Five children’s products that were recalled in October

Posted on February 8, 2017 by wmlawyers

No one gives a child a toy, a medication or anything else with the expectation that the product will cause injuries. Unfortunately, not all products are manufactured, designed and labeled correctly, which leads to a number of accidents and fatalities each year.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission lists five children’s products that have been recalled so far this month due to potential hazards. Here they are:

October 1 – DaVinci cribs by Bexco are recalled because their metal brackets could break. If they do, the infant could roll into the resulting gap and suffocate. He or she could also fall or suffer lacerations.
October 7 – All-terrain vehicles for youth are recalled by BRP because the fuel filters have the potential to break or leak. This can lead to fires and burn injuries.
October 8 – Wooden highchairs by Safety 1st are recalled due to removable trays. If a child removes the tray, he or she could fall out of the highchair and get injured.
October 20 – Denim pants by Golden Horse are recalled due to the potential of the zippers falling off. Children could choke on the zipper pulls.
October 21 – Adhesive remover manufactured by Krud Kutter is recalled because bottles are not child-resistant and are incorrectly labeled. The liquid is poisonous, so if a child swallows it, it could be fatal.

Of course, these are only the products recalled thus far in October. Many more have been recalled in prior months, and many more will likely be pulled from the shelves in the future.

If you believe your child may have been injured by a dangerous or defective toy or other product, don’t hesitate to contact a lawyer who can advise you about your legal rights and options.

Bus safety and some long-awaited bravery from the NHTSA

Posted on February 8, 2017 by wmlawyers

Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has always been an advocate for safer roads and vehicles, the agency's leaders now seem more fervent about their cause than they have been in the past. The NHTSA, which has traditionally been tepid in its response to auto recall scandals, has recently shown itself willing to get tough with companies like Takata.

The agency's rhetoric also seems to be changing. The NHTSA's public comments are often very measured, even when it comes to pushing for common-sense safety initiatives. But this, too, may be changing. Recently, the NHTSA's new administrator, Mark Rosekind, stated unequivocally that the agency now believes that all school buses should be equipped with three-point seat belts for all passengers.

You may be asking: "Isn't this already legally required?" Unfortunately, the answer is: Not as much as you might think. California is one of just six states to require seat belts on school buses. Nearly all other states have chosen not to implement this crucial safety feature.

To be sure, students riding school buses (without seat belts) may already be better protected than those riding in smaller vehicles. A bus' large mass and the high positioning of passengers (relative to the road) tend to mitigate the effects of crash forces. But in a world where seat belts are already in widespread use and very cheap to install, why not mandate an extra level of protection for all bus riders?

Rosekind's recent comments may not bring about much change – at least not right away. But it is nonetheless refreshing to hear the NHTSA speaking with passion about a safety issue which should be a no-brainer.

Commenting on the agency's change of tone, Rosekind said: "NHTSA has not always spoken with a clear voice on the issue of seat belts on school buses. So let me clear up any ambiguity now. The position of the NHTSA is that seat belts save lives. That is true whether in a passenger car or in a big yellow bus. And saving lives is what we are about."

How does injury liability work in the sharing economy?

Posted on February 8, 2017 by wmlawyers

Over the past decade or so, new businesses and new business models have allowed average people to put their property to work. These include ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft as well as temporary lodging services like Airbnb.

There is little debate about the fact that the "sharing economy" is a popular concept. It may even be here to stay. Unfortunately, however, these new business models raise difficult questions about who is ultimately liable when accidental injuries and deaths occur.

A recent article in the New York Times talks about an incident that occurred on Thanksgiving in 2014. While renting a Texas cottage with his family, a man decided to try a rope swing on the property – one that he had seen in a listing for the property on Airbnb. When he tried the swing, the tree broke and a large portion of it landed on the man's head. He later died.

In this particular case, the cottage owner had an insurance policy that covered commercial activity (renting out the property). But many homeowners have insurance policies stating clearly that commercial activity is not covered. The same is true for personal auto insurance policies, which many Uber and Lyft drivers may not realize.

