver of the vehicle for driving negligently and causing her injury, but what is more interesting is that the employee is also suing the owners of the property, who had leased the property to Winchell’s, for allegedly knowing other accidents had occurred nearby and not taking any preliminary measures to prevent accidents like this one from happening.  If you have been following this blog, you already know that a vehicle driver whose negligence causes an accident, thereby harming others, can be sued for damages to pay for things such as medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, sustained by the injured parties.  What will be more interesting to see in this case is the outcome of the plaintiff’s claim against the property owners.  To show premises liability, a plaintiff must show that he or she was harmed because of the way in which the property owner managed his or her property.  A property owner is required to use “reasonable care” to “discover unsafe conditions and repair, replace, or give adequate warning of anything that could be reasonably expected to harm others.” (See California Jury Instructions).  It will be interesting to see how successful the plaintiff will be in showing that the property owners in this case failed to use reasonable care in maintaining the property by not taking adequate measures to prevent a car from careening into the Winchell’s store.

[trautfirm]

Illegal Car Race Stopped by Police in South Los Angeles

Authorities were able to stop an illegal car race from taking place in South Los Angeles.  According to the Los Angeles Times, a number of people were trying to use a section of the 105 Freeway for the race.  Authorities found out about the race and came to the scene, prompting a few of the participants to flee from the scene.  Those participants were chased by police.  The authorities arrested numerous people on charges of suspicion of possessing stolen firearms and stolen vehicles, as well as illegal drug possession.  According to the Los Angeles times, officials have reported a disconcerting rise in illegal street racing and cruise activity. 

As we have already reported on this blog, illegal street racing is an extremely dangerous activity.  Those involved in races can face criminal charges for recklessness, and, if the race results in an accident with an innocent bystander, criminal charges for manslaughter or even murder.  To make matters worse, a racer who has injured or killed an innocent bystander during an illegal street race will most likely be facing civil charges as well.  For example, a victim may sue the street racer for damages for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.  The family of a victim who is killed in such an accident will also likely file suit against the street racer for loss of companionship, loss of monetary support, funeral and burial expenses, and pain and suffering.

For this reason, it is very important to be alert of any street races going on while you are traveling on the road.

[trautfirm]

Orange County to Build Massive Public Transportation Hub

Orange County residents will soon have a massive public transportation hub in Anaheim, where the paths of busses, trains, and cars will all cross.  This development is in tune with the general trend in Greater Los Angeles, as public transit networks continually expand, and more and more commuters avoid traffic and headaches by leaving their cars at home and opting for public transportation. 

According to the Los Angeles Times, officials are hoping that the transportation center, which will reportedly cost $188 million, will serve as the final stop for the California high-speed bullet train (which is to connect Los Angeles County with San Francisco).  Proponents of the center have expressed their hope that the central station will “unite previously scattered transportation services.”

If you have been following this blog, you have already read about the many ways in which Orange County officials have tried to relieve gridlock on the streets, including widening roads, and adjusting carpool lanes.  The Anaheim transportation center is expected (at least according to proponents) to further alleviate traffic on the roads.  Orange County’s many attempts to alleviate traffic on the roads may not only mean drivers will have less road-rage in the long-term: less traffic on the roads will also most likely mean decreased traffic accidents.  And decreased traffic accidents will of course mean decreased numbers in injuries and property damage arising from those traffic accidents, and decreased numbers in lawsuits arising out of traffic accidents.  Indeed, we may be seeing a decrease in personal injury lawsuits arising out of vehicular accidents as public transit becomes more and more widely used by residents.

