The PACT Act Expands Benefits For Veterans

Written By Chris Dolan and Megan Irish

This week’s question comes from Lino in San Francisco, who writes: I wondered, with Veterans Day last week, what is the government doing to protect those who’ve served these days. Is there anything new? I remember Joe Biden talking about making Veterans a priority, has he done so? How many veterans are there anyway?

Dear Lino,

Thanks for your question. Veteran’s Day was on Friday, November 11, this year. According to the US Census, there are approximately eighteen million veterans in the United States. President Biden has been working on Veterans benefits and has made several strides over his presidency by establishing presumptions for rare respiratory cancers, raising awareness of VA benefits related to military exposures, and increasing training for both VA and non-VA healthcare providers. Over nine million are enrolled in VA health care, under the care of some 370,000 medical professionals, in nearly 1300 health care facilities. The VA has also implemented a new network of specialized providers and a call center to improve care.

However, on August 10, 2022, President Biden signed a new law, the PACT ACT. The law expands health care and general benefits for veterans, and their surviving family members. The Act’s full name is Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act.  It is the single most significant expansion in over thirty years to help veterans.

As we can all recognize, military services may expose our service members to substances that have increased adverse health risks for them. The White House has acknowledged risks like asthma, cancer, and other conditions that can take years to manifest. Therefore, it can be difficult for service members and veterans to establish the causal connection between the disabilities they suffer and their years in service to our country.  

This new act is named after Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson. He was a combat medic who passed away from a rare lung cancer after years of service. The PACT Act improves access to health care screenings and services related to potential toxic exposures. The Act also gives post-September 11 veterans more time to seek VA health care resources, from the previous rule of five years from their date of discharge from service to ten years from their discharge. There is also an open enrollment period for veterans who otherwise do not meet these criteria. This means more veterans can enroll in care without having to demonstrate a service-connected disability.  

This difference in VA process significantly changes how the VA makes its decisions on environmental exposure claims and increases veterans’ access to the care they need. This new Act also makes law the VA’s new process for reviewing exposure and service-related injury for chronic conditions. This law is important for individuals who have a hard time showing their specific health situation, but the overall picture of the aggregate injury is clear. There is also a requirement in the Act for the VA to have external input in their review process. This increased transparency should also speed up policy decisions on exposure concerns the VA has to evaluate.   

The speed with which veterans can access their benefits is improved. PACT decreases paperwork and exams needed by veterans for twenty-three specific conditions veterans may develop before the veterans can access health care and disability compensation. There are eleven respiratory conditions, and several forms on cancer on this list, including reproductive cancers, melanoma, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer and some brain cancers. If a veteran passes away from one of these specified conditions, his/her survivors may also be eligible to make a claim for benefits.  

Under the requirements of PACT the VA will also be required to conduct new studies to evaluate the health trends of veterans who have served in Southwest Asia in the Gulf War, and 9/11 veterans. The studies will examine the impact of toxic exposures on these veterans. The VA will be convening a new interagency group to develop plans to further research toxic exposures.

There will be increased outreach and regular screening required, which may catch issues earlier, and improve treatment options and outcomes for the veterans. PACT will also enhance the education of those working for the VA so that they are better equipped to screen veterans for toxic exposure.     

Finally, PACT invests in the VA, by authorizing thirty-one major medical health clinics and research facilities in nineteen states.  

PACT will greatly improve access and benefits available to the Veterans in their time of need.  

read more

Are Bicycle Lights Legally Required?

Written By Chris Dolan

This week’s question comes from Luca from Mill Valley: I have simple question for you. Some riders have them some don’t. Are bike lights legally required in California?

Thank you, Luca, for the question.

The simple answer is yes, a bike light is required at nighttime. The law requires the light to meet certain requirements and requires the use of reflectors as well. Let’s start by discussing the lights and reflectors and then we will discuss what is required by California law. 

What is a Bicycle Light?

A bicycle light is typically a battery powered LED device that attaches to, or is built onto, a bicycle that helps the rider be noticed by traffic and others on the roads, paths, or trails. Bike lights also allow for greater visibility to the rider resulting in safer riding.

The front bicycle light is a white lamp, and the rear light is a red reflector or red light with a built-in reflector.

What is a Bike Reflector?

Bike reflectors are another important part of a bike that increases the visibility of bicyclists. A bike reflector is a safety device that is designed to redirect light that strikes it. When light strikes a reflector, it illuminates and emits the reflected light outward. 

While bike reflectors can be highly visible under the right circumstances, they are generally insufficient visibility aids for night riding. This is why California law requires the use of a bicycle light as well as reflectors. 

How Bright Does my Light Need to Be?

The front white light of a bicycle should be bright enough to be visible from at least 300 feet from the side and front of your bicycle. 

Light brightness is measured in lumens. Lights will be brighter and more visible to humans when its lumen rating is higher. Typical home light bulbs range from 300 to 1000 lumens. 

As a bicycle rider you want to use a light that lights up the area you are riding through and makes you visible to others hundreds of feet away. Most riders will be comfortable with a minimum lumen rating of 200. The optimal lumen rating for a front white bike light is 250-400 lumens to be sufficiently visible to others while also lighting your path forward. 

What is the Law in California for Bicycle Lights and Reflectors?

California Vehicle Code § 21201(d) sets forth the requirements for using lights and reflectors on bicycles. The law requires the use of lights and reflectors when a bicycle is operated during darkness. During the daytime, when the conditions are visible, a bicycle rider is not required to illuminate themselves with lights, although it is a safe practice to use a white front lamp and red reflector at all times when riding. 

During the darkness a bicycle must be equipped with the following:

  1. A front white light that is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle.
  2. A rear red reflector or a solid or flashing red light with a built-in reflector that is visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear.
  3. A white or yellow reflector on each pedal, shoe, or ankle visible from the front and rear of the bicycle from a distance of 200 feet.
  4. A white or yellow reflector on the front half of the bicycle (typically the front wheel); and a red or white reflector on each side of the back half of the bicycle (typically on the back wheel); or reflectorized front and back tires.

The biggest benefit of bicycle lights and reflectors is visibility. you want to be seen, so you don’t get hit by cars. Remember to practice safe biking habits and stay safe out there!  

read more

Taking Time Off to Vote is a Right in California

This week’s question comes from Laird in Oakland: I work in construction, and I am often at the worksite for 10-12 hours each day. I often don’t get off work until after 7 p.m. I am afraid that this will not give me time to vote on election day. I don’t feel comfortable mailing my ballot. I want my vote counted right there on election day. Can I use sick time to go to the polls on election day?

Dear Laird,
Thank you for this very important question which affects many workers. I completely understand that you would prefer to place your ballot in person rather than mailing it. I have good news. The law allows workers to take time off from their position in order to vote and doing so does not require the use of accrued sick leave. 

California Elections Code § 14000 provides employees with the right to take reasonable time off to vote, without loss of pay, if a voter does not have sufficient time outside of working hours to vote in a statewide election. Specifically, the Elections Code states that,

“the voter may, without loss of pay, take off enough working time that, when added to the voting time available outside of working hours, will enable the voter to vote. No more than two hours of the time taken off for voting shall be without loss of pay,” and that, “time off for voting shall be only at the beginning or end of the regular working shift, whichever allows the most free time for voting and the least time off from the regular working shift, unless otherwise mutually agreed.” Furthermore, if a worker knows, or believes, on the third working day prior to the election, that time off will be necessary to be able to vote on election day, this code states that, “the employee shall give the employer at least two working days’ notice that time off for voting is desired…”

For you, if it appears that you will be at the job site for 12 hours on election day, and will not be off work until 7:00, as you suggested, that may not give you the opportunity to get to the polls to vote. You should notify your employer, in writing, three days prior to election day, that you will need to take time off to vote. You can work out with your employer whether it makes more sense to go to the polls when they open and then come in to work, or to leave early with enough time to get to your polling place.

Employers also need to be aware that for at least 10 days before every statewide election, every employer must keep posted a notice setting forth the provisions of California Elections Code § 14000 so that employees like you are aware of their rights. The notice must be placed conspicuously at the place of work, if practicable, or elsewhere where it can be seen as employees come or go to their place of work. 

Another important aspect of this code is that it would likely be unlawful for an employer to retaliate against you, or any person who made use of these provisions of the Elections Code to vote. We would argue that an employer who terminates an employee for exercising their right to vote would have engaged in, “wrongful termination in violation of public policy,” a cause of action in a lawsuit available when someone is terminated in violation of a fundamental public policy.  A wrongful termination cause of action provides for recovery of economic damages such as lost wages and benefits, non-economic losses such as anxiety, stress, emotional distress, fear and humiliation and, if the denial was the decision of an officer, director or, “managing agent,” of the employer, even punitive damages. Importantly, since you work in construction, a field with many Union employees, any collective bargaining agreement provision, which seeks to waive an employee’s right to pay for time taken off to vote, has been held by the courts to be against public policy, contrary to express provision of law and invalid.

read more

Insurance Company WILL NOT PAY FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES. Here’s Why:

Written by Chris Dolan and Cristina Garcia

This week’s question comes from Patricia D. from the Mission District, who asks: I was riding my bicycle down 19th Street approaching Mission Street when a distracted driver traveling in the opposite direction struck me. He was apparently texting, driving, and traveling too fast on the roadway. When the vehicle struck me, I fell on my right side. As a result, I broke my right wrist and suffered a terrible road rash on my right elbow and shoulder area. The driver and I exchanged information before I was transported to the hospital. I recently received a call from the driver’s car insurance informing me that they would not pay for the damages to my bike or any of my medical expenses because I was at fault. Are they correct?

Dear Patricia,

Thank you for your question. Adult bicyclists have the same duties and responsibilities as motor vehicle drivers under the California Vehicle Code (“CVC”) 21200. CVC 21200 provides as follows:

“(a)(1) A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs…”

Therefore, California laws treat bicyclists as motor vehicles that must abide by all traffic laws, which includes CVC section 21650, which provides that all cyclists must travel in the same direction as traffic. If bicyclists need to head in the opposite direction of traffic, they must walk with their bikes on the sidewalk.

For this reason, the driver’s vehicle insurance is likely denying your claim for property damage to your bicycle and personal injury claim. This denial does not completely bar you from recovering for your injuries if the other driver was also negligent. For example, suppose the police report or witnesses corroborate that the driver was speeding or texting while driving. In that case, counsel can argue that the driver’s negligent acts also caused the collision.

An issue that is likely to be raised is “Comparative Fault,” also called “Comparative Negligence.” Comparative Fault is the percentage of fault the court assigns to the injured party. California law states if the parties are found to share fault, the law requires that the amount of recovery that the injured party is entitled to be reduced by his or her percentage of fault. For example, if the injured person is found to be 30% at fault, their compensation award will be reduced by 30%. The driver’s insurance adjuster generally assigns this percentage if the case settles pre-litigation. However, if your case does not settle before trial, a jury will decide what percentage of fault will be assigned to each party.

If you were injured in a bicycle collision due to someone’s negligence, you have the right to seek compensation for your economic and non-economic damages. Due to the complexity of Comparative Fault, cases involving Comparative Fault, you must contact a qualified and skilled trial lawyer to review the situation and assist you with your claim to ensure that you receive full and just compensation for your injuries.

read more

Public v Private Liability: Can I Sue A Government Entity?

Written By Chris Dolan

This week’s question comes from anonymous: My daughter tripped in the high school parking lot she walks through after softball practice.  It was already dark and there were no direct lights and she tumbled down a nearby ravine. Luckily, she only had some minor cuts and bruises, but I am worried that another kid will get seriously hurt. My friend got hurt in a shopping center parking lot. He sued and got a settlement. Can this be done if someone is hurt on the school grounds?  Is there anything that can be done to fix the lights, or put up a fence? 

Thank you for writing about the shared safety concerns of many parents. When a child goes to school there is an expectation that the school will have measures in place to keep all those attending the school safe. When there is a hazard such as the one you describe, it is an excellent idea to notify the school, in writing, of the problem. It may help the school make changes, and even if they don’t, it may help someone seriously injured seek justice. The reasons will become clear below.  

You mentioned your friend who was hurt in a private shopping center. This raises an important distinction in the law. There are many differences between suing a governmental entity compared to suing a private, or non-Government defendant. In general, government cases are more involved and require specialized knowledge. 

For instance, when suing a state-based governmental entity, such as a school, there is an initial requirement that a Government Claim be filed. That means that to successfully maintain a lawsuit, a person must have first explained the basis of the claim to the entity itself and given them an opportunity to respond. The time limit to file this claim is very short. In most instances the claim must be made within six months.  Generally, the claim will be denied, and then there is another 6 months to file a lawsuit.  For private entities, for this type of incident, the time to file a lawsuit is generally two years. That two-year statute of limitations is generally extended for a minor until they turn eighteen.  Unfortunately, that is not the case when suing a government. The requirement to file a timely Government Tort Claim is not, generally, extended beyond the 6 months.

The actual cause of action, the name of the basis for recovery, in a lawsuit is also different. The cause of action against a government entity is called “Dangerous Condition of Public Property,” where against a private entity, it is called “Premises Liability.” They have very similar elements which much be proven, but there are differences. Both require that the defendant own or control the property in question, and that the defect is a substantial factor in causing the harm. However, among other differences, where a public entity is concerned, it must have had to “know, or should have known” of the danger for a long enough time to have protected against it. Whereas a private business must “be negligent in the use or maintenance of the property.” In many cases, for a private business this can come down to making reasonable inspections to seek the danger and warn against it.  This is where your written complaint comes into play. If informed in writing of a defect, a public or private defendant is now on notice of the defect and can make changes, or repairs. If they do not, and someone is hurt, they now “know or should have known” or were negligent in not repairing it. 

Perhaps the biggest difference, and the most daunting to those unfamiliar, are the government immunities. Historically, people had no right to sue the government, an ancient concept called Sovereign Immunity. Over time, the government passed laws allowing lawsuits where someone is injured. However, they maintain many “immunities.” Immunities act like a get-out-of-jail-free card. If the government enjoys a particular immunity, they can force a lawsuit to be dismissed- thrown out. There are many, but the most often used is called “design immunity.” Where a government has considered a design, and it was approved at high enough levels, they are immune from lawsuits based on that design. It can be an infuriating impediment unless an attorney can show that it doesn’t apply, no longer applies, or that conditions have changed to the point it is no longer the same design. 

As you can see, this is a complex area of law with many hurdles and pitfalls. If you or someone you know is injured, make sure to speak to a knowledgeable attorney, such as The Dolan Law Firm. And write your letter explaining the dangers at your daughter’s school. 

read more

1.5 Million Verdict plus $500K in prevailing cost(s) in Raul Mejia-Lopez v. Jet Speed Plumbing, Inc., a California Corp., et al.

Chris Dolan and Aimee Kirby are pleased to announce a life changing verdict for the Mejia Lopez family. Mr. Lopez was struck from behind on Highway 91 in LA. He had a two-level foramina decompression by Dr. Kassimian. One week of MILS and Jury selection, followed by one week of Chris getting COVID, and one week of trial returned a 1.5 million verdict. Defense best, last, final, 600K. Policy limit demand of 1,000,000 by 998 was served over a year ago. With prevailing party costs and experts, it will top out at around 2 million.
Up and through today the Mejia Lopez family, husband, wife and three children, were all living in one room. Now they will be able to have a proper place to live, with extra room for their family. We must remember what may not seem to be the biggest victory for us is often the biggest, most important event for our clients, and it matters.
read more

Apartment Fires: Who is Responsible for Tenant Safety?

Written By Chris Dolan and Anna Pantsulaya

This week’s question comes from Jill in San Francisco, who asks: This year I saw an apartment building surrounded by firefighters and fire trucks. A fire started on a top floor, and from my viewpoint, they had already put out the flames. I thought about my living space and how I should prepare if a fire broke out in my building. I live in an apartment on the third floor. I have done some preparation since all this happened. What laws should I know for fire preparedness? Would the owners be responsible for all tenants if a fire occurred? 

Hello Jill,

Thank you for your questions. Many safety standards are set to protect tenants from the situation you described. Understanding your rights in those circumstances is important to ensure that, in the unfortunate event a fire does break out, you are fully informed, and all standards were met by those that could be held responsible. Nearly 4000 Americans die yearly in house fires, and over 2000 are severely injured.

What are the safety standards to keep in mind?

In August 2016, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed legislation (Ordinance 163-16) to promote fire and life safety, reduce the risk of fires, and prevent property damage. The requirements include having building owners:

A great resource to check out before moving into an apartment in San Francisco is sanfrancisco.buildingeye.com/fire. This database keeps track of:

  • Fire Permits from 01/01/1983
  • Fire Complaints and Violations from 01/01/2010
  • Fire Inspections from 01/01/2014
  • Statement of Compliance (for required Apartment Buildings with Fire Alarm Systems)
  • Additional data available from SF Department of Building Inspection and SF Planning Department.

How can you determine who is responsible when a fire starts in your apartment?

Causes of house fires vary. For example, faulty appliances or wiring cause the most significant number of house fires; heating devices, such as heaters, wood stoves, and fireplaces, are another leading cause; cigarettes are a further leading source of house fires. Determining what caused the fire is instrumental in determining who can be held liable.

The landlord, property owner, or manager has responsibility for a fire or accident resulting from dangerous conditions such as faulty wiring or failing to follow the standards outlined in the California Code of Regulations. However, suppose the tenant caused the hazardous condition that results in the fire, i.e., from a burning candle or leaving a cigarette unattended. In that case, there may not be legal liability as to the landlord, the property owner, or manager unless the landlord breached their duty to ensure there are properly working smoke alarms on the property. In many cases, tenants have been seriously injured because they were not adequately warned of a fire. Additionally, it is important to remember that some rental leases may attempt to limit liability for dangerous incidents such as fires. Therefore, it is essential that you carefully review any lease before signing.

What are some common signs that your landlord breached his or her duty of care as it relates to a poorly maintained electrical system?

Faulty wiring is not only one of the leading causes of fires in the United States but also one of the most common examples of landlord negligence. Although the landlord must have the local fire authority inspect all multifamily residential apartment buildings, in the state of California consisting of three or more units and up to 15, every so often landlords do not comply with this requirement. Most buildings in San Francisco were built well before 1990. Older properties frequently have not been updated to comply with current building codes. Some properties still have aluminum wiring, a known fire hazard. While others, may have outdated electrical systems that are unable to handle modern electrical appliances. Additionally, fire safety inspections only go so far as to inspect the common areas. Therefore, it is important to keep an eye out for things like – outlets that do not work, breaker boxes that flip often, blown fuses, mild electrical shocks, dimmed or flickering lights, outlets that work sporadically, power surges, burning smells, hot fixtures or switches, and soot around switches or outlets. Document all issues arising from faulty wiring and be sure to let your landlord know immediately if you notice anything out of the ordinary. 

Although the landlord has a “reasonable time” to abate those issues, often they will ignore complaints unless and until they are required to handle them. In San Francisco, you can report your complaints and concerns online using the following link: https://sf-fire.org/services/report-complaints-concerns. This complaint will ensure that you not only put the landlord on notice of the issue, but you also notified the appropriate agency that will come out on your behalf and advise your landlord of what steps are appropriate and required to take to abate the issue.

Proving landlord negligence cases are not always easy. A skilled attorney will investigate the fire and employ experts to help prove that your landlord breached a duty that was owed to you. A full investigation of the cause of the fire may reveal other issues that your landlord may bear responsibility for as it relates to the fire.

What damages can you claim if a fire breaks out in your apartment at no fault of your own?

Landlord insurance is a form of liability insurance that pays for claims caused by landlord negligence. Various damages can be claimed depending on the degree to which the landlord was negligent and whether the fire caused property damage and injury. While landlord insurance is not required by law, it may be required by the landlord’s home insurance provider. If a landlord has tenants occupying their property for at least 30 continuous days, most homeowners insurance companies will require them to carry landlord insurance instead of homeowners insurance. 