Both Airbnb and Uber offer free insurance coverage for hosts/drivers that supposedly supplement their own coverage. But Airbnb's policy has a $10 million annual cap, which is miniscule in relation to the potential liability associated with the half-a-million rentals that occur each day. As for Uber, the company has tried to deny liability in the aftermath of at least one fatal accident here in California.

Traditional taxi services and hotels often charge more money than their equivalents in the sharing economy. But those costs are higher, in part, because the companies are usually compliant with all applicable safety laws and have insurance policies that will cover most any injury or death claim.

To be sure, this doesn't necessarily mean that the sharing economy is untenable. But questions of safety, liability and insurance coverage loom large. Until those questions are answered and concerns are addressed, users of these services need to know that they may not be getting such a great deal after all.

New dog owner sues after getting bitten, says he wasn’t warned

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

Most lawsuits alleging injuries from dog bites are fairly straightforward. Under California law, dog owners are liable when their pets attack other people. If someone is attacked by their own dog, the attack is tragic, but filing a lawsuit is usually out of the question. Who could be held liable in such a case, if not the owner himself?

A recent lawsuit here in California presents a more difficult question of liability. According to news sources, the 21-year-old plaintiff was severely bitten by his own dog, but he had adopted the dog just one month prior to the attack. Moreover, he alleges that the dog’s previous caretakers, an animal advocacy group, failed to inform him that the dog had recently bitten someone else.

The dog was adopted in San Diego County last December at an adoption event hosted by “Labrador and Friends.” About two weeks prior to the event, the dog reportedly bit a woman on the hand, almost severing her finger. The man says that L&F was “very diligent about giving us information, dog’s veterinary records, his chip, [and] various other life history,” but did not tell him about the attack. If they had, he claims, he would not have adopted the dog.

Just over a month later, the young man was attacked by his new dog. Suddenly and without warning, the dog bit his owner’s face so hard that it tore off the man’s nose. He has undergone several surgeries to repair the damage.

The lawsuit names both Labrador and Friends and San Diego County as defendants. In addition to personal injury, the plaintiff is suing for fraud.

To be sure, most rescue-adopted dogs are loving and docile. The plaintiff has even said he still encourages other families to adopt dogs. But this case serves as a grim reminder that failure to disclose an animal’s recent, violent history is likely to lead to disastrous consequences.

Pedestrian accidents spike again on Halloween weekend

Posted on February 8, 2017 by wmlawyers

Halloween is always a magical time for kids across the country; the one night a year in which they can pretend to be whatever they want while collecting as much candy as they can carry. As usual, trick-or-treaters were out in full force this past weekend.

Sadly, Halloween also has some traditions that are not as welcome. Among these is the rise in crashes involving pedestrians. The increase in pedestrian accidents is often caused by a confluence of factors, including drunk drivers, inattentive drivers, higher-than-normal pedestrian traffic and low visibility.

Readers here in the Bay Area may remember a Halloween tragedy in Southern California that occurred one year ago. In Santa Ana, three 13-year-old girls were struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver. The 32-year-old driver sped through a crosswalk before hitting the girls.

More reports will likely be coming in throughout the week, but this year’s Halloween festivities have already been associated with some devastating pedestrian accidents.

In Michigan, a 14-year-old girl was struck by two cars while trick-or-treating. According to news reports, the second vehicle dragged the teenager almost two miles. Amazingly, the girl survived.

In New York, a 52-year-old driver apparently lost control of his vehicle and plowed into a group of pedestrians on the sidewalk. News reports say that three people were killed in that crash.

Commenting on the accident mentioned above, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio noted that “we do not accept tragedies like this as inevitable.” While the statement may seem obvious, it is nonetheless an important sentiment. Although pedestrian accidents increase on Halloween, it doesn’t have to be this way. These accidents are preventable, and entire communities must work together to prevent them.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a negligent driver, please remember that you have rights and legal options. In order to better understand those rights and options, you may want to contact an experienced Oakland personal injury attorney.

Holiday gifts followed by dangerous product warnings

Posted on February 8, 2017January 26, 2021 by wmlawyers

Now that the holidays are ending, many kids, young and young at heart, are busy spending quality time with their gifts. It certainly doesn’t seem that Marty McFly had the same problems with his high-tech hover board as many who are riding them now seem to be experiencing. Warnings from numerous agencies are alerting consumers of the potential dangers of some of the products that may have made their way under your tree.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is now busy investigating some of the dangerous product claims associated with hoverboards, as well as drones. The main focus of their investigation appears to be the connection with lithium batteries.

Devices such as hoverboards, drones, remote-controlled cars, iPads and other items that contain the powerful lithium battery have been connected to numerous fires; leading to serious injuries and property damage. Some retailers like Walmart and Amazon, have pulled hoverboards from their shelves because of their product safety concerns.

All three major airlines, as well as several others, have banned hoverboards from their flights. A Delta representative stated that the problem isn’t the board, but the battery. The airline also believes that the product specs fail to provide adequate information about the size or power of the lithium-ion battery.

Many are asking, what can we do to prevent a fire from occurring? The first thing is to never leave the device unattended while it is charging and if the battery appears damaged, absolutely do not use it. Next, make sure that the directions for the device and battery are followed closely. Last, if the charger you’re about to plug into the device, isn’t the one it came with, do not use it.

Holiday traffic & car accidents: Tips for handling the aftermath

Posted on February 8, 2017 by wmlawyers

Now that the busy holiday season is in full swing, you may have noticed a lot more traffic than usual. As people rush to buy gifts and attend holiday parties, streets in the Bay Area are busier these days.

Of course, drivers with Christmas to-dos on their mind are often distracted, making car accidents more likely. In today’s post, we’ll discuss some things to keep in mind if you are involved in a crash that may have been caused by another driver’s negligence.

No matter how the accident occurred, your first responsibility is to ensure that you and all other parties involved are in stable medical condition or are receiving medical attention. If you can help it, you should avoid saying “I’m OK,” unless you qualify it with “at the moment.” You may have injuries that have not become apparent yet. If you later try to file an injury claim, the other driver or your insurance company may try to argue that you claimed to be fine right after the accident.

It’s also important to avoid admitting fault, even partial fault. This includes apologizing for the accident. The words you say (or avoid saying) in the aftermath of the crash could significantly impact your ability to seek compensation later on.

Once you determine that everyone is stable, you should collect all the information that you can. Where and when did the accident happen? Do you have the other driver’s license plate number and insurance information? Did you call the police to get an official record of the accident? More evidence can and will be gathered later, but it is important to gather what evidence you can at the scene.

Finally, you should report the accident to your auto insurer without saying any more than necessary. Any statements suggesting you were at fault for the crash or suggesting that you are uninjured could be used against you later. Before you accept a settlement or give more details to your insurer, you may want to speak with an experienced personal injury attorney who can better explain your rights and options.

How will regulations affect future of self-driving vehicles?

Posted on February 8, 2017 by wmlawyers

For years, high-profile companies in California have been testing and developing the technology for fully autonomous vehicles. In other words: self-driving cars. The most high-profile of these companies is Google. Many Californians in and around Silicon Valley have encountered these vehicles, which drive more courteously and safely than most humans ever could.

Because of these innovations, it has long seemed likely that California would be among the first states to fully embrace self-driving cars. But a recent proposal by the state Department of Motor Vehicles could significantly hinder these plans. The DMV recently proposed rules limiting the testing and deployment of self-driving vehicles, including a suggested requirement that “autonomous vehicle operators . . . be present inside the vehicle and be capable of taking control in the event of a technology failure or other emergency.”

To be sure, it is a good idea to have human back-ups in the driver’s seat while these vehicles are being tested. For the most part, that is precisely what Google has done. But should human drivers be a required back-up at all times, even after the technology proves to be safe? This may seem prudent, but some believe it could actually be more dangerous.

It is human nature to divert attention away from mundane tasks that we do not need to focus on. Chances are good, then, that most people won’t be paying attention to driving when they ride in a self-driving vehicle. Being asked to suddenly pay attention at a critical moment could easily result in disaster.

The merits and potential pitfalls of self-driving vehicles must be an ongoing discussion. Hopefully, it is a conversation that will continue in California throughout 2016 and beyond.

The woes and warnings of parking lots

Posted on February 8, 2017January 26, 2021 by wmlawyers

Now that the holidays are ushering their way out until next year, many Alameda County residents have made their way back to the stores from whence their gifts came, to return their items. However, as many of us know, parking lots can sometimes seem more like race tracks and as a result can be the perfect place for an accident causing injuries.

Thankfully, one insurance company has come to the rescue with suggested tips on how to avoid a parking lot accident.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety states that nearly 20 percent of all motor vehicle accidents occur in parking lots. Now, many accidents in parking lots are non-serious and if there are injuries, they are generally not life-threatening. However, they can be time consuming and expensive – not to mention, really frustrating!

So, what do you do if you are the one who hits a parked car? Well, even though it won’t be the highlight of your day, you should do everything that you can do to contact the owner of the vehicle. If necessary, go into the store with the license plate and description of the car and ask the store owner to attempt to locate the vehicle owner.

What if the shoe is on the other foot? Let’s face it, not everyone is going to go out of their way to let you know they smashed your car. That said, if you see that your car has been damaged, contact your insurance carrier right away to report the accident. He or she will be able to help you make sure all of the important next steps are followed.

Unfortunately, not all parking lot accidents end with an exchange of insurance information and a handshake. Sometimes, the collision causes an injury. If you are injured, make sure that you contact your medical provider right away for treatment and then, call a personal injury attorney to determine what you need to do next.

Greyhound bus crash in California kills 2 and injures many more

Posted on February 8, 2017 by wmlawyers

California has had more than its share of devastating bus accidents in recent years. Many of these crashes have resulted in multiple fatalities. Sadly, another fatal accident added to those statistics earlier this week.

According to news sources, a Greyhound bus traveling between Los Angeles and the Bay Area overturned on the highway in the early morning hours of January 19. The single-vehicle accident, which happened near San Jose, caused the deaths of two of the bus' 20 passengers. Other passengers and the driver suffered injuries.

Although the crash is still under investigation, there is reason to suspect that driver fatigue either caused or contributed to the accident. Some of the surviving passengers told authorities and the bus driver was noticeably tired in the hour or so leading up to the wreck. When questioned, the 58-year-old bus driver did admit to being "fatigued."

If fatigue was the cause, it certainly wouldn't be first accident of its kind. The Department of Transportation estimates that fatigue is a factor in about 3 percent of fatal crashes annually on U.S. roads. The rate is much higher for commercial drivers. In 2006 and 2007, driver fatigue was to blame for about 13 percent of bus accidents and truck accidents. Both of these statistics may be conservative, because it is not always possible to prove fatigue in the aftermath of a crash.

Commercial drivers tend to be at a higher risk for driver fatigue for a number of reasons (other than the fact that they spend more hours on the road than most other drivers). First, commercial driving often involves shift work. Working at varying hours of day and night can easily throw off a person's circadian rhythm. Even if they sleep prior to a shift, that sleep is usually less restful than if they slept at the same time each night.

Second, commercial drivers are often forced to put economic concerns ahead of safety. Most truck drivers are only paid for the miles they travel and/or the time spent behind the wheel. Any time they spend sleeping (or waiting for cargo to be loaded/unloaded) is time they don't get paid for. Bus drivers often work long shifts, and many do not have access to perks like overtime pay. Therefore, making ends meet often requires driving as many hours as possible.

Commercial vehicle accidents are too often dismissed as simply the cost of doing business. But whether the accident was caused by a negligent driver or systemic problems that contribute to fatigue, these accidents are nonetheless avoidable. And there is no excuse for allowing them to continue.