Car accidents: An expense that America cannot afford

Posted on February 8, 2017January 26, 2023 by wmlawyers

It is nearly impossible to put a price tag on life and health. They are simply valuable beyond measure. But loss of life and health as well as the costs related to those losses need to be at least estimated in order to raise awareness about key public health issues, and one issue in particular: auto accidents.

According to a recently released report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the total cost of car accidents (measured by economic loss and societal harm) in 2010 was $871 billion. No matter how safely we drive, each of us pays these costs.

According to the report, these are just some of the factors that contribute to the overall cost of car accidents:

Emergency services
Medical and rehabilitation expenses
Insurance administration costs
Lost work and productivity
Property damage
Losses related to traffic congestion (fuel, time, environmental damage, etc).
Court and legal expenses
Costs to employers

The details in the report and the staggering price tag may seem overwhelming. But it’s important to spread the reminder that the majority of car accidents (and related deaths and injuries) are preventable. How much money would we save – and how many lives could we spare – by getting serious about fighting drunk driving and distracted driving?

You may not be able to fix all of society’s car accident problems, but you can do your part to help. And if you or a loved one has been injured or killed by the negligence of another driver, you have the right to seek appropriate compensation.

Source: Click On Detroit, “NHTSA: Car crashes have $871 billion impact on economy, society,” May 29, 2014

Store may be liable in Fisherman’s Wharf accident that killed boy

Posted on February 8, 2017January 26, 2023 by wmlawyers

Fisherman’s Wharf is among the most iconic areas of San Francisco and a must-visit tourist destination. For this and many other reasons, businesses that operate in the area need to make safety a top priority. Tourists should never have to worry that they will be seriously injured during their visit.

By now, most Bay Area residents have heard about the tragic accident that occurred in Fisherman’s Wharf and claimed the life of a 2-year-old boy while his family was visiting from Utah. The boy climbed onto a dolphin statue that then toppled onto him. The statue was a piece of merchandise placed outside of a store in such a way that it violated local safety codes.

Police say that the store known as Majestic Gallery has previously been warned that it could not place its merchandise outside of a designated area because it would impede pedestrian traffic. The store has since been cited.

Other business owners in the area have questioned whether the accident would have happened if the boy’s parents had been keeping closer watch. They argue that the same accident could have occurred even if the merchandise had been inside the store.

But is this a reasonable comparison? Parents are usually very attentive to how their children behave inside of stores because they don’t want their kids to accidentally break merchandise. When a statue is placed outside, however, parents may not know that it is a piece of merchandise. If the boy’s parents had thought it was a public statue, they may have also assumed that it was securely fastened to the ground.

Depending on the details of the incident, the store could face legal liability for the toddler’s death. The boy’s parents may decide to pursue a lawsuit for premises liability or wrongful death.

No matter what happens, however, this incident should serve as an important cautionary tale for all businesses in Fisherman’s Wharf. This tragic death was preventable, and it should never be allowed to happen again.

Source: CBS San Francisco, “Support Grows For Utah Toddler Killed After Climbing Fisherman’s Wharf Dolphin Statue,” June 11, 2014

Trucking industry continues to fight important safety regulations

Posted on February 8, 2017January 26, 2023 by wmlawyers

By this point, most Americans have heard about the devastating truck accident involving comedian Tracy Morgan. Earlier this month, a truck driver who was dangerously fatigued crashed into a vehicle carrying Morgan and several other passengers. The accident resulted in one death and left Morgan and two others in critical condition.

Drowsy or fatigued driving is a major cause of auto accidents on roads and highways here in California and around the country. Fatigue is especially dangerous in the trucking industry for two reasons. First, due to the way that truck drivers are compensated, miles and time behind the wheel are prioritized over sleep and rest. Second, truck drivers who fall asleep behind the wheel of their giant vehicles often cause truck accidents with multiple fatalities.

Federal regulators have been trying for decades to impose rules that govern hours of service in the trucking industry in an attempt to combat fatigued driving. About a year ago, such rules were enacted. The new hours-of-service rules:

Reduce maximum weekly driving time from 82 hours to 70 hours
Limit daily driving time to no more than 11 hours with a mandatory 30-minute break
Require drivers to take a 34-hour rest break before starting a new weekly driving cycle
Require that the 34-hour rest break includes two consecutive days where drivers are off the road between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.

These hours-of-service rules are very reasonable and are based scientific studies about sleep and fatigue. But less than a year after the HOS rules were enacted, trucking industry representatives are already lobbying Congress to freeze or repeal them.

The crash that severely injured Tracy Morgan has brought renewed national attention to the dangers of fatigued truckers, but the problem is ever present. Some 30,000 people per year are killed in accidents on U.S. highways, and approximately one in seven occur in accidents involving large trucks.

The trucking industry wants to roll back these important safety rules in the name of profit and efficiency. But the cost of that tradeoff is simply too high.

Source: The New York Times, “Truckers Resist Rules on Sleep, Despite Risks of Drowsy Driving,” Jad Mouawad and Elizabeth A. Harris, June 16, 2014

As cars become more sophisticated, so do automotive defects

Posted on February 8, 2017January 26, 2023 by wmlawyers

Besides the seat belt, the most important safety innovation to be put into automobiles is arguably the air bag. These devices are simple in concept yet complex in their construction and functioning, and they have saved countless lives.

But as automobiles become more sophisticated and computer-controlled, air bags seem to be suffering from more and more problems. Most readers are aware of the General Motors recall scandal linked to at least 13 Oakland car accident fatalities. A faulty ignition switch on defective vehicles could prevent the air bags from deploying during a crash.

But the air bag problem extends far beyond GM. This year alone, 6.6 million vehicles have been recalled for problems with air bags directly or problems that could lead to air bag failure.

In many cases, the defect is not a hardware problem but a software one. The fact that automobiles are increasingly controlled by computers and algorithms has many performance and safety benefits. But when things go wrong with the software, the issues can be much harder to fix and far more dangerous than a defective piece of hardware. Air bags must be deployed within milliseconds of a crash and typically rely on sensors throughout the vehicle. A glitch in any of the synchronized systems could prove to be fatal for occupants in the vehicle.

This is a reality that is frustrating for automakers and absolutely vexing for safety regulators like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It is also one that promises to become even more complex as cars evolve toward full automation.

If you or a loved one has been injured or killed in an auto accident, driver negligence may be only one factor to consider when pursuing a lawsuit. An experienced personal injury attorney can investigate the details of the crash to determine if automotive defects also played a role.

Source: Tire Business, “Airbags safer than ever — if they deploy,” July 17, 2014

Bicyclist solves the hit-and-run case that left him injured

Posted on February 8, 2017 by wmlawyers

In large cities like San Francisco and Oakland, there are some crimes that too often go unsolved due to lack of law enforcement resources. A good example is hit-and-run accidents. Although unsolved hit-and-runs are not nearly as much of problem here as they are in cities like Los Angeles, they are nonetheless a serious problem.

In order to make sure that a driver faces criminal charges and civil liability, the first crucial, step is to correctly identify the person who struck a pedestrian with their car and sped off. Without police help, this is sometimes impossible.

But there are some pedestrians and bicyclists who take the investigation into their own hands. In a Georgia community, for instance, a 39-year-old bicyclist was recently able to track down the car and driver who struck him after police told him that solving the case would likely be difficult.

Thankfully, the bicyclist remembered seeing the car coming out the lot of an apartment complex near the accident scene. He also remembered that it was a silver Volkswagen. The day after the accident, he went looking for the car in that lot but didn’t think he would find anything. As it turns out, he immediately found a car matching his search criteria.

He knew it was the car that hit him because the grill still had a piece of his broken bike pedal stuck in it. The driver who owned the car was a 20-year-old woman who later admitted to police that she drove off because she was frightened.

To be clear, taking the law into your own hands can be dangerous and is generally not a good idea. But in this case, the bicyclist found he could not wait for overburdened law enforcement officers to look into it. He now has the option to pursue a personal injury lawsuit if he wants to.

Source: Florida Today, “Hit-and-run victim investigates, solves own crime,” Kevin Rowson, July 16, 2014

Most Americans want stronger anti-texting enforcement & penalties

Posted on February 8, 2017January 26, 2023 by wmlawyers

We have previously written that California has among the most stringent distracted driving laws in the nation. The District of Columbia and 44 states have banned texting while driving, but California is one of just 13 states (along with D.C.) to ban talking on a handheld cellphone behind the wheel.

Yet distracted driving and the car accidents caused by it are major problems that do not seem to be going away. This is especially vexing in light of the fact that the vast majority of Americans seem strongly opposed to distracted driving generally, and texting while driving in particular. According to the results of a national poll released last month by the National Safety Council, about 73 percent of Americans favor stronger enforcement of anti-texting laws.

This includes increasing the current penalties for offenders who get caught. Approximately 50 percent of respondents favored “large monetary fines.” Fifty-one percent said they’d like to see different penalties for repeat offenders than for first-time offenders. And 52 percent would approve of penalties that included a point system. A certain number of points could result in higher insurance costs and the loss of a driver’s license.