[trautfirm]

California DMV Still Determining Standards for Self-Driving Cars in California

Imagine a world in which drivers no longer existed.  Where cars drove themselves, and commuters could just sit back and read the paper while their self-driving car took them to their destination.  Believe it or not, this might not be such a far-off dream.  As we have already reported, companies like Google have already made significant progress in developing self-driving cars.  Legislatures are now dealing with the very real issue of self-driving cars on the road.  Understandably, there are a lot of questions to be answered before those cars are allowed to travel on the road.  Consider this, for example: a self driving car gets in an accident with another vehicle.  Can it be the fault of the self-driving car? And if so, who is liable?  The person in the self-driving car? Or the company that developed the car? 

It should not be surprising that the California Department of Motor Vehicles is trying to sort out many questions concerning self-driving cars, which is why in a recent statement, the DMV announced that it was “seeking input from industry, consumer groups and academics, among others, to determine standards for driving fully autonomous vehicles on California roads.” (See LA Times).  The DMV has reported that currently, there are “no federal safety standards or independent organizations that test the safety of these vehicles,” which is why the agency does not yet feel ready to allow such cars on the road.

Many experts (and consumers) are excited about the prospect of driverless cars, largely because they are expected to make the roads safer, not more dangerous.  A driverless car, after all, does not get distracted like human drivers do, and a driverless car also does not get road rage or decide to drive at a dangerous speed out of hubris.  A driverless car also does not get drunk, and experts have pointed to driverless cars’ ability to have enhanced response times.

We do not yet know when we can expect seeing driverless cars on the road, but one thing is certain: once those cars do become available to consumers, we may see a decrease in vehicular accidents, injuries, fatalities, and lawsuits, assuming those cars are as safe as proponents believe them to be.

[trautfirm]

Woman Killed While Standing Outside Car on Freeway

When your car breaks down on a freeway, stepping out of the car can sometimes be extremely dangerous, as drivers might inadvertently hit you at a very high speed.  This is what a 61-year-old woman from South Gate learned all too late, when she stepped out of her Mercury Cougar on the 105 Freeway late at night.  The reason for her vehicle stopping is not yet known, but for whatever reason, her vehicle stopped, and she decided to step outside.  A pick up truck which was passing her on the freeway struck her, flinging her into traffic lanes, which ultimately resulted in her death.  The driver of the pick up then fled the scene, and police are now searching for clues to trace him down.

In California, a hit and run driver can face misdemeanor charges if he damages another’s property and flees the scene, and felony charges if he severely injures or kills someone and flees the scene.  Being convicted of a felony can result in serious penalties, including jail time. 

One lesson to be learned from this unfortunate accident is to be extremely alert of broken down cars (and people) on highways.  While striking a broken down car on the freeway (or a person for that matter) might not be your fault, there are situations where you might be found liable for causing property damage, injury, or death by striking a person or broken down vehicle on a freeway, and this, of course, can mean facing a serious lawsuit and paying damages for death or injury caused to the other party, as well as damages for property damage.

[trautfirm]

DUI’s Expected To Increase During Holidays

Unless there is a change in patterns, we can expect to see an increase in DUI arrests and accidents during this holiday season.  And unfortunately, increased drunk drivers on the road will almost certainly mean increased accidents resulting from drunk driving.  If you have been following this blog, you already known that drunk driving is one of the number one causes of accidents resulting in traumatic injury and death in Southern California.  And accidents resulting from drunk driving, in turn, almost always result in lawsuits, as victims of drunk driving seek damages to cover their medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

In 2011, according to MrCheckPoint.com, there were 2,575 DUI arrests on California Highways around the time of Christmas and New Years.  This indicates a distinct rise in DUI arrests and DUI related accidents during those times.  For example, on the weekend of New Years, in 2011, there was an increase of 135 DUI arrests.  Such statistics are unfortunate, and should serve as a reminder to everyone not only to abstain from drinking and driving, but to also be extremely careful and alert while driving on the road during the holiday season.  After all, knowing that you are not drunk on the road does not guarantee that others on the road will be equally sober.  By practicing defensive driving, you may be able to avoid an accident that could potentially threaten your life and safety, and avoid having to sue for damages you have incurred from a DUI accident.