Typically, you can recover the cost to replace lost or damaged personal property, the cost to restore the personal property, relocation expenses, additional living expenses, general damages for mental anguish,  and in some instances, punitive damages. Punitive damages are used to set an example of the landlord when their conduct is beyond that of garden variety negligence which is why it is essential to document everything. 

In many instances, an apartment fire causes injury. Burn victims are entitled to compensation for their past and future medical expenses, past and future lost wages, and pain and suffering. In catastrophic burn injury cases, the assistance of a life care planner may be necessary to compensate you for long-term medical problems fully. In the case of wrongful death, loved ones may be able to receive compensation for the loss.

Suppose you have been injured and sustained damages because of a fire. In that case, the landlord may claim the fire is not their responsibility or push you to his insurance company to negotiate a quick settlement. If you have been the victim of an apartment fire, you deserve to speak with an experienced attorney dedicated to maximizing your recovery. An experienced burn injury attorney is particularly essential in the event of injury, as burns often lead to long-term physical and mental harm such as scarring and PTSD. 

read more

Who is responsible for a dog bite or dog attack?

Written By Chris Dolan and Carole Okolowicz

This week’s question come from Phill in the North Bay: I am avid hiker and enjoy being outdoors. Not sure if dogs are getting more popular in the last two years, but it appears that I see more people with dogs on the trail now. Some dogs are friendly looking. Some dogs are not so friendly looking, especially when they have the chrome prong leash and they are pulling hard on it. Can you tell me who is ultimately responsible for a dog bite or dog attack?  

Phill,

Thanks for your question. Dogs provide countless benefits to humans including companionship. But these domesticated animals can still lose control and bite or attack people. A vast majority of animal attacks in the US and California are inflicted by dog bites. The California Department of Public Health estimates there are over 5 million dog bites a year in the U.S. Children are more than twice as likely as adults to be the victim of a dog bite.

Animal attacks can be frightening and can result in serious physical and emotional injuries, including severe cuts, abrasions, puncture wounds, infection, lost eyes, permanent disfigurement, scarring and psychological trauma.

Under California law, dog and other animal owners are generally strictly liable for the injuries caused by their animal. Strict Liability means that a dog owner is liable for injuries and damages caused by their dog. The law covers anyone bitten by a dog in a public place or while lawfully in a private place, including the dog owner’s property. It does not matter whether the dog has any history of vicious behavior. If the dog bites someone, the owner is liable.

Under some circumstances, in addition to the owner of the dog, the owner of the property where the dog resides may also be responsible for your injuries, if different from the dog’s owner. If you were attacked on the owner’s property or if you know or believe that a dog escaped from an enclosed yard, for example, keep track of the property’s address.

There are some circumstances when an animal injures another party and the owners are not Strictly Liable. These cases generally involve animal attacks where there was no actual “bite.” For example, a dog may cause a collision or may chase a person riding a bike and cause them to crash. Many situations can occur where an owner has the responsibility to control their animal and they fail to do so. Under a general theory of negligence an owner or other person in control of an animal can be liable for the injuries caused by their animal.

If you have been bitten by a dog you are likely entitled to compensation for your injuries and other damages. In a civil lawsuit you can recover both economic and non-economic damages. In order to get compensation for your losses, you must demonstrate that dog bite or other animal attack caused your injuries and other damages.

Economic damages include the expenses related to any injuries caused by the animal attack. This includes:

  • Medical Expenses (past and future)
  • Lost Wages
  • Surgery
  • Wound Care
  • Lost Earning Potential
  • Physical Therapy

Non-economic damages can also include:

  • Psychological Distress / Trauma
  • Mental Anguish
  • Pain and Suffering

Contact an Animal Attack Lawyer or Dog Bite Lawyer

Following an attack or dog bite, you have the right to seek out legal help to obtain compensation. An experience attorney will help you determine what legal options you have and can assist you in obtaining compensation for your injuries.

read more

What Are Some of My Rights As a Pedestrian?