It is hard to get a truly accurate estimate of the number of distracted drivers on U.S. roads at any given time. However, this survey’s high number of respondents in favor of stronger anti-texting laws seems to contradict previous surveys wherein nearly as many respondents admitted to engaging in distracting driving behaviors behind the wheel (including but not limited to texting). This suggests that at least some of the people calling for stronger anti-texting laws are looking to be saved from their own bad habits.

As we have noted in past posts, safe driving is fundamentally a choice. Our busy lives make it tempting to multi-task behind the wheel, but we don’t have to give into this temptation. The risk is simply not worth it. Please make the choice to drive distraction-free at all times.

Source: Forbes, “Most People In Favor Of Stiffer Penalties For Texting While Driving, New Poll Finds,” Tanya Mohn, June 30, 2014

California Supreme Court delivers premises liability ruling

Posted on February 8, 2017January 26, 2023 by wmlawyers

Most people get into healthcare because they want to help others. This is as true of in-home aides as it is of doctors and nurses. Unfortunately, there are risks associated with any healthcare job, and sometimes these risks come from the very patients workers are trying to help.

A good example is a premises liability case that was recently decided by the California Supreme Court. The case concerned an in-home healthcare worker who was attacked and injured by a patient with Alzheimer’s disease. The Court held that the worker (and others in her situation) cannot sue the patient and the patient’s husband for premises liability, battery and negligence.

The Court’s 5-2 ruling made some important points. It is already the case that California courts don’t impose liability for injuries like this in institutional settings (such as nursing homes). Therefore, it would be incongruous to treat in-home caregivers under a different standard as long as their injuries arose from the symptoms of the patient’s disease and as long as they were warned of the risks.

The Court also cited the principle of assumption of risk. Certain jobs come with risks that are inherent or obvious (firefighters, for example). As such, the majority ruled, “those hired to manage a hazardous condition may not sue their clients for injuries caused by the very risks they were retained to confront.” The Court determined that “the risk of violent injury is inherent in the occupation of caring for Alzheimer’s patients.”

This case is complicated because it deals with a difficult and contentious issue. Specifically, it asks courts to decide if and to what extent a mentally incapacitated individual can be held liable for his or her actions, even if they are “intentional” and violent. Most premises liability cases are more straightforward.

Source: The Huffington Post, “Legal Liability for Injuries to a Caregiver Caused by an Alzheimer’s Patient,” Brad Reid, Aug. 15, 2014

Distracted driving reaches new heights in the Bay Area

Posted on February 8, 2017January 26, 2023 by wmlawyers

How well do you remember your driver’s education classes? Even if you were paying less-than-full attention, you may remember reading something about driving being a privilege and not a right. That probably seemed like a strange sentiment at the time.

But when you witness the behavior of certain other drivers – ranging from bizarre to insanely dangerous – it suddenly becomes clear that not all drivers deserve the privilege they were given. Some motorists in the Bay Area have taken distracted driving to whole new levels, prompting others to consider alternative modes of transportation for their own safety.

In a recent San Jose Mercury News article, a reader wrote in to explain why he is glad to be a BART commuter. The man said that while driving on the 237 freeway, he once saw a woman painting her toenails during her afternoon commute. Her left foot was up on the dashboard and strategically placed near an air-conditioning vent to aid the drying process.

Although this was the craziest example of distracted driving he had seen, there were others that seemed almost equally foolish. They included drivers he had seen:

Applying makeup
Eating cereal
Reading newspapers
Shaving their faces (both with blade razors and electric razors)

There are motorists out there who believe that driving is their inalienable right, which is evident in their reckless behavior. But sooner or later, these drivers will cause a devastating car accident that could injure/kill them or others.

Sadly, there are a lot of drivers who don’t deserve the privilege of licensure. As individuals, we don’t have the power to revoke their license, but we can make sure they are held accountable for the damage they cause. After an accident, an experienced personal injury attorney can help you pursue the compensation you deserve.

Source: San Jose Mercury News, “Roadshow: Woman painting toenails gets first prize for distracted driving,” Gary Richards, July 23, 2014

Looking forward to the safety benefits of self-driving cars

Posted on February 8, 2017January 26, 2023 by wmlawyers

As uneventful as our days can occasionally feel, it’s good to remember that we live in exciting times. Moreover, the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are centers of technological innovation. As just one example, Google is actively testing and fine-tuning its fully automated vehicles, otherwise known as “driverless cars.”

