Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents - Most Popular

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 Listening To Music Affects Driving

Ed Smith — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:31:28 GMT

Many lawyers almost by rote ask the parties in an accident if they had the radio on at the time of the crash, but often whatever the answer there is little effective followup other than the inference that perhaps the driver wasn't as attentive to the road because he was listening to music.

I've recently found a study that seems to suggest that listening to fast tempo music while driving consistently affects driving speed as well as speed estimates. The tempo of the background music also affects the frequency of traffic violations.

Music such as trance and house with beats of 120-140bpm were most associated with increased speed and virtual speed violations.

While the study itself was a virtual one, it hilites the need for further study in this underresearched area.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Smith

Contributing Factors: The Good Samaritan v. The Jaywalker

Amber Wheat — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:26:19 GMT

A news story on MSNBC relates an incident involving a bus driver who pushed three people out of the path of an oncoming vehicle only to get hit by the truck himself. Jim Moffett risked his life and sustained great injury to save two little old ladies and another man.

What he did was a good thing, but The Colorado State Patrol says what he was doing before the collision was not okay. Mr. Moffett, the other man, and the little old ladies were jaywalking. Mr. Moffett was cited and will be fined.

When we hear stories like this, the public reacts with outrage. “How can they fine this man when he probably saved lives?” Well I know precisely how they can do it. His actions were a contributing factor to the collision. The driver of the pickup was cited for reckless driving, but it takes two to cause an accident. One person to not pay attention and another person to be there. If they hadn’t have been jaywalking there wouldn’t have been an accident at all. In the same vein, if the driver had been more attentive, there wouldn’t have been a collision, either. They are both jointly and severally liable.

It takes a very special kind of person to do what Mr. Moffett did and I have the utmost respect for him. I hope that he will be okay and I am sure that the citation will be paid for by admirers (if not dropped altogether).

I hope that others take this instance as a warning that jaywalking is never a good idea. Crosswalks are there for a reason. Helping little old ladies to cross the street is very nice, but making sure they get to the other side safely within a crosswalk is nice and smart.

Our firm regularly deals with pedestrians who have been injured by vehicles. The injuries are often severe because, while the driver has tons of steel protecting them, the people on the street don't even have a helmet to protect themselves. Be smart out there, we don't want you or anyone you love to need our services. If the worst should happen, you know where to find us.

Commenters on MSNBC responded with outrage, what are your thoughts? Do you agree with the officers?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

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

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

Avoidable Tragedy- 2 Die in Sacramento Construction Zone

Barbara Burks — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:14:30 GMT

Our roads and highways are an unmatched path across our country. The most common mode of transportation in America is via our personal vehicles. In order to get where we want to go the roads have to be maintained. Because our population is always growing, the roads also have to be expanded. Construction zones are just another part of life and knowing how to navigate them safely is just another part of driving.

Cone zones can sneak up on a person. Just this morning, a crew was repairing a street lamp on a curve and drivers in that lane had to slow considerably and merge into the left lane. It happened really quickly and luckily there was enough room so that nobody got hurt (and thankfully I was in the left left lane and only had to watch them). It could have been worse. It would have been nice if there had been a sign or something warning about the impending merge, but c’est la vie.

Unfortunately, not everyone reacts well to a cone zone. Some people don’t notice at all when they enter a construction zone. They do not take actions that protect themselves and others from being hurt. Others like Arnoldo Placensia, a Sacramento construction worker who died early Thursday morning. He and his crew were repairing potholes in the Arden Arcade area at the corner of Marconi and Howe. At about 1:20am, Nancy Richards sped through the area at a high rate of speed and struck Placensia. She continued on and then struck a large piece of equipment and died at the scene.

Two lives were lost. Night construction is especially dangerous, but very common in the summer season. The weather is good and Caltrans and other road construction companies want to get as much work done as possible. At the same time, they want to disrupt traffic as little as possible. This leads to night construction, but even that can be safe if everyone pays attention. This tragedy could have been avoided. Officials say Richards smelled like alcohol and a toxicology report is pending. If Richards had followed some simple rules she and Placensia would still be alive today.

1. Slow Down- construction zones will often have large machinery and people moving about to and fro, ya know, working. By slowing down you give yourself more time to assess the situation and you give them more time to see you and get out of the way if necessary.

2. Follow Directions- sometimes there are workers with the sole purpose of directing traffic. I have run into times when people are telling me to do something that doesn’t seem safe or is illegal. I didn’t want to do it, but I did it anyway. Try to remember that you don’t know the whole layout of the project. The safest bet would be to listen to the people who do know what is going on.

3. Don’t Linger- don’t get me started on lookie-loos. I don’t like it when people pause to see what’s going on. It is an unexpected action and if you’re looking to the left or right that means you’re not looking in front of you.

4. Avoid Trouble Spots- if you know a certain bridge is going to be under construction for three weeks, try to find an alternate route to your destination. It will save you from having to sit in traffic and could keep you safer.

5. Be Patient- if all else fails and you find yourself stuck for a long period in time, turn on the radio, pull out the hands-free cell phone, and settle in. Try not to get frustrated and you’ll eventually make it through.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that there are people in the area that do not have the protection of one ton of steel surrounding them. Please look out for the brave men and women who risk their lives. When you think about their job and the fact that they stand in front of, beside, behind, and around these huge vehicles and trust those drivers to behave in a responsible fashion, it’s a pretty amazing thing.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barbara Burks

Doctors Discover Tumor in Woman after Roll-Over Accident

Amber Wheat — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:38:18 GMT

I am sure everybody heard about Shannon Goods’s 45 foot drop on I-5. She and her daughter were in her Ford Explorer when she swerved to the left to avoid another vehicle. The truck went over the guardrail and landed on it’s front below the overpass.

The family says they were blessed. Not only is Eryn Goods free of serious damage, but when doctors examined Shannon’s shattered knee, they found a tumor that had gone undetected. It is not yet known if the tumor is cancerous, but the accident may have saved Shannon’s life.

Accidents are scary and they should be avoided at all costs, but they are not always the life-ruining event that people think they are. I was reading the comments on the first article and it saddened me. The first post makes a joke about “Thelma and Louise” and the second immediately gets judgmental talking about “deep pockets” and a lawsuit that hasn’t even happened yet. Is that all people see when read something like this?

I think about whether the people involved are okay, I wonder if they will find the other vehicle, and I wish them the very best. A story like this is uplifting. The fact that something good can come out of something so bad. Especially after hearing about Joshua Fulayter's death after a 35 foot drop onto I-5 in Orange County. I think the world would be a better place if people focused on the positive things in life and not on the negative.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

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

Drunk Driver gets a Slap on the Wrist for Fatal Crash

Amber Wheat — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:25:43 GMT

I was shocked and very upset to read about Troy Hovey’s sentencing. Judge Robert Glusman handed down the weak sentence of 180 days in jail and three years probation for taking the life of Amit Tandon.

Mr. Tandon’s widow is pregnant and was unable to face the man who killed her husband in court, but she sent the judge a letter asking for the maximum of 10 years in prison. But friends and relatives of Hovey sent letters also, telling the judge about what a wonderful man Hovey was.

This case did not go in front of a jury. Hovey pleaded no contest to a felony charge of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and driving with more than .08 percent of alcohol in his system. In actuality, Hovey had a blood alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit He knew what he did.

I have always contended that drunk drivers make choices. These are not “accidents” (any good plaintiff attorney knows to call it “the collision”), but they are mistakes. Mistakes are made when people make wrong choices. Defense counsel cited addiction and alcoholism as excuses for him. The judge expects Hovey to “embrace recovery.” Hovey has tried twice before to get sober and was even participating in an outpatient program at the time of the accident.

What really irritates me is that Judge Glusman defends his ruling by saying that probation has not been prohibited in vehicular manslaughter cases and that means the Legislature wants judges to examine each case on its merits. Well fine! Look at the merits of this case! He knew he had a drinking problem (in tort law we call that forseeability), he went drinking, he got really drunk, he got back in his car, he raced down Highway 99 at 60-80 miles per hour, he crossed the median, and slammed head-on to a husband and soon-to-be father. He killed this man. Where is the justice for Tandon’s family?

The judge is confident that “this won’t happen again,” but his parting words are “If I find you’re drinking, I’ll be the last person you want to see.”

I am incredibly saddened by this outcome and it’s message to other drivers who drink and then take stupid risks. It’s not the drinking that’s the problem, it’s the driving after drinking. Get drunk to your hearts content, but STAY HOME. As citizens of America we have every right in the world to drink alcohol, but nobody has the right to put the lives of others at risk.

Am I being too harsh? I know I am coming down hard, but I firmly believe that there is no excuse for drunk driving in today’s day-and-age. With cell phones, taxi companies, public transit, volunteer drivers, and so many other options, drinking and driving should be a thing of the past.

What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Sacramento Hit-and-Runs

Amber Wheat — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:38:29 GMT

The Sacramento Bee has developed an interactive map that makes it easy to spot trouble areas in Sacramento. Anybody who has every been hit by a driver who then leaves the scene can tell you it is a disturbing experience. You don’t know what happened, you don’t know if you’re hurt, and then you see the person responsible speed away. There is not much you can do to avoid a hit-and-run because you can’t control the actions of the other party, but you can be aware of your surroundings and take extra precautions in these Sacramento hot spots.

The most obvious area of hit-and-run violations is downtown Sacramento. With their one-way streets, pedestrians, and parked cars everywhere, it is little wonder that is one of the most common areas to get hit by someone who won’t stay at the scene.

I love statistics and this map is very cool, but I wonder how many of the “hit-and-runs” involve parked cars being damaged. If you strike a vehicle and the owner is not there. You must try to find the owner first and if that fails, you must leave a note. Never drive off without leaving your information. Hit-and-run is a serious offense and with today’s technology... you will be found.

The site above also gives answers to common hit-and-run questions. I recommend checking it out. Hopefully you will never have to use that knowledge, but you do, at least you have it. Above all, victims and witnesses are encouraged NOT to chase the offender. You don’t want to get into a confrontation. The most important thing is the safety of everyone involved.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat