Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents - Most Popular

What Happens if you Drive Without Car Insurance?

Jessica Grigsby — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:33:41 GMT

California law requires that all drivers and owners of motor vehicles carry car insurance—or, in the language of the law, “evidence of financial responsibility.” All the drivers on the road should be capable of covering the financial costs of any damage that could arise out of driving the car. Insurance can be very expensive and for some people difficult to get. So, what exactly happens if you drive without being insured?

The California vehicle code says that “every person who drives a motor vehicle” should be able to provide evidence of financial responsibility—your proof of insurance—when a police officer requests it. You will be requested to provide proof of insurance when you register your vehicle, as the result of a routine traffic stop or following a collision when the officer responds to the scene of the accident.

There are serious potential penalties for failure to carry insurance and to be able to demonstrate proof of your insurance. A first offense will land you with a fine between $100 and $200. A second offense within three years carries a fine of $200 to $500. But fines might be the least of your troubles if you are caught driving without insurance. The court might also order that your vehicle be impounded, for which you might have to pay the costs.

Those are the penalties if you are simply driving without proof of insurance. If you don’t have insurance and you are involved in an accident, the consequences are even more severe. In this case, the department of motor vehicles, upon receiving the accident report showing you have no insurance, will suspend your driving privileges, even if you are not a resident of California. The DMV will mail a notice of intent to suspend your driving privileges, which then occurs 30 days later.

Driving without insurance—or without enough insurance—is a serious offense in California. Before you get behind the wheel of a car, make sure that you are in compliance with the state’s insurance requirements.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jessica Grigsby

Fatal Sacramento crash involving teen driver

Ed Smith — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:31:00 GMT

An investigation is underway after a deadly crash occurred involving a 17 year old girl where a passenger in the car was killed. The accident happened just before midnight Thursday, October 19th, at Greenback and Elkhorn lane . The victim was identified as 18 year old Kimberly Barcenas of Arcata. Her car apparently ran a red light and was hit by a driver in the intersection.

The CHP continues to search for potential witnesses. Anyone with information is asked to call the North Sacramento CHP office at (916) 338-6710.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Smith

The Danger of Speeding—Tragic California Accident Kills Child

Jessica Smagacz — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:04:59 GMT

Tommy Watkins, 50 year old from Bakersfield, was driving home after camping at Lopez Lake with his family. According to investigators, Watkins attempted to pass another car but got stuck and his white Chevy Sedan hit a burgundy Suburban head-on.

According to KSBY 6 Action News, emergency crews went out on this call around 12:30 p.m. this past Monday. The car accident occurred about two miles east of Suey Creek Road on the Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo county line.

A 12 year-old boy tragically died at the scene of this accident. He was the grandson of Watkins.

There were six people in the suburban that Watkins hit and all of them were taken to the hospital. Sgt. Ben Ruth from the California Highway Patrol said, “It started to pass, there were broken lines that gave it permission to do so, but as you can see where the skid marks are, that passing lane ended way back.”

Chris Martinez is a witness to this accident. He saw Watkins’s Chevy pass traffic and had no idea it would turn into a tragic car crash. He said, “First thing that crossed through my mind: there’s no need to rush it to where you’re going. There’s always time. Apparently, sometimes you rush it and things like this happen.”

The six people in the Sedan suffered injuries along with the grandfather.

Our thoughts are with the child’s family and with those who were injured in this tragic car crash.

Remember to use caution at all times while driving. When you are in a rush, remember what can happen if you speed; instead, think about the fact that there is still time and driving safely outweighs the risks of a tragic accident such as this one.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jessica Smagacz

How should I deal with an insurance adjuster?

Jessica Grigsby — Mon, 16 May 2011 11:54:05 GMT

After you’ve been involved in a car accident that involved injury to yourself or property damage to your vehicle, seeking—and getting—recovery from your insurance company can be a daunting task. Many of us will remember the process of simply shopping for car insurance as a confusing and complex process. But when it’s time for that insurance policy to kick in and give you some benefits, an entirely new set of questions starts to emerge: What are you rights as an insured person? What do all those terms in your policy actually mean? And, what is the actual process of getting paid?

One important—and relatively early—step in the insurance claim process after you’ve experienced an accident is dealing with the insurance company’s claims adjuster. Knowing what a claims adjuster does and how you should deal with them will help you to make sure you insurance company pays you the amount of money it should.

In the days immediately following your accident, and after you have reported it to your insurance company, it is the insurance adjuster, or claims adjuster, who will contact you. From the perspective of the insurance company, the role of this insurance adjuster is to assess the damage that was caused by the accident—whether that is damage to your vehicle or injury to yourself—and essentially put a price tag on the total amount of damage that was caused. The amount that the adjuster lands on will be very important when it comes time for the insurance company to actually pay your claim.

