Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer - regulation

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

Owner of Improperly Maintained Carnival Ride Blamed for Injuries to Children

Amber Wheat — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:13:32 GMT

A while ago, I wrote about the recall of the Yo-Yo carnival ride. Last May twenty-one children were hurt when the ride collapsed at the Calaveras County Fair. Now the owner is being put at fault for a failure to properly maintain the ride.

The manufacturer of the ride issued a recall last October to address some of the issues with these rides. When a product is recalled, more often then not, it is a simple fix and it's on the manufacturers dime. In this instance, all an owner needed to do was request an inspection and repair kit from Chance Rides Manufacturing.

Because the May accident happened before the October recall it was unclear whether the owners of the carnival ride could be blamed. But further investigation found that the ride was not regularly inspected and didn't have the required certifications and documents regarding safety.

California has a very active agency in charge of inspecting carnival rides and making sure that people are safe. Brass Ring Amusements Midway of Fun did not comply with their strict standards and can be placed at fault for this terrible accident.

Coming into spring, there will start to be some fairs and carnivals taking place. The last thing anybody wants to do while having a fun day at the fair is end up in the hospital. If you want to know if specific rides have been known to cause injuries, check out www.rideaccidents.com. The percentage of dangerous rides is actually quite low.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

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

PulseNet: The Futuristic Technology Held Back by Yesterday’s Procedures

John Demas — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:42:17 GMT

The salmonella outbreak in peanut butter products has grabbed the attention of the world. But it is the system that alerted U.S. health officials that should be studied. PulseNet is a national network of public health laboratories. Labs in every state and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention work together to track cases of food poisoning in an effort to detect and prevent widespread sickness.

It was launched in 1996 because of an 1993 outbreak of E. coli in the western U.S. By 2002, every state was participating. This great system is very simple. When somebody goes to a doctor with food poisoning, if the doctor runs a test to determine which infection the patient has, that data is added to the PulseNet listserv WebBoard. Officials now have a “fingerprint” of the infection and can track where it goes based on multiple listings on WebBoard.

There are, of course, a few problems with the system. For one, many people don’t go to the doctor for food poisoning. Another one, many doctors do not take the medical tests that will identify the infection. Even if both of those things occur, investigators will not know what caused the illness until interviews are taken with the patients.

It is a successful program that prevents contamination and saves lives, but it is only as good as the people who use it, or don’t use it, as the case may be. A collaborative system of communication in cases such as these are the wave of the future, but they are being implemented while many clinics still operate under nineteenth century procedures. Florida, for example, does not require doctors to send salmonella samples to state labs for analysis.

This system costs the CDC and the individual states money to run, but in the end it is worth the price. I look forward to this and other systems being used to their full potential to protect consumers from disease and death.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Demas

Medical Marijuana, ID Cards, and Sacramento County

Amber Wheat — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:19:17 GMT

Since 1996, medicinal use of marijuana for certain medical cases has been legal in California. In 2003, the state decided that ID cards should be issued on the county level to identify patients who are allowed to posses and use marijuana. Like a Drivers License, only a Users License.

Many people comment on articles like this and if they take the time to do that, they obviously feel very strongly about the subject. On one hand I understand that it is California law that allows this use, but on the other hand, it is still illegal under Federal law.

This issue confused me when California was voting on whether or not to give illegal aliens Drivers Licenses. I asked my grandfather, “If we know they are illegal, aren’t we supposed to deport them?” He then explained to me that the INS is a federal agency and the DMV is run by the state. Bureaucracy at it’s best. The state is not required to deport illegal aliens, nor or they required to talk to the federal government and tell them who they are. Fair enough.

But what if those illegal aliens got in a collision and injured somebody, are they required to carry insurance as well? Well what if a person legally using marijuana for medicinal purposes gets in a collision and injures somebody? Should they be required to carry extra insurance? The fact is, smoking marijuana impairs your senses. Are these people going to be given leniency because they were driver under the influence legally? I think not. Will they be punished more harshly because they were under the influence of drugs and not alcohol? Probably. Is that fair? Heck, no!

Where does the liability end? If the state takes control of medicinal marijuana and requires pharmacies to hand it out, does the pharmacy take on liabilty? Does the state? If the worst should happen, what happens to these patients? If we issue these ID cards, does it give these people free reign to grow, distribute, and smoke marijuana?

It is a very controversial issue and I would like your opinion on it. At this point I really feel that if Sacramento County issued this ID cards, they are giving permission for these patients to be more open with their treatment and the county could be held responsible. It is known that marijuana impairs judgement, it is foreseeable that a patient may drive after receiving a treatment, it is probable that the impaired patient will cause a collision. And it could be argued that it was done with the county’s permission.

What do you think? Am I way off base here? Has anyone else thought about possible repercussions?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Governor Vetos “Lap-Dog” Bill

Amber Wheat — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:35:59 GMT

The governor is finally working through the 766 bills that crossed his desk during the budget crisis. Among these was AB2233. Brought by Assemblyman Bill Maze, the bill was meant to outlaw the practice of carrying a pet on your lap while driving.

Question: Why do we need a law that says it’s not okay to have a pet in your lap while you’re driving?

I would think that common sense would keep people from doing this (then again, I also thought common sense would keep people from texting while driving). I guess the point is that “common sense” is not so common. In fact, it is different for every individual person. Think about it, common sense tells me not to jump out of a plane, but many people enjoy the hobby of skydiving.

A couple of years ago, a kid died at a waterhole in the Folsom Lake area. About a week later, another kid died. Then I heard on the radio that an average of two people per year die at this location! My question then was why wasn’t the waterhole fenced off or something to protect the stupid people who would still go to it despite the danger.

The Answer: The government is not responsible for protecting us from our own stupidity. It would be an impossible task if it was.

In court and in life we are expected to act “reasonably,” when we don’t, accidents happen and that’s when we end up in lawsuits. Actions are held to the “reasonable man” standard and judged based on what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation.

So where is the balance? Does the government need to tell us what to do and what not to do in every aspect of our lives? Or can we be responsible citizens and do what we know is sensible? Aren’t the consequences of injury, death, and lawsuits enough of an incentive to be careful out there on the road?

Maybe not. Maybe I am an idealist. I might be giving the general public more credit than they deserve, but I really don't think so. We have brains! We are smarter than this! I may be naive, but I must believe that.

What do you think? Should the governor have signed the bill into law? What is the government’s role in our lives?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Citrus Heights Installed Traffic Cameras in Two Intersections where Fatal Collisions Occurred

Amber Wheat — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:14:57 GMT

This is how a city is supposed to respond to incidents like this. Let’s face it, people do not always obey the law. It is nearly impossible to think that a government body could prevent collisions from occurring when the people do not act as responsible citizens. When choosing when and where to install expensive safety devices a city has to look at prior incidences, risks to the public, and cost/benefit analysis.

Since a fatal collision because of someone running a red light has happened at both of these intersections, the city is taking proactive action and putting up the cameras. Again, it will not exactly prevent it from occurring again, but if people know they are there and that they might get ticketed, hopefully they will take fewer risks.

When it comes to something like the fence that would have cost $100,000 and may have saved the trucker from being in a vegetative state for the rest of his life (he lost, by the way, I’m bummed), then I focus on the sheer number of people it would protect. Every person who drives on the highway would be protected and every person living or walking near the highway would be protected, do the math, how many cents per person does that fence cost?

I am proud of Citrus Heights for taking their duty to maintain safe roadways seriously. Bravo!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat