Honoring Annie Virginia Stephens Coker and Martha Malone Louis

As we culminate Black History Month, we would like to honor two trailblazing black female attorneys that contributed to the history of the legal practice in the State of California:

Annie Virginia Stephens Coker (1903-1986)

Annie Virginia Stephens Coker was born in Oakland, California. She attended public schools in Oakland. She received her bachelor’s degree in 1924, as well as her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1929. Coker became the first black female attorney in the State of California when she passed the California State Bar in 1929. Unfortunately, the doors of most law firms in California were not open to black attorneys in the early 1930’s. As such, Coker moved to Alexandria, Virginia, where she maintained a private law practice. Coker eventually returned to California and worked for the State Office of Legislative Counsel in Sacramento.

Schiesl, M. (2015, May 06). Annie Virginia Stephens Coker (1903-1986). BlackPast.org.

Martha Malone Louis (1912-1991)

Born in Palestine, Anderson, Texas. Louis was the first black woman to practice law in the state of California. According to the California State Bar, Louis was admitted to practice law in 1943. Louis made a name and a place for herself in a white man’s world as a criminal defense attorney. “She was a tigress in the courtroom,” Sherman Smith, a then retired Los Angeles judge said in November of 1990. Louis became widely known when she married famous boxer Joe Louis.

February is #BlackHistoryMonth, a time to acknowledge and celebrate the contributions and achievements of African Americans, despite the history of racism and oppression in our country, and the ongoing and urgent battle against it. The Dolan Firm is honored to spotlight and support the Charles Houston Bar Association (“CHBA”).

About Charles Houston Bar Association:

The CHBA was founded in 1955 and named in honor of the legendary civil rights attorney, Charles Hamilton Houston. Commonly referred to as “The Man That Killed Jim Crow”, Houston was the first black student to be elected to the editorial board of the Harvard Law review in 1919. Houston became the first general counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and formulated the foundational legal arguments challenging the “separate but equal” doctrine nearly two decades before Brown v. Board of Education was decided before the Supreme Court.

In December 2022, the Dolan Law Firm was excited to attend CHBA’s 67th Annual Gala and Awards Ceremony, where our firm was honored with a Millennium Sponsor Award. Part of the Dolan Law Firm’s sponsorship funds went directly to a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion scholarship recipient. The Dolan Law Firm is excited to play an ongoing role in helping advance the mission of CHBA. We encourage everyone in our legal community to explore the possibility of supporting this incredible organization and highlighting its many accomplishments.

Written By Chris Dolan and Cristina Garcia

This week’s question comes from Kathy J. in the Sunset District, who asks: After this year’s stormy winter, new potholes seem to be appearing daily. Over the weekend, I was driving to my friend’s house when I hit a pothole in the road. The pothole caused me to lose control of my vehicle, and I eventually crashed into a tree. The impact destroyed the front of my car and deployed my airbags. I vaguely recall the police officer and ambulance arriving. At the hospital, I was diagnosed with facial bruising, a concussion, and a broken wrist. I am unsure what my next steps are, as the accident did not involve another vehicle, and I was not at fault for crashing into the tree. However, I now have large medical bills, and my car has significant property damage. Who is responsible if a pothole leads to an injury?

Dear Kathy,

That is a great question. Potholes are more prevalent after heavy rains as the precipitation saturates the ground and causes the asphalt to break up. Government entities such as cities, counties, the State, or the Federal government own public roadways. Therefore, the first step is determining which entity owns the road. A government entity, like any other property owner, is responsible for maintaining its premises in a reasonably safe condition. It is important to note that “reasonably” does not mean in perfect condition or that maintenance needs to occur instantaneously. However, showing that the responsible government entity had notice of the pothole is essential in establishing liability.

Many cities and counties have online portals or phone numbers where residents can report dangerous roadway conditions such as potholes. For example, in San Francisco, the SF311 Mobile App can be used to submit service requests. For this reason, it is important for anyone who comes across a pothole, whether you are a driver or a pedestrian, to file a service request notifying the government entity of the roadway condition.

California Government Code §§ 830 et seq. lays out the rules for liability stemming from any “dangerous condition of public property,” defined as a condition that creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a reasonably foreseeable manner. Cal. Gov. Code § 830.2. Special rules apply when filing a claim against a government entity. The injured individual must file an administrative claim before filing a personal injury lawsuit against a government entity. It is important to note that there is a limited time in which you can bring an administrative claim against a government entity. Under California Government Code Section 910, you must file a claim against the government entity within six (6) months after the event or occurrence. Be sure to file the claim with the appropriate government office or agency. Further, it is equally important that you use the claim form of that government agency when filing a claim, as section 910 prescribes a list of the required information you must provide in your claim. Otherwise, the claim may be deemed invalid.

While the government entity can be held responsible for dangerous conditions on its roadways, it is critical to note that a non-trivial dangerous condition does not mean the city is liable for damages. Further, when a claimant can prove the statutory requirements, the government entity may still raise several defenses to defeat liability. It may argue that it exercised due care by posting warning signs to prevent vehicles from hitting potholes or claiming that it is “open and obvious”; therefore, no warning signs were necessary.

Claims against any government agency present their unique challenges. There are strict time limits and different procedural rules that apply to government claims. For this reason, it is important to retain a skilled trial attorney to assist you in pursuing your government claim and ensure you obtain the compensation that you deserve.

Written By Chris Dolan and Emile Davis

This week’s article comes from Ayden from San Francisco, who asks: During the recent atmospheric river storms, branches from my neighbor’s tree fell into my yard, causing some damage to my gutters. I don’t know what to do or how to handle this situation. Will I have to pay to repair the gutters, or does my neighbor have to pay to have them fixed for me?

Ayden,

I am sorry to hear that the storms affected you directly. After the severe storms in Northern California, many homeowners questioned who is responsible when a tree, or branches from a tree, falls into their yard. As with many things in the law, the answer to this question depends on several factors.

The first inquiry is to determine the location of the tree. Was it entirely in the neighbor’s yard, primarily in the neighbor’s yard but with branches that overhang into your yard, or was it on the property line between the two properties? Each of these presents different issues that can change the answer to who would have to pay for the damages.

If the tree was on the border of the two properties, California Civil code section 834 makes both homeowners “coterminous owners,” and the tree belongs to them in common, and both may share some responsibility. However, it is more straightforward if the tree trunk is wholly in the neighbor’s yard but has branches that overhang into an adjoining landowner’s property. There is no hard and fast rule about responsibility, but inquiries into which branches fell, or which neighbor has been responsible for upkeep would be necessary.

Generally, the tree owner is liable for damages caused by the overhanging branches. So, suppose tree branches that overhang your property, drop, or fall, causing injury to a vehicle, person, or structure- in your case, the gutters. In that case, your neighbor is likely liable to you for the damages the fallen branch caused. It is important to know that the damages recoverable are only the actual damages sustained. In your case, the cost of repair of the gutters. The mere fact that branches overhang is not actionable.

Where the tree does not have branches that generally overhang your residence, there are several paths to examine to determine if fault will lay with your neighbor and whether their insurance will pay.

Generally, homeowners’ insurance will not have to pay for what is called “acts of god.” That phrase means an accident or other natural event caused without human intervention that could not have been prevented by reasonable foresight and care. Generally, this refers to natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and severe storms. In your case, while your neighbor may be on the hook, it is entirely possible that their homeowner’s insurance would not pay because of the atmospheric river and the severity of the storms in Northern California which caused the branch to fall.

On the other hand, if the reason the branch fell was not the storm’s severity but some known problem with the tree, or failure to maintain it appropriately, then the homeowner’s insurance is more likely to cover the damage. If the tree had previously been shedding branches, but no effort was made to trim the ones remaining or ensure their health, your neighbor may be on the hook, and their insurance may cover it.

In any of these situations, contacting your insurance and a lawyer is best to determine who is liable. Another best practice is to document the situation. Take photographs of the damage and what remains of the tree. Get written estimates for the repair of the gutters. Speaking to a knowledgeable attorney and notifying your insurance will help you address the problem quickly and fairly.

Written By Chris Dolan and Allison Stone

This week’s question comes from Jennifer from Oakland, who asks: With new changes to the traffic laws in 2023, what do motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians need to know to share the road safely?

Dear Jennifer,

Thank you for your question. Yes, new laws are affecting drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians in California. These changes began as of January 1, 2023. Here are some of the changes taking effect:

Omni Bike Bill (AB-1909)

The OmniBike Bill (AB-1909), written by Assemblymember Laura Friedman, changes how cars and bike riders share the road. The goals and purpose of the changes were to ensure that cyclists on California streets were safer and more protected, to help cyclists and motorists safely share the road, and to reduce collisions involving bike riders and motorists. The bill makes four significant changes to the vehicle code in California.

First, drivers passing a bicyclist travelling in the same direction must change lanes/move over into an adjacent traffic lane, if available, before passing a bicycle, just as it would when passing another car on the road. That is, vehicles must move into another lane with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not prohibited by law. This contrasts with the previous law – a.k.a. the “3-foot rule” passed in or about 2013/2014, which required that a driver passing a bike rider do so at a distance of at least three feet. Many felt this 3-foot rule was too hard to measure with two moving objects on the road, was difficult to enforce, and did not provide enough room or cushion for the safety of a bicyclist. This change is a significant improvement over the previous 3-foot rule. It offers clearer directives and makes it easier for cars to pass bikers safely while preventing and reducing serious and life-altering bicycle accidents. The requirement of changing lanes to pass will make it easier for police to cite drivers who fail to give bikes room for safety. Penalties may vary by county, but those who violate the law face fines and fees.
Second, cities and counties are now prohibited from requiring and enforcing bicycle licenses’ law.
Third, the new law essentially eliminates local authorities’ ability to ban electric bikes from bike paths. Class 3 electric bicycle riders are permitted on approved bicycle paths, trails, and lanes. In other words, there is no longer a statewide ban on class 3 (the fastest) electric bikes on bicycle paths, trails, bikeways, bicycle lanes, equestrian trails, and hiking and recreational trails. Notably, electric bicycles can still be banned from certain hiking trails and equestrian paths.
A fourth change that goes into effect on January 1, 2024, is that bicyclists can cross an intersection when a “WALK” pedestrian signal is on instead of only when there is a green light.

Freedom to Walk Act (AB-2147)

Another important change that came into effect as of 2023 is AB-2147, also known as The Freedom to Walk Act written by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D- San Francisco). This law prohibits officers from stopping pedestrians for violations such as crossing the road outside of a crosswalk (jaywalking) unless there is immediate danger of a collision. In that case, an officer can stop and cite a pedestrian. Crossing the street outside a crosswalk is now legal, and you will not get a ticket if the road is wide open. For more information, see our blog on this specific topic.

Vehicular Manslaughter: Speeding and Reckless Driving (SB-1472)

Next, SB 1472 also known and cited as Ryan’s Law, involves speeding, reckless driving, and vehicular manslaughter. This law increases what constitutes “gross negligence” with the crime of vehicular manslaughter. Drivers involved in a fatality during sideshow activity, exhibition of speed, or speeding over 100 miles per, may now be charged with Vehicular Manslaughter with Gross Negligence. This law was enacted to ensure streets and highways are protected from reckless drivers and excessive speeding, given the increased number of fatalities and the popularity of street racing and sideshows.

Motor Vehicle Speed Contests and Exhibitions of Speed: Off-street Parking Facilities (AB-2000)

Lastly, while it was already illegal to participate in races on the highway, AB 2000 now makes it illegal to participate in speed contests, exhibitions of speed, races, burnouts, or sideshow activities in locations including parking lots and off-street parking structures.