While it can at times be difficult to work with an adjuster and make sure that they are giving you a fair and reasoned estimate, there are some things that you can do to influence the outcome and make sure that you are satisfied with the final settlement:

Be an informed consumer. Knowing your rights as an insurance consumer makes you a stronger negotiator with the company. Starting with the purchase of your insurance policy, until you have reached a settlement, make sure you know and understand what is going on. This means reading and understanding your policy and contacting your agent or insurance company or even the State Department of Insurance to clarify any doubts or questions that you have. Ask for documentation of anything that the insurance company quotes to support its position.

Document everything. If a dispute with your insurance company arises, having a strong paper trail to support your position is extremely beneficial. Documentation starts at the time of the accident: collect as much information as you can at the scene of the accident, even including photographs if possible. Keep all documents that relate to the accident: things such as doctor and hospital visits and bills, car repair estimates, rental car expenses, and other similar events. In addition, document all conversations that you have with the insurance company to keep a trail of statements or promises they have made to you.

Stand your ground. Don’t let the insurance company or adjuster talk you into settling too fast for too little. The settlement process can be long and intimidating and you probably just want to get it over with and move on, sometimes making any amount of money seem acceptable.

Get help. Knowing when you’re in over your head and need outside help can save you a lot of frustration. If your settlement is simply too complex for you to understand, you feel like the insurance adjuster isn’t treating you fairly, or you have been unsuccessful in your negotiations, hiring an attorney can really pay off.

The Demas & Rosenthal personal injury law firm is not currently representing anyone mentioned in this article at the time it was posted. If you were involved in this incident or a similar incident and have questions as to your legal rights and options, call us or another well recognized and respected personal injury law firm. Please do not rely or act solely upon the information provided in this article. Please consider getting a consultation immediately. The best California personal injury law firms will provide a free consultation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jessica Grigsby

Our Firm Obtains $4.5 Million Jury Verdict

Amber Wheat — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:00:47 GMT

A case study:

The verdict came down on July 2, 2008, just eight days after the trial began.

The case arose from a rear-end motor vehicle collision on November 16, 2005 involving an off-duty County of Sacramento Sherriff driving a County vehicle. Liability was not disputed. Plaintiff, 48 (now), was an estimator for Lund Construction (underground construction co.) at the time of the collision and had been working there for nearly 20 years. Before the collision he had 4 prior back surgeries (2 from comp injuries; 1 from another mvc and 1 redo surgery) with the most recent being in 1992. All the evidence established he had 13 good years with no limitations besides lifting. He had been to the doctor 2-3 times for back pain during this time. No other treatment for his back during this time. Following the collision, he had another discectomy surgery -this time at L3-4 (different level than the prior surgeries). The surgery relieved his radicular symptoms but not his back pain. He missed 5 months of work and then went back to work and worked until October 2007 when he could no longer work. A few months after his post-mvc surgery the topic of a 2 level fusion was discussed with his surgeon. He refused and wanted to try to work. Defense did not contest the surgery/treatment post MVC. Their whole defense was he : 1) should have mitigated by having the fusion earlier; and 2) he should have a 3 level fusion now and if he does he will be able to return to his desk job working full time (mitigation of future earnings). At trial, the evidence established that plaintiff did not want to have the fusion surgery and that he was not able to work given his current condition. Big dispute was over the fusion surgery, likelihood of success and whether he could return to work if he had it.

The defense and the plaintiff called expert witnesses to support their point of view:

John: Gary Nibbelink: Rehabilitation Counselor & Consultant, Sacramento, CA
John: Charles R. Mahla of Econ One Research Incorporated, Economist, Sacramento, CA
John: Tushar Goradia, M.D., Neurological Surgeon, Goradia Medical Corporation, Carmichael, CA
John: Ardvan Aslie, M.D., treating medical expert, Sacramento, CA
Defense: George Picetti, M.D., Sutter Medical Group, Orthopedic Surgeon, Sacramento, CA
Defense: Carol Hyland, Carol Hyland Rehabilitation Consultant, Vocational Rehabilitation, Lafayette, CA
Defense: Kirk Blackerby, Economist, Morgan Hill, CA

The defense attorney asked the jury to award $600,000.00 with no future wage loss. John asked for $5.5 million. The jury consisted of eight people, six women and two men. One woman was a state employee and another one was a county employee. Here is the breakdown of the award:

Medical Expenses: $75,007.40
Lost Earnings: $130,000.00
Future Medical Expenses: $325,000.00
Future Lost Earnings: $1,900,000.00
General Damages: $1,000,000.00
Future General Damages: $1,000,000.00
Joann’s Loss of Consortium: $70,000.00

Total comes to $4,500,007.40.

Following this collision and surgery, Mr. Friese missed approximately ten months, went back to work part-time for 6 weeks and then worked full-time from October 2006 until he went off completely on October 2007. He did everything he could to keep working but the pain in his low back continued to worsen to the point he could no longer work. John strongly believes the jury found him more credible because he tried to work instead of not working at all and trying to use this collision as his meal ticket.

The best part about this case was the fact that John offered the defendants a §998 offer of $1.9 million in December of 2007 that the defense passed over.

We got an article in the SacBee and were published in Verdict Search.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Hit-and-run; Psychology of the driver.

John Demas — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:40:21 GMT

A hit-and-run accident is one of the most horrible examples of people failing to take responsibility for their actions. What started out as a tragic accident often turns into a serious crime when drivers flee from the scene of an auto accident that they caused. And it happens more often than you might think- according to the AAA Foundation for Traffic safety, approximately 11% of police-reported crashes involve a hit-and-run, and such accidents result in the deaths of about 1500 people annually.

So why do so many drivers flee from the scene of accidents that they caused, especially when doing so can get them in much more trouble with the law than if they had just stayed to take responsibility for their actions? The truth is, there are many reasons why people do what they do, and one organization has compiled several possible explanations for this troubling behavior.

Sometimes, the hit-and-run driver is impaired with alcohol or other substances, and flees the scene because he or she is not thinking clearly. Alcohol might also cause someone to flee the scene of an accident for fear of being caught while driving drunk. This is another very good example of why you should never drive under the influence of anything.

Other times, people who are already in trouble with the law might flee the scene of the crime in the hopes that it won't make their records worse. The issue might be as minor as having an outdated driver's license, or it may be as serious as having an outstanding warrant for their arrest, but many drivers would rather risk the consequences of a hit-and-run than take responsibility for their past and current actions.

And there are also the people who have nothing to hide from the police, but who are simply afraid of taking responsibility for the accident they just caused. Many factors (such as immaturity, fear, shock, shame, etc) can play into a person's decision to flee from the scene of the accident.

It is a shame that hit-and-runs happen. If you ever cause an auto accident, or hit a pedestrian while driving, you should take responsibility for your actions. While there will be consequences, they will be much less severe than if you try to flee the scene and are caught. Police understand that accidents do happen, and everything will be much easier for everyone involved if you resist the urge to run.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Demas

Are You Really in Good Hands with Allstate?

David Rosenthal — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:35:33 GMT

Allstate Insurance is easily the most prolific advertiser of auto and casualty insurance lines. It runs a series of television commercials starring Dennis Haysbert (of Major League fame) that cleverly portray real life situations, such as rear end auto collisions, and some not so real life situations, like wayward college football fans running their car into a statue of renowned coach Bobby Bowden, to illustrate the need for insurance. The pithy theme of each ad is driven home with the statement "that's Allstate's stand", and with the suggestion that you are not in good hands unless your insurance is through Allstate.

However, experienced consumer attorneys know that Allstate's advertising claims are in stark contrast to its every day claims handling practices. Trial lawyers are in a unique position to judge the overall approach of insurance companies because they deal with a broad cross-section of insurance companies in a wide variety of factual scenarios. During the handling of thousands of claims, the true corporate color of an insurance company shines through. And after reviewing a high volume of claims documents recently, the American Association for Justice unequivocally rated Allstate as the worst insurance company for consumers.

Allstate policy holders might feel that the wrap on Allstate is the result of sour grapes on the part of attorneys who are resentful that their outrageous claims were not paid by the company. However, Allstate's rating was not solely the result of a "boxing glove" corporate policy of lowballing legitimate claims made against its policy holders, although that was certainly part of it. Allstate has also made clear it was willing to get into the ring and duke it out with its own policy holders in the name of increasing profits. In addition, its low rating was based on paying high executive salaries as a reward for successful lowball tactics and charging higher premiums, in part to pay for its expensive advertising.

One recent Allstate commercial illustrates another goal of the Allstate advertising campaign. The ad shows a court room scene where the judge imposes a judgment on a young man (the defendant) in the amount of $100,000 after an auto collision. The defendant's attorney turns to the injured person's (plaintiff) attorney to explain that the defendant has only $50,000 in insurance. The plaintiff's attorney replies that the defendant has a college fund that can be used to pay the balance of the judgment, and concerned parents ask their attorney - "can they do that?" The defendants attorney replies that they can.

The ad is designed to mislead the viewer into believing that the defendant is an innocent victim (it was just an "accident"), and that both the court system and a greedy plaintiff's attorney are the victimizers. This promotes the belief that trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits are the cause of high insurance premiums.

In real life, such a scenario would likely be the result of an auto collision caused by a speeding driver who was distracted by his cell phone and ran a red light, sending the other driver to the hospital with serious, possibly permanent injuries. The other driver incurs medical expenses of $25,000, loses income from work of $10,000, and has ongoing pain and limitations. Although the value of the pain, suffering and inconvenience is well in excess of $15,000, the other driver is willing to settle out of court for the responsible driver's $50,000 policy limit to avoid going to trial, and probably out of a moral feeling that he does not want to collect against the responsible driver's personal assets.

Even though the other driver is without fault, the insurance company for the responsible driver puts on its boxing gloves and offers only $40,000, which is less than the policy limit of $50,000. The attorney for the injured person has no choice but to spend thousands of dollars to take the case to trial to seek the full value of the injured person's damages. A jury of reasonable people taken from the general population (rather than a judge as portrayed in the ad) determines that the total value of the injured person's loss is $100,000. Now, because of the insurance company's lowball at all cost mentality, there is a judgment against the responsible party for more than his insurance coverage.

Allstate Insurance has engaged in a successful marketing campaign. But this expensive advertising comes at a cost. The consumer warning caveat emptor is especially appropriate when you consider purchasing insurance from Allstate. Purchasers of insurance from Allstate may find that the "good hands" have boxing gloves on, and making a claim is like ringing the fight bell.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Rosenthal

Who is responsible for your child’s car accident?

David Rosenthal — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:58:36 GMT

“The sins of the father are visited upon the son” is a historically significant saying. A man’s debts could be transferred to his heirs upon his death, or his bad reputation could be held against his offspring. The same idea holds true, albeit to a lesser extent, today. Children of famous or infamous parents often live in the shadow of their accomplishments or misdeeds. Sons and daughters of aging parents may struggle to help them make ends meet, depending on their circumstances. However, it is sometimes true that the sins of the children are visited upon the parents. It can be hard to know where to draw the line when it comes to parental responsibility. Where does a parent’s culpability end and a child’s independence begin? Many people agree that if children are allowed to eat an excessive amount of junk food, the parent is at least partially responsible for that child’s eventual obesity, because he or she had a duty to look after the child’s health. However, is a parent necessarily to blame for a rebellious teenager giving into peer pressure and taking drugs? Is a parent to blame if a child decides to cheat on an exam? Is a parent to blame if his or her newly licensed teenager takes the family car for a drive and accidentally runs a red light at a busy intersection, causing an injury?

You may have questions about your own liability if your child were to get into an accident while driving. In many States, parents can be held financially responsible for injuries and property damage caused by their children’s car accidents. There are a number of circumstances under which a parent can be held accountable for the results of their children’s actions behind the wheel.

First, if the vehicle is registered in your name, not your child’s, you are automatically responsible for an accident, as if you were driving the car yourself. Even if the car is registered to your child, if he or she is a minor, or if he or she is on your insurance policy, you may still be partially liable. Second, many States require a parent or guardian’s signature on a child's application for a learner’s permit or license. By signing, you accept liability for the actions of the minor. Third, if you add your child to your car insurance contract, or if you sign on a policy with your child, you are accepting financial liability in potential accidents in which your child is at fault. Some other factors in a parent’s potential responsibility include knowing a child is an incompetent driver but giving that child permission to drive anyway, providing alcohol to a child, and allowing a child to drive a family vehicle, especially if the parent has asked the child to drive. These circumstances are examples of negligent parental supervision. A parent is held responsible, for example, for entrusting a vehicle to a minor he or she was or should have been aware that it was possible for the child to cause an accident based on the child’s habits or history.

Parents cannot live in fear of allowing their children to grow up and gain independence. However, it is important to be alert, objective, and responsible when evaluating whether or not your child is ready to take the wheel. It is equally important to consider whether your child should have a car registered in his or her name and pay for insurance independently. Nothing can take away a parent’s anxiety about what could happen if his or her child had an accident, but taking precautions can instill a greater sense of appreciation and responsibility in young drivers and keep everyone safer on the road. By planning ahead, parents and children alike can make sure they remain responsible for their own actions on the road.

The Demas & Rosenthal personal injury law firm is not currently representing anyone mentioned in this article at the time it was posted. If you were involved in this incident or a similar incident and have questions as to your legal rights and options, call us or another well recognized and respected personal injury law firm. Please do not rely or act solely upon the information provided in this article. Please consider getting a consultation immediately. The best personal injury law firms will provide a free consultation. Demas & Rosenthal will provide a free, confidential consultation to the persons who were not at fault named in this article. The free consultation offer extends to family members as well.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Rosenthal

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Statistics

Amber Wheat — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:09:25 GMT

Very, very interesting stuff. Their website has many different statistics, guides, and safety curriculums. Thanks to a post by Beth Janicek, my attention was brought to the 2007 reports on traffic accidents and fatalities.

Now, I used to be a math dork in highschool and I guess that’s something you don’t grow out of because I am having a blast with these numbers. Here are some interesting (at least to me) facts about California.

1. California had the most pedestrian fatalities last year. A total of 640. But our pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 people living in the state was only 1.75, whereas the national average is 1.49, so really that means only 1 more person out of every 400,000 people die in California than compared to outside of California. So it isn’t necessarily more dangerous to be a pedestrian in California, there’s just more people in California. (The District of Columbia has the worst percentage with 3.23 pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 people.)

2. California had the second most motorcycle rider fatalities last year with 495 people losing their lives. Who had more? Believe it or not... Florida! I was surprised but when you look at the percent of fatalities that were not helmeted, it becomes very clear. In California only fourteen percent of those who died were not wearing a helmet at the time. In Florida forty-eight percent (48%), nearly half, were not wearing helmets. If they had been... would they still be alive today? On the table you can see a direct correlation between the number of fatalities and the percentage of riders not wearing helmets. John said it before and I’ll say it again, wear a helmet, save your life!

3. California had the second most fatal crashes involving large trucks (or big rigs). We had a total of 361 big rig involved fatalities last year, but that is not so bad considering we had 5,503 total vehicles involved in fatal crashed. Only 6.6 percent of all vehicles involved in fatal crashes in California were with big rigs. Thirty-seven states had higher percentages! So chances are, if you are involved in a fatal crash in California (heaven forfend), it will not be with a big rig.

4. Sadly, California did report the greatest number of fatalities among children under the age of fourteen. We lost 195 children last year, most of them between the ages of eight and fourteen. Texas comes in second with 176 and Florida comes in third with 114. Still, based on our population, we aren’t doing that bad.

It is all terribly interesting and I encourage any math minded people out there to check out the statistics. But it is also sad to think about. Luckily there is good news. Overall, in the whole United States, fewer pedestrians died last year than in 2006, fewer fatal accidents involved big rigs, and there were fewer child fatalities. So overall, we’re getting better.

Driving on our highways will never be perfectly safe, but we can make decisions that will hopefully lower the number of fatalities. Remember to drive defensively, always leave a safe following distance, be patient, and if you motorcycle wear a HELMET! One thing to point out is that motorcycle fatalities increased this year, but I attribute that to the rise in gas prices and the fact that more and more people (not always with the best experience) are choosing to ride motorcycles.

Be careful out there!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Thoracic outlet syndrome and accidents

Laura Mackie — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:07:15 GMT

Although many injuries characterized as neck strains may subside without noticeable residuals, it is possible for more severe neurological symptoms to manifest long after the initial injury occurred. Following an accident, symptoms of other trauma induced conditions may be triggered immediately or may take months (even years in some cases) to develop. One such condition is Thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS).

Thoracic outlet syndrome is a condition in which the nerves or vessels behind the collar bone become compressed or stretched. The common underlying cause of the thoracic outlet syndrome is compression of the nerves and arteries of the arm in the Thoracic Outlet. Onset of Thoracic outlet syndrome is often associated with trauma to the shoulder or neck (whiplash), such as in an automobile accident.

Symptoms of thoracic outlet syndrome include pain, numbness and tingling, swelling and coldness or weakness and fatigue in the arm and hand. Patients often experience nocturnal paresthesias, awakening with numbness or pain

Since there are no specific diagnostic tests for thoracic outlet syndrome, the diagnosis is generally made by ruling out other diseases. Physicians frequently disagree as to whether a diagnosis of Thoracic outlet syndrome is appropriate. Simply put, diagnosing this syndrome is very difficult. It is very often confused with brachial plexus syndrome, carpal tunnel syndrome, rotator cuff syndrome, a herniated disk in the neck or bursitis.

Treatment of thoracic outlet syndrome focuses on relief of the symptoms caused by compression of the nerves and blood vessels. Most physicians recommend physical therapy as the preferred method of treatment. Postural training, muscle strengthening exercises, and heat treatments with ultrasound have also proven useful as part of the physical therapy treatment component. Drugs may be used to control pain and muscle spasms. Most patients will improve with conservative treatment although some patients may require surgical intervention.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Laura Mackie