In a recent Reuters article, journalist Paul Ingrassia wrote about his experience taking a test ride in one of Google’s prototypes. He noted that “the most remarkable thing about the drive was that it was utterly unremarkable.” The fact that fully-automated cars are nearly indistinguishable from cars with human drivers is the truly remarkable part.

The future of self-driving cars is still somewhat uncertain, especially the timeline of when such vehicles will come into widespread use. But according to most experts, one thing is clear: These vehicles will experience far fewer car accidents than human-operated cars do today.

But this raises an interesting legal question. When self-driving cars do cause an accident, who will be legally liable? It probably won’t be the vehicle’s occupants, because they will have no control over how the vehicle functions. This means that liable parties could include the auto manufacturer and the company responsible for the driving/navigation software.

Google is not the only entity working on self-driving cars, or even the only entity here in California. Researchers at Stanford University are also working on their own projects.

It may be some time before fully automated cars are a reality on U.S. roads. In addition to working out technical bugs, there are legislative matters to attend to as well. But when self-driving cars do come into widespread use, we can look forward to a much safer and more luxurious driving experience.

Source: Reuters, “Look, no hands! Test driving a Google car,” Paul Ingrassia, Aug. 17, 2014

NLRB decision – McDonald’s and other corporations, not lovin’ it

Posted on February 8, 2017 by wmlawyers

For decades now, corporate franchisors have been able to have the best of both worlds with the franchise business model – exerting increasing control over their franchises' operations in order to increase their own profits, while distancing themselves from the unlawful employment practices of the franchisees.

Take McDonald's Corp. for example. McDonald's exercises a great deal of control over its franchisees and their employees through their franchise contracts. This control includes partly setting wage levels, work rules and scheduling, requiring franchisees to use proprietary labor management software, and providing labor guidance to increase profitability. In fact, modern technology has made it easier over the years for corporations to increase its control and monitoring of the franchises, which in turn has increased profitability for the franchisees and the corporate franchisors. But, increasingly, corporate franchisors wish to reap the benefits of the franchise industry while disavowing any responsibility for labor practices inside the restaurants.

That may be about to change.

Through a brief administrative decision on July 29, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)'s General Counsel, Richard Griffin, announced that McDonald's could be treated as a "joint employer" (along with the franchisees) in labor cases. In other words, McDonald's could be legally responsible if its franchisees engage in unlawful employment actions, such as improperly paying workers or terminating them for union organizing. In addition, treating McDonalds and its franchisees as "joint employers" would make it easier for fast food workers to unionize. Instead of the time-consuming and expensive process of unionizing workers at each franchise location, company-wide organization may be feasible. Perhaps more importantly, this decision could set a precedent not only for other franchisors, but for businesses that use temporary workers, subcontractors or so-called independent contractors as part of their business model.

The decision set off a firestorm in the industry, prompting a chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling response from franchisors and their proponents. For example, in a quote in the Wall Street Journal, the chief executive for the International Franchises association said this opinion will "threaten the sanctity of hundreds of thousands of contracts between franchisees and franchisors." An editorial in the Chicago Tribune opined that "the new liability would invite a plague of lawsuits, while forcing corporations to drastically alter their operations." Numerous corporate leaders, such as the CEO of CKE Restaurants, which includes Hardee's and Carl's Jr., claim this change to the system will "destroy" it.

The industry's reaction is totally out of proportion to the potential impact of the decision. Virtually no one wants the franchise system to shut down. Yet, business proponents bombard us with rhetoric that contracts are downright holy and lawsuits are a disease. They lament that forcing corporations to take responsibility for the franchisees will kill the entire system.

We've heard this sort of fear-mongering from the business community before. Take, for example, the 40 hour work week, which union leaders pushed for and business owners fought against in the early 19^th Century. Study after study has since shown that a 40 hour work week has not destroyed our economy, but in fact made businesses more productive and profitable.

It is good to have corporations on the line for all it its franchise workers – it creates incentives for the corporations to keep the franchisees in line and treat their workers better. While corporate leaders fight to protect the status quo, joint responsibility will help ensure that workers in these jobs have their rights protected, and can collectively bargain for fair wages. A study by the National Employment Law Project shows that post-recession job market is weighted heavily toward work in the fast food industry. Over 8 million people work at fast food restaurants, amounting to 15 percent of all private sector jobs in the United States. Given the increase in these kinds of job in the modern economy, we must make sure these jobs can support the economy.

In the end, corporate liability for franchise misconduct will force corporations, who benefit significantly from their franchises, to take responsibility for working conditions that really are under their control. And that is a system that benefits everybody.