Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer - Local

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

At-Fault Drivers from Out of Town To Be Billed for Collisions

Amber Wheat — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:11:55 GMT

Some cities and counties in California are thinking about trying a new way to recoup their funds after a collision. If the at-fault driver is from outside the area, they will be billed for the services provided.

There are many different arguments against the new policies. Insurers say they oppose the charges because they will ultimately foot the bill. Of course, we know that is not true, especially in a policy limits situation. The insured will receive less compensation if the bill is paid by the insurance company.

Many local government agencies defend the idea by saying that only people from out of town will be charged. The idea is that people who live within the district have already paid for the public services through taxes. My response is that the people who live outside the city pay taxes too. Just because they haven't had to use them in their city, doesn't mean that they don't pay for them.

Many are worried that these fees will become an "accident tax" and they liken this policy to a speed trap. Speed traps in California are illegal based on the possibility of human error. This fee for collisions could have greater implications. Will law enforcement skew events or misinterpret statements to put out-of-town drivers at fault if it means they are allowed to assauge some of their costs? They may not do so on purpose, but it could be a factor in their decision.

If cities and counties decide to go through with this, they risk a decrease in tourism and an increase in hit-and-runs. Proponents say that it is not a revenue generator, but it kind of is. The police and fire department are given funds to operate. They spend those funds when they get called out to collision scenes. That is the way it is supposed to be. If they need more money to do their jobs then it needs to come from taxes and the funds dispersed by the local governments, not from individuals.

Another system they are considering is to "just bill insurance companies." But that is a mistake as it will only make the insurance premiums go up and it will be subtracted from what the parties recover. It is not fair to anyone.

What do you think? Florida already has this in place, but there is current legislation to repeal it. Does it work? Is it fair? Would you avoid areas if you knew they had this policy? Tell me what you think.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Teen Driving Safety Week

Barbara Burks — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:01:53 GMT

Californians are celebrating by introducing this year’s Impact Teen Drivers educational program. Every year Impact Teen Drivers hands out material to public schools and encourages them to spend time with students who are learning to drive or just received their licenses. This year is exciting because everyone is getting in on the action.

The program is sponsored by the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Highway Patrol, the California Teachers Association, California State Firefighters Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, California Casualty Insurance, and the Association of California Schools Administrators.

Many people are doing there part, but sometimes it is hard to get motivated. In this economy nothing motivates people more than money. This year “Create Real Impact” will be giving grants to California high schools where the Impact Teen Drivers material is used in new, interesting, and more effective ways.

New drivers are the most at risk for fatal collisions. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 6,982 young drivers, between the ages of 15 and 20, were involved in fatal collisions in the United States in 2007. In California, 238 young drivers died and 199 young passengers died while in the vehicle of a young driver. In Texas, more drivers died, but fewer passengers died. California had the highest number of fatalities.

This year the Impact Teen Drivers program is coming into the twenty-first century. They have not only created a new website, but they have set up a myspace and a facebook page as well. They really know their customers. We all hope that some good will come of these programs and that next year we’ll see an even bigger drop in teen fatalitites.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barbara Burks

Agencies Unite to Put an End to Drunk Driving in Sacramento County

Amber Wheat — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:05:11 GMT

Drunk driving is a real problem in Sacramento. We hear about DUI collisions, injuries, and fatalities, but when it doesn’t effect us personally, it is easy to forget that many real people and real families are suffering from the irresponsible actions of a few. Well, Sacramento is finally taking a stand. With recent articles about lost loved ones and new plans to combat reckless driving, maybe the county can get people to start caring.

This year a public awareness campaign by the Teachable Moment Foundation is focusing on educating the masses on drunk driving. They hope that Every37.com can make the consequences of choosing to drink and drive a reality for some people. They will utilize TV, radio, the internet, and guerilla marketing. The Sacramento Police Department is embracing the campaign as well.

Thanks to the efforts of the founder of the Teachable Moment Foundation, Dr. Leon Owens of Mercy San Juan Medical Center, drunk driving has steeper consequences in Sacramento County. If it is not a first offense, the vehicle can be impounded (we all know what a headache that is). And more interventions are taking place in custody. Counselors are brought in to ask questions and explain things in way that may make it more personal to the offender. They also offer referrals to treatment programs.

Another new law makes it illegal for prior convicted DUI offenders to have any alcohol at all in their systems. No legal limit for them, they just aren’t allowed to have any amount. It seems like a harsh rule and one that doesn’t necessarily make sense. People over the age of 21 have a right to drink alcohol. If someone makes a mistake in their youth, are they forced to worry about having a glass of wine with dinner? Are they tested even if they are in an accident that wasn’t their fault?

There are on average 600 DUI offenders on formal probation in Sacramento County. The worst of the worst require intense supervision to keep them off the road. In most cases they have suspended licenses, so they shouldn’t be driving at all. They are picked up for driving, but they seldom get caught with a fresh DUI offense. Again, the punishment doesn’t seem to fit the crime. People need to be able to drive to work, or their kids to school and soccer practice and whatnot.

The California Highway Patrol supports a new bill that may be the solution to many problems. Assemblyman Mike Feuer introduces a bill to install ignition-interlock devices in the vehicles of DUI offenders. Basically, it’s a breathalyser and the engine won’t start unless the driver is under the legal limit. Now I can already think of a few ways to get around it, but Feuer believes it will at least be a deterrent since the offender has to pay for installation and maintenance. He states that it has worked for other states and that 983 people died in California last year because of collisions involving drunk drivers. He hopes to start a four-county pilot run beginning July 1, 2010. I hope that Sacramento County will be one of the four.

The CHP is also focusing on young drivers this year. They are offering a two-hour course every month at the Massie Court office titled “Start Smart”. It will focus on understanding the responsibilities of driving and the consequences of poor choices. Comments on the SacBee website range from outrage at the CHP budget to gratitude from parents and grandparents. It is said that people who are upset with budget problems are taking this opportunity to lambast the CHP when they are trying to do some real good. One comment states “If this class save the life of one driver, because a ten attended this class, then it is well worth it.” Another asks if she can require her kids to take it.

Start Smart is a good name for the training. Intelligence really is a factor here. If anyone, not just teens, stopped and thought about their actions before choosing to get into the vehicle, how many lives would that save?

As always, I hope you are one of the lucky few who have never been victims of drunk or reckless drivers. If not, you know where to find us. Be careful out there. I know it’s hard, but let’s hope for the best with these new programs and maybe next year the fatalities on the roads will have gone down.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Operation Cover Me Fighting Back Against Auto Insurance Fraud

Amber Wheat — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:30:12 GMT

During tough economic times it is hard to make ends meet. With all the monthly bills that pile up, one of the hardest ones to swallow is auto insurance. It’s betting on losing and most people out there don’t like to pay it. A while ago my boss wrote about the spree of hit-and-runs and uninsured motorists. Many people are tempted to lower their coverage or just drop it when the choice is between making a house payment and making an insurance payment.

But then what happens when you get in an accident and actually need insurance? Well a recent trend in California is buying the policy after it has happened and then lying about the circumstances to receive the benefits. Apparently the fraud has gotten so bad that the Department of Insurance and the District Attorneys from multiple counties have teamed up to combat the increasing instances of fraud.

On Wednesday, they announced that twenty-eight arrests have been made so far. Others are being sought with warrants and were issued orders to appear at arraignment. People got their families and friends involved to perpetrate this fraud and all will have to answer for their actions. The counties participating are El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Yolo. The Suspects defrauded 21st Century, CSAA, Esurance, Progressive, and Geico, among many others.

Fraud is a very serious offense and the people who are caught will learn quickly that it is just not worth it. Get insurance, even a minimum policy is better than nothing. It’s safer for you and it’s the law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Where is the Justice for Car Crash Victims?

Amber Wheat — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:36:11 GMT

The Sacramento Bee published an article about a very curious case. Maximillian Sullivan has been in and out of jail twice since the end of October and he is in jail again. All three arrests have been for traffic violations. The first, on October 24, 2008, was when he was identified as the driver in an injury-causing hit and run. The second on November 3, 2008, was for reckless driving. And the most recent on December 1, 2008, for yet another injury-causing hit and run, this time with a suspicion of driving under the influence.

The comments on the Sacramento Bee website all have one question in mind. Will this man have to kill someone before he is stopped? Mr. Sullivan was driving on a suspended license during all three incidents. According to court documents he was jailed at least three times since 2005 and has never served more than a few weeks in jail or on the sheriff's work project.

Let us assume that Mr. Sullivan’s first offense was merely a hit-and-run causing injury while driving with a suspended license. The minimum punishment would be $1,000 for the hit-and-run causing an injury and $300 for driving with a suspended license. Jail time is not required at all for those offenses. The law only dictates maximum sentencing if the court chooses to pursue that avenue.

The second offence of reckless driving carries a minimum of five days in jail and a $145 fine with another $300 for the suspended license charge. Again that is the absolute minimum he could have received.

If Mr. Sullivan is convicted of hit and run DUI causing injury for this time, he will receive a minimum of 90 days in jail, a $390 fine, and revocation of his license. He will not have the privilege of operating a motor vehicle for some time.

The people behind the comments on the SacBee website are upset right now because they feel Mr. Sullivan’s punishment has been too lenient so far. But there is a fine line that the court must walk. The forefathers of this nation knew that liberty is the quintessential right of every man. It is a huge responsibility to be in charge of deciding whether or not to deprive a man of his freedom. Mistakes are made and they should be paid for, but let the punishment fit the crime.

In this same vein, the family of Aman Kumar Khanna is grieving for the husband and father they lost and for the justice they did not receive. The seventeen-year-old convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter for the accident that took the life of Mr. Khanna will serve one year at the Sacramento County Boys Ranch and will then be deported.

The issue is very controversial, but the court decided to try him as an minor. That choice severely limited the possibilities of punishment. This boy ran a red light at 80 miles per hour while under the influence of alcohol and then fled the scene. A grave injustice has been done to this family... by the system. He was seventeen, he was here illegally, and he made the wrong choices. He made adult choices.

To think that something as trivial as age has kept him from years in prison for his crime. It was the same way with Amit Tandon’s family. A young man, Troy Hovey, was sentenced to 180 days in jail and three years probation. It seems like victims cannot find justice these days.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Is the Spree of Hit and Runs a Product of a Bad Economy?

John Demas — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:23:37 GMT

Insurance is one of those monthly bills that people believe they can cut back on or do without during hard economic times. There are times when I really wish I didn’t have to shell out hundreds of dollars for something I hope I never use, but it is the law. Minimum policies are usually $15K/$30K in California. This type doesn’t cost much, but when it is necessary to pinch every penny to stay in your home, keep business open, or fill the gas tank, it becomes a burden.

I know better than to get rid of my car insurance, but I work in the industry and I know what can happen if you don’t carry it, but many people don’t understand that one crash without insurance could ruin them. If you hurt someone and you don’t have insurance you are liable for all their damages and will have to pay out-of-pocket. Even if you do have insurance, a collision will probably make your insurance go up and that is the last thing anybody needs. That may be the reason behind all the recent hit-and-runs lately.

I was appalled to see not two, not three... but six stories of hit-and-runs in the area. Shockingly, a couple of them involved very young children. In the beginning of October, we saw that an 8-year-old boy was critically injured in Stockton. The driver fled the scene but was eventually caught and is in custody.

A few days later, in Modesto, a driver fled the scene after running a red-light and broadsiding a family’s minivan leaving the 3-year-old girl in critical condition. The child took the brunt of the impact. As of November 7, 2008, the suspect, Gabriel Garcia Martinez, is still at large. Thankfully, the little girl is expected to survive her head injuries.

But it doesn’t end there, the very next day, there were reports about Anhelia Crisol, age 21, who was struck by a vehicle while changing her car’s tire on the shoulder of eastbound I-80. The California Highway Patrol immediately began looking for the 90's Buick LaSabre. There would be damage on the right front and side of the vehicle. If you have any information please contact Gabe Potter at the CHP (916) 338-6710.

Then there is the story of the hit-and-run fatality that occurred the day before Ms. Crisol was struck. Aman Kumar Khanna was broadsided in Sacramento. There wasn’t much information at first, but the picture slowly came into view. It turns out that a 16-year-old boy was drunk and had run a red light at 80 mph. He fled on foot, but was caught and will face five charges, including gross vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol causing great bodily injury or death and felony hit-and-run.

Apparently the spree continues when a seventeen-year-old and a nineteen-year-old were hit while crossing the street. The driver left and the two girls were left to fend for themselves. The seventeen-year-old is on life support and her friend was seriously injured. The police began a search immediately and eventually the driver turned herself in. She was arrested.

There are reports that a bicyclist in the area may have also been hit by a car whose driver did not stop.

The punishment for hit-and-run just isn’t worth taking the chance. To quote my legal assistant’s blog:

“California Vehicle Code section 20001, et seq. states quite clearly that if you are involved in a collision, YOU MUST STOP. There is certain information that must be given to the other involved parties if requested, including a driver’s license, vehicle registration, current residence address of the driver and of the registered owner, and other valid identification.

Penalties for leaving the scene are quite severe and can range from a maximum of six months in prison to a minimum addition of five years to a vehicular manslaughter sentence. Fines range from $1,000.00 to $10,000.00.”

Everybody gets scared when they have been in an accident and panicking can be understood, but whatever you do, don’t leave the scene. It will only make the situation worse. Think about the people that you learned about today; you now know who they are, what they look like, and what they drive. These people will be caught if they haven’t been already.

Technology today makes it very hard to get away with a hit-and-run and in the end, you’re not saving any money. It’s hard right now and tough times are ahead of us as well, but insurance is a necessary evil.

If you have any additional information about these or other collisions, please contact the appropriate authorities. And if you or someone you love has been in a collision (hit-and-run or otherwise) please give us a call.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Demas

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

Driving Under the Influence

Amber Wheat — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:37:07 GMT

This is a pretty hot topic right now because of the increasing number of collisions that involve alcohol or drugs. Anyone who has been caught drunk driving will tell you it’s not worth the risk, but people (especially young adults) still think that it’s okay to get behind the wheel after having a few rounds.

The truth is, driving under the influence is just plain stupid. Not only are those people endangering their lives, but they are taking unnecessary risks with the lives of everyone else on the road. They don’t seem to understand the consequences of their actions. Bethann Colyer will pay for her mistake with twelve years and eight months in prison. One would hope that the public would take her sentence as a warning, but the very next day, a sixteen-year-old took the life of an old man while driving under the influence.

The tragic Casino Bus Crash was international news last week and many articles reported that the driver had been drunk. The District Attorney dropped the DUI charges yesterday when the toxicity tests turned out to be negative. It appears the driver may have had low blood sugar which caused intoxicated behavior leading to the original suspicion.

You don’t even have to be the cause of the accident, you will still be arrested if you operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of any intoxicating substance as a construction truck driver found out after he was rear-ended.

Too bad for him, a pair of DUI Fixers were recently arrested and found guilty of tampering with court records to get DUI cases dismissed. Hector Whitley won’t be able to help anymore violators (at least not for six to eight years). With help from ex-court clerk Fernando Catlin, minute orders were entered into the files dismissing the cases.

Is it any wonder that DUIs are such a problem right now? When times are tough, people are losing their jobs, and you can get off scott free, why not? If you or someone you love has been injured in an accident please give us a call. Drunk drivers make a choice, actually, they make two choices, 1) they choose to drink, take drugs, or medicate themselves, then 2) they choose to get behind the wheel. The first choice isn’t always a mistake, but it dulls a person’s senses and may make choice number two that much easier to make. It’s okay to drink.. .just don’t drive.

In today’s day and age there is absolutely no excuse for driving under the influence. There are many charitable organizations that offer rides home to people at bars. There are taxi services that people can call. Call a friend, or family, or anybody who is sober, everyone has a cell phone nowadays. If all else fails take public transit or walk. Do not ride a bike (that can be just as dangerous, if not moreso).

All right, I’ll get off my soap box now. Just please be careful out there folks.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Colusa Bus Crash Highlights Dangers of Negligent Hiring

David Rosenthal — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:32:02 GMT

The Sacramento Bee is reporting that the driver of a bus that crashed in Colusa on Sunday was hired by the bus owner the week before after posting to an online classified ad for the position. It turns out Quintin J. Watts was a truck driver who had no experience driving busses, had an extensive history of citations for moving violations, and had even been convicted of several criminal offenses. Investigators say alcohol and drugs may have contributed to Mr. Watts falling asleep at the wheel and rolling the bus, killing 10 passengers and injuring at least 35 more, some critically.

The hiring of this driver is astonishing when you consider that California, like many states, requires that "common carriers" exercise a higher degree of care for the safety of their passengers than the average person driving with a passenger. Under Civil Code §2100, persons or entities that transport people for financial compensation must "use the utmost diligence for their safe carriage." Most individuals are held to a lesser standard of reasonable care. The higher standard makes sense when you consider that common carriers, such as trains and busses, carry large numbers of people and safety considerations can sometimes give way to efforts to increase profits.

Daniel Cobb, the owner of the private bus that crashed Sunday was obviously desparate for a driver since he placed an online classified ad for the position on 10/2/08. He apparently was willing to forego a background check or to simply ignore Watts' checkered past because he was Cobb's stepson. It was a costly decision not only for the passengers and their families, but for Cobb himself, who died as a result of the collision. Cobb's poor choice of a driver had diproportionately tragic consequences for families in Sacramento's Lao and Hmong communities, whose parents and grandparents were his regular customers.

Many responsible common carriers have minimum training requirements and conduct stringent background checks. However, far too often we see the tragic consequences of employers who take short cuts in hiring the people who are entrusted with the safe transportation of our loved ones. Make sure that the common carrier you hire is not gambling on safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Rosenthal