How Can We make Bus Stops Safe From Fast Moving Vehicles? Read More »
The post How Can We make Bus Stops Safe From Fast Moving Vehicles? appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>People waiting for Muni or other bus systems are vulnerable, and exposed to the dangers of fast moving cars just feet away from where they are expected to wait. While San Francisco has endeavored to make streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists alike, there continue to be tragedies, the like SUV that hit a family at the West Portal bus shelter on Saturday. A family has lost three lives because an SUV left the lane and hit them, as they waited for the Muni to pick them up.
What could have been done to keep a waiting family safe? Bollards are one option; a cement post about thirty-six inches tall could have been placed between the traveled lane and bus shelter to prevent vehicle intrusions into the bus shelter. Bollards can be spaced to permit people, strollers and wheelchairs easy access through the barrier to board a bus but narrow enough that a car cannot encroach on the space where the pedestrians are waiting. Bollards are inexpensive, and easily installed at any location. Moreover, they would not severely impact buses free access to the stop as they are not a solid barrier requiring the bus to carefully position for patrons to enter and exit the bus. Frequently bollards are used to prevent vehicles from driving into gasoline pumps, propane tank cages, and other features of the local gas stations. They are also commonly used to protect unsuspecting people from vehicle entry into convenience stores, coffee shops and grocery stores. Similarly, unsuspecting commuters and pedestrians can be protected from vehicle intrusions at bus stops. Bollards are one option that can make bus stops safer.
The post How Can We make Bus Stops Safe From Fast Moving Vehicles? appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>The post Distracted Drivers Increase the Chances of Deaths and Injuries in California and U.S. Roads appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>This week’s question comes from a Daly City resident who asks: I recently received a call from my son, saying he was involved in an “accident.” Luckily, he is fine. He went on to say that the other driver was looking down at their phone, not paying attention and rear-ended him. I always thought of “accidents” as being unavoidable; this seems like the driver could have avoided it. Was it really an accident?
Dear Daly City Resident,
I am glad to read that your son is fine, and that is the most important thing. But you are correct. Over the years, we as a society seem to have found a way to excuse peoples’ negligence by classifying them as an “accident.” Using a cell phone while driving creates the potential for deaths and injuries on California and U.S. roads. The underlying thought is that “they didn’t mean for it to happen,” so it was an “accident.” As a society, we need to get away from alleviating someone’s fault by classifying their actions as a an “accident” and look more closely at the underlying conditions.
Accident has two meanings:
In the situation involving your son, people would say that the first definition would apply to the driver that caused the collision; but let’s think about that. The cause of the crash was an inattentive driver who was intentionally using their phone and not paying attention. Though they may not have intentionally struck your son’s vehicle, everything else leading up to that was intentional. Therefore, the outcome should not have been unexpected. Why would we consider this to be an accident?
Secondly, accidents are supposed to happen by chance or be random. But studies are finding this not to be the case.
In a recent interview with Marin Cogan, Jessie Singer, author of the new book There Are No Accidents, talks about the term “accident” and explains “[t]here are a lot of problems with it. Accidents are supposed to be random, right? And unpredictable. If that were true, then accidental death would be randomly distributed across the country, but it’s not. When we look at the data, we see that Black and Indigenous people and people living in poverty die by accident most often.”
The Governors Highway Safety Association proved this statement to be true. They published an Analysis of Traffic Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity in June of 2021. In that analysis, several studies were reviewed and cited to, some of which were:
They found that Blacks, Indigenous and People of Color are disproportionately represented in fatal traffic crashes. Key findings from the research indicated that:
Beyond race, socioeconomic status can influence the risk of motor vehicle crash involvement. The City of Chicago’s 2017 Vision Zero Action Plan included a reference to public health data that show traffic crashes affect Chicago communities unequally. Chicagoans who live in areas of high economic hardship have an increased risk of being in a severe crash and die in traffic crashes more often and at a higher rate than other city residents.
The key findings from the analysis of 2015-2019 FARS data:
When interpreting the disproportionate representation of race and ethnicity in motor vehicle crashes and traffic fatalities, we must recognize that ethnicity and race, to a certain degree, are intertwined with other factors that affect crash risk. Risks include as socioeconomic status and overall investments in crash prevention where people live. These investments include roadway infrastructure, traffic enforcement, community engagement and traffic safety education. None of which is random nor unexpected.
At the end of the day, as Jessie Singer has indicated, “[w]hen we say “it was an accident,” we’re saying it wasn’t my fault. It wasn’t their fault. In doing that, we’re almost always focusing on the wrong thing and setting up the same accident to happen again.”
We as a society need to start focusing on right thing; we can start by not calling everything an accident.
The post Distracted Drivers Increase the Chances of Deaths and Injuries in California and U.S. Roads appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>The post If You Are Injured as a Passenger on Public Transportation and the Defendant is a Government Entity, Here is What You Need To Know: appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>This week’s question comes from Anonymous in West Portal San Francisco, CA who asks: I am a frequent city bus rider who rides to work every day. While on the bus last week, I felt a sudden acceleration through the intersection followed by a strong impact on the right side of the bus, where I sat. The crash surprised me because I was reading an email at the time of the collision. When I looked up, the traffic light facing the bus was red, and there was a truck smashed into the side of the bus. At first, I was okay, then felt an unbearable pain in my right arm. The paramedics informed me that I had a broken arm and needed immediate medical attention. I had surgery and stayed overnight at the hospital. I have significant medical bills and missed several days of work due to the accident. Although the police report is not ready, based on the statements I heard from eyewitnesses, it appears that the city bus ran the red light. I have heard special rules apply when pursuing a personal injury claim against government entities, such as a city bus. However, I am not sure what are my next steps. How do I file my claim against a government entity?
This is a great question. Many people are unfamiliar with the unique requirements an injured person must comply with before filing a lawsuit against a government entity. Generally, the statute of limitations (the period when a lawsuit can be filed) is two years from the date of the accident or injury in California. However, special rules apply when a government entity is responsible for the injury. When pursuing a personal injury claim against a government entity, in your case the City or County, you must first file a special claim often referred to as an “administrative claim” with the government office or agency before you file in court.
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. It must be filed with the appropriate government office or agency. Please note that you must use the claim form of the particular 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.
After filing your administrative claim, the government entity has 45 days to accept or reject the claim. If the government rejects all or part of the claim or does not respond within 45 days, the injured person can file a lawsuit in court. If the government entity rejects the administrative claim, the injured person only has six months from the date of the rejection letter to file a lawsuit.
If you are successful in your claim against the government, you can seek financial compensation for your injuries, including medical bills, loss of income, property damage, and pain and suffering. However, the statute of limitations for government claims can be complicated. Therefore, we highly encourage you to seek legal representation to ensure that you comply with all the requirements as prescribed in Government Code Section 910.
The post If You Are Injured as a Passenger on Public Transportation and the Defendant is a Government Entity, Here is What You Need To Know: appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>What To Do in a Case of a Collision With a Self-Driving Car Read More »
The post What To Do in a Case of a Collision With a Self-Driving Car appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>The post What To Do in a Case of a Collision With a Self-Driving Car appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>Less Parking Spots, Safer Intersections Under New Parking Law Read More »
The post Less Parking Spots, Safer Intersections Under New Parking Law appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>Larry from Harward asks:
I drive into the city for business and always find parking to be a pain. I hear that San Francisco is going to reduce the number of parking spots in the city streets. Is this accurate? Why would you decrease them and not increase them?
Thanks for your question, Larry. Who doesn’t love searching for parking in San Francisco? New parking laws will make that adventure take even longer, unless you want to get a stern warning in 2024, or a ticket starting in 2025.
Assembly Bill 413 is a public safety bill that will leave even more drivers circling for parking in the city’s busiest neighborhoods. The bill, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, prohibits parking within 20 feet of any crosswalk. The goal is to allow greater visibility for pedestrians and drivers at intersections.
Under newly created California Vehicle Code section 22500(n), vehicles are prohibited from parking within 20 feet of the approach side of any unmarked or marked crosswalk, or within 15 feet of any crosswalk with a curb extension anywhere in California. The approach side is the lane traffic directed toward the intersection.
The new law is a welcome addition to California’s Vehicle Code as California was one of only a few states that did not have a law prohibiting parking so close to intersections. In fact, the United States Uniform Vehicle Code, adopted in the 1920’s when Ford was still pumping out Model T’s, prohibited parking within 25 feet of the intersection.
California’s pedestrian fatality rate is nearly 25 percent higher than the national average, according to California’s Office of Traffic Safety. About one-in-four traffic fatalities occur at intersections, and half of all traffic injuries in the United States happen at intersections, according to the Federal Highway Administration.
The bill calls for fines, of an undetermined amount, starting in 2025. Until then, violating vehicles can expect to find a warning placed on their vehicle informing them of the new law.
Many pedestrians begin their venture through a crosswalk by taking a step or two into the crosswalk and peaking out to see if there is any oncoming traffic. The new bill allows for what traffic experts call daylighting. Daylighting is the traffic safety concept of allowing an unobstructed line of sight for all modes of transportation at an intersection.
San Francisco counted their street parking spots in 2014 and found approximately 275,500. AB 413 is expected to impact about 5 percent of those spaces, or about 13,775 spots. Fewer parking spots while circling around the Mission on a Saturday night might be annoying, but at least crossing those intersections should now be a little safer for everyone.
The post Less Parking Spots, Safer Intersections Under New Parking Law appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>Who is liable for a falling tree on a privately owned property? Read More »
The post Who is liable for a falling tree on a privately owned property? appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>Last week, I addressed a question posed by a reader who asked who is responsible for damage caused by a tree branch falling from an adjacent yard and crashing through the roof of their house, narrowly missing their child. The article addressed the answer to that question with the assumption that it was a tree owned or maintained by a municipality. This week, I will address trees owned by individual, non-governmental owners.
The reader’s inquiry involved a neighbor’s tree overhanging their property. State law provides that the owner of a tree whose branches overhang an adjoining landowner’s property is liable for damages caused by the overhanging branches. Therefore, if your neighbor’s tree drops a branch and causes injury to a vehicle, person, or structure, they are liable to you for the damages caused.
In general, you are legally allowed to take it upon yourself to cut off any tree branch that overhangs your property from the point where it crosses the boundary. Courts have ruled that shade and debris cast by a neighboring branch, blocking light, clogging gutters, deteriorating a roof, etc., can constitute a nuisance, thereby making the tree owner liable for any and all damages caused. The recovery of damages is generally proportional to the extent of the injuries. Indeed, in the 1952 case of Grandona v. Lovdal, the Supreme Court of California ruled and reasoned as follows: “Trees whose branches extend over the land of another are not nuisances, except to the extent to which the branches overhang the adjoining land. To that extent they are nuisances, and the person over whose land they extend may cut them off, or have his action for damages and an abatement of the nuisance against the owner or occupant of the land on which they grow; but he may not cut down the tree, neither can he cut the branches thereof beyond the extent to which they overhang his soil.”
However, there is a a major caveat: some jurisdictions, like Sausalito, have specific tree ordinances that may prohibit this kind of self-help. Before altering a tree, it is advisable to look into any such tree ordinance in effect. Additionally, even when no local ordinance exists, it would be beneficial to first talk to your neighbors before altering a tree rooted on their property; people can get very wound up over trees and it’s never wise to create unnecessarily hostile relationships with your neighbors.
If you have suffered harm from your neighbor’s trees but the neighbor will not consent to altering the tree, you can file an “action for abatement” requesting the court to order your neighbor to remove the trees or to allow you to cut the branches back to your neighbor’s property line. In Bonde v. Bishop, again in 1952, the California Court of Appeals reasoned with respect to an action by a tree owner against his neighbor who cut back the branches: “The finding that the tree in question was a constant menace to the property of the defendants is sustained by the testimony to the effect that in the past large branches had fallen on the roof and porch of defendants’ house, one of such branches tearing a hole in the roof; that the leaves filled the gutters, and littered the porch and lawn. Clearly, under the testimony appearing in the record here and the findings of the trial court, this tree was ‘an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.’”
In this case, where a tree with previous, known rot damage fell on a house and punched through the roof into a child’s bedroom, there is likely have a strong case for holding your neighbor liable for negligence as well. Actions in negligence hold property owners responsible for failing to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable damage to others as a result of dangerous conditions on their property. If one is successful in proving that a neighbor negligently maintained their property, one would have the right to recover both economic losses (property damage, cost for clean-up, medical expenses, etc) and non-economic damages such as pain, disfigurement, emotional distress, anxiety, and, in the child’s case, treatment for what sounds like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Keep in mind and something to consider, homeowner’s insurance covers economic losses caused by falling trees, so you should open a claim with them. They will later seek reimbursement from the neighbor’s insurance.
Christopher B. Dolan is the owner of the Dolan Law Firm. We serve clients from the San Francisco Bay Area and California from our San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles offices. Email questions and topics for future articles to help@dolanlawfirm.com. Each situation is different, and this column does not constitute legal advice. We recommend consulting with an experienced trial attorney to understand your rights fully.
The post Who is liable for a falling tree on a privately owned property? appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>Who gets unclaimed property or funds? Read More »
The post Who gets unclaimed property or funds? appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>My neighbor received a significant sum of money that was considered unclaimed property. What is unclaimed property or funds? Is this legitimate, and how do I get any unclaimed property?
Dear Jasmine,
Yes. It is legitimate! Each year, millions of dollars are turned over to the State Controller’s Office when businesses cannot contact property owners about their unclaimed funds. According to the state, these are the most common types of unclaimed property:
One thing to note is that California’s unclaimed property program does not deal with real estate.
California’s Unclaimed Property Law requires businesses such as financial institutions, insurance companies, corporations, and other entities to report and submit their customers’ property to the State Controller’s Office when there has been no contact with the customer for typically three years. Communication can end due to various reasons, such as the customer moving and forgetting to leave a forwarding address for a company to send what they are owed, or it could be due to the death of a property owner.
California law requires all holders of unclaimed property to attempt to contact owners by sending a letter to the owner’s last known address informing them that the property will be transferred to the State Controller’s Office for safekeeping if the owner does not contact them to retrieve it. The State Controller’s Office also sends letters to all property owners notifying them that the holder will transfer their property to the state. They send notices before transferring the property, allowing owners to retrieve property directly from the holder. Should this happen to you, contact the holder directly for more information on how to retrieve your unclaimed funds.
The State Controller’s Office, Controller Malia M. Cohen, safeguards this lost or forgotten property for as long as it takes to reunite it with the rightful owner(s). There is no deadline for claiming property once it is transferred over to the State Controller’s Office and no fee associated with claiming your property.
Since the letter is sent to the owner’s last known address, there is a chance that you have unclaimed property but did not receive notification. In that case, you can search the state’s database. The process is relatively simple as owners can search and claim their property for free through the state’s website at: https://ucpi.sco.ca.gov/en/Property/SearchIndex. You will start by entering:
You also have the option to narrow your search by inputting your address or city.
The database will generate a list of unclaimed properties if there are matching results to your search. Each property will be marked with a P, I, or N. For those with a:
You can also claim property that belongs to a deceased family member if you are an heir, trustee, or personal representative. In this case, you must provide the proper documentation showing proof of ownership.
The state of California recommends that anyone who has lived, done business or is an heir to an individual who has lived or done business in California search for any potential unclaimed property at least once a year, whether or not you have received a letter about it.
The post Who gets unclaimed property or funds? appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>$4.4 Million Settlement in a Auto Accident from NorCal Super Lawyer Jeremy Jessup Read More »
The post $4.4 Million Settlement in a Auto Accident from NorCal Super Lawyer Jeremy Jessup appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>A Senior Trial Attorney and team leader at Dolan Law Firm, Jeremy M. Jessup represents individuals who have suffered catastrophic losses in personal injury cases and families of loved ones who died in wrongful death lawsuits.
Mr. Jessup has successfully tried cases to jury verdicts in Sacramento, Placer, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Kings and Merced counties, and has appeared before California’s Fifth Appellate District.
– –
Disclaimer: Please remember this is attorney advertising, the recoveries in these cases do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case. Each case’s result may vary depending on its facts and circumstances.
The post $4.4 Million Settlement in a Auto Accident from NorCal Super Lawyer Jeremy Jessup appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>Who is responsible for Damages Caused by a Tree? Read More »
The post Who is responsible for Damages Caused by a Tree? appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>During the recent storms, I had a neighbor’s tree fall onto my roof and part of it came into the bedroom where my son was sleeping. Thank God my son suffered only minor physical injuries, which required only an ER visit and a sling, but now he is afraid to sleep alone and has been having nightmares. The tree is out by the sidewalk. I know it’s not on my property because of where it is located on his side of the fence. I also saw on the news where a woman was crushed and killed in her car by a falling tree/branch. What is the law on this kind of thing? This tree has been a sore subject between us as it has been hanging over my yard for years causing lots of leaves, branches and other junk to fall on the roof, clog the gutters, damage my roses and nearly landed on my car. I have spoken with my neighbor about this on several occasions including the last major storms several years ago, when another limb fell on the fence. He repaired the fence, but didn’t do anything to trim the tree or otherwise make it safe. The branch that fell on my house was from the same “crotch” which showed rot after the prior branch came down. The only thing that has been done to the tree is it was cut one time, about a year ago, by the city, because it was blocking a stop sign. When I confronted my neighbor, he said that he didn’t think he owed me anything saying that it’s probably a city tree and even if it wasn’t, it was an “Act of God.” I have reported it to my homeowner’s insurance which stated that it would repair the property but that my insurance did not provide compensation for the personal injuries suffered by my son. Does my son have a right to collect compensation for his physical and emotional injuries and if so, from whom?
Dear Jannette, what a terrible and frightening ordeal. Thank God your son was not more seriously injured or killed. I have handled several falling tree death cases in my career and in each instance they were preventable if only the ailing tree had been trimmed or cut down before a storm caused fatal consequences.
Each city has separate ordinances regarding tree maintenance along the roadway/sidewalk. If the tree is very close to the road/sidewalk, then a city ordinance may require the adjacent landowner to maintain the tree. Some trees are exclusively maintained by the city. If this occurred in San Francisco, The City may be liable for failure to maintain the tree. In 2016, the voters passed Proposition E, StreetTreeSF which amended the City Charter to transfer responsibility for the care of the City’s 124,000-plus trees and surrounding sidewalks from property owners to Public Works. The law took effect July 1, 2017 and provides for $19 million to be set-aside annually in the City’s General Fund to fund StreetTreeSF.
The City has prioritized pruning trees based on safety considerations, to correct structural flaws and to gain necessary clearances for overhead wires, traffic signs and signals, adjacent buildings and traffic flow. If you are in San Francisco, the tree trimming around the sign, if it occurred since July 1, 2017, may have been part of the StreetTreeSF priority trimming program.
For the City to remove a tree, unless it creates a dire emergency, the City follows a public notice process before the tree is cut down so citizens can voice their concerns including opposition to the removal of the tree or requesting trimming instead of removal. An individual can still prune their own tree as long as it is undertaken in accordance with the June 27, 2006 CCSF Pruning Standards.
If the City is responsible for maintaining this tree they may be held responsible for the damage caused to your son under the doctrine of Dangerous Condition of Public Property. Under this doctrine a public entity may be responsible for injuries caused by non-trivial defects in public property that create a foreseeable risk of harm, if the City knew, or should have known with reasonable diligence, about the defect with sufficient time to remedy it. Here, as the tree had been trimmed previously by the City, a suggestion of knowledge is raised as they would have been physically present, examined and evaluated the tree, and trimmed it. If the hazard/rot was in existence at that time, and the City did not remedy it, liability may attach. Additionally, if the City arborists did something in trimming the tree that increased the risk of the tree falling on to your house, such as trimming most of the weight from only the street side, they may be held liable under a simple negligence theory.
For more information on City trees, you can look up information about specific trees on the StreetTreeSF Map. Whenever a public tree is planted, pruned, or removed and replaced, the tree is surveyed, and the information is updated in the City’s database, which is then reflected on the Street Tree Map.
Christopher B. Dolan is the owner of the Dolan Law Firm. We serve clients from the San Francisco Bay Area and California from our San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles offices. Email questions and topics for future articles to help@dolanlawfirm.com. Each situation is different, and this column does not constitute legal advice. We recommend consulting with an experienced trial attorney to understand your rights fully.
The post Who is responsible for Damages Caused by a Tree? appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>Driving Safe in California Storms Read More »
The post Driving Safe in California Storms appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>This week’s question comes from Andrew from San Francisco, CA, who asks: With all the rain we have been getting lately, and the longer than usual rainy seasons we are getting now, how can Californians stay safe on the roads?
The Federal Highway Administration estimates California drivers log the most total miles per year, a whopping 340 billion, more than any other state. With all that time spent on the road, we must consider the effect of the influx of rain and how it will impact the safety of drivers. The Department of Transportation reported approximately 4,317 crashes while it was raining in 2021. With the expected increase in rain, those statistics will likely increase. About 15% of fatal crashes occur because of rain or wet roads.
When a driver takes control of a vehicle, they assume a responsibility to operate it safely in all conditions. This responsibility entails maintaining control and making every effort to prevent accidents. Driving safely, with all conditions in mind, is not only an expectation but also a legal obligation:
California Vehicle Code Section 22350 states,
“No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.”
For instance, a reasonable and prudent driver should not base their driving speed solely on the posted speed limit. If the road conditions, such as rain, are such that a reduced speed would keep others and their property safe, driving at or above the speed limit could contribute to liability if an accident occurs. Even if not technically speeding, the law requires drivers to adjust their driving according to the conditions.
Determining liability involves considering more than a driver’s speed in adverse weather. Various factors, such as ignoring road signs or traffic laws, inadequate use of windshield wipers or headlights, distracted driving, reckless behavior, operating a vehicle with worn-out tires, and failing to account for increased stopping time by not keeping a sufficient distance between you and the care in front, are all taken into consideration to assess negligence or liability for an accident.
Staying safe while driving in the rain requires extra caution and attention. Here are some tips:
Adapting your driving to the current weather conditions is crucial, and always prioritize safety. If the rain is too heavy, consider delaying your trip or finding a safe place to pull over until conditions improve.
Consequently, if you’ve been injured in an accident during adverse weather conditions, it is imperative to contact an attorney who is experienced in assessing all aspects of liability affected by weather conditions.
***
Disclaimer: Each situation is different, and this column does not constitute legal advice. We recommend consulting with an experienced trial attorney to understand your rights fully.
The post Driving Safe in California Storms appeared first on Dolan Law Firm.
]]>