Written by Christopher B. Dolan

This week’s question comes from Kevin in San Francisco: I live in the City and like many people, I do not own a car. Too expensive. I tend to walk often and enjoy it. Can you talk more about pedestrian law and pedestrian safety. Seems like every day I have to make sure I do not get sidelined by an electric bike or scooter. Even when I cross the street on a crosswalk, and I have the green light, cyclists and scooter riders just speed towards me. What are my rights? Don’t I have the right of way? 

Kevin, thank you for writing us. You are right to feel concerned about the risks to your safety as a pedestrian in San Francisco. Traveling as a pedestrian has become increasingly risky in the past decade. According the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration pedestrian fatalities have increased by 46% from 2010 to 2019. 

San Francisco is more densely populated than most major U.S. cities, and has some of the highest levels of traffic in the world. On top of that, millions of people visit San Francisco every year. In a city like San Francisco, the danger to pedestrians seems to be an accepted fact of life, as it is in other major cities, yet drivers still are liable for the injuries they cause to pedestrians when they hit someone due to speeding, inattention or distraction, impaired driving, or some other factor.

In such a dense city the risks are high when traveling as a pedestrian. A moving bicycle, scooter or motor vehicle can cause catastrophic injuries and death when they collide with a pedestrian. From 2016 to 2020 there were over 4,000 pedestrian crashes in the San Francisco Area, with nearly 80 pedestrians killed and thousands more injured. 

Pedestrian crashes are much more likely to occur in inner-city neighborhoods, the Tenderloin, SOMA, Mission, and Downtown specifically. However, on a per crossing basis, individual pedestrians are at a higher risk of being struck by vehicles in the less dense, more residential areas, meaning anywhere in San Francisco there are risks of being injured as a pedestrian. 

Pedestrian crashes are often caused by negligence on part of a driver. Most pedestrian injuries and deaths occur at nighttime and drivers impaired by drugs and alcohol raises the risk of pedestrians being hit by a driver’s negligence. It is important to always assume a driver does not see you, and stay out of the way of any moving bicycles, scooters or motor vehicles. 

Another major cause of pedestrian injuries is speeding vehicles. Speeding vehicles increase the likelihood of injury and increase the severity of the injury. The body is a fragile thing and you should always be cautious when approaching a roadway as a speeding vehicle can come out of no-where and cause devastation. 

With chaotic streets, bustling traffic, and a growing population of bicycle and scooter riders, what are a pedestrians rights and how do they protect pedestrians?

CVC § 21950 is the primary Right-of-Way law in California which states that,

“The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.”

This law requires drivers to slow down and exercise due caution to keep pedestrians safe.

Unfortunately, the law is not completely straightforward, and CVC § 21950 also states,

“No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.”

Drivers have further duties under CVC § 22350 which is commonly known as the “basic speed law.” This section prohibits those driving motor vehicles from driving faster than what is reasonable in a given circumstance. Under California’s basic speed law a driver must drive at a safe speed that does not endanger the safety of pedestrians.

Pedestrians do not always have the right of way, and in cities like San Francisco the law sets forth specific guidelines for when a pedestrian has the right of way or not. Even though pedestrians do not always have the right-of-way, if a pedestrian violates their duties it does not mean a motorist or bicyclist is free to hit them without liability for the injuries. 

Just because a pedestrian has the right-of-way does not protect them from being injured. Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians with the right-of-way was the primary cause for more than 42 percent of pedestrian collisions from 2016 to 2020. The law will not protect you from injury from those who do not follow it. The law will only provide you with an avenue to get compensated for your injuries. 

No amount of compensation following a catastrophic injury or death will truly pay for the damage of a pedestrian accident. As a pedestrian you should keep yourself as safe as possible when traveling around the streets. You should do the following as a pedestrian to reduce your risk of injury or death:

  • Wear visible clothes, especially at night time. If it is dark bring a flashlight and reflective clothing. 

  • Use crosswalks to cross streets, but do not put your trust in having a green light. ALWAYS check for oncoming motorists, bicyclists and other riders before you cross the street.

  • Do not walk in bike lanes. Always use the sidewalks and stay away from the roadway and bike lanes.

  • Stay aware of your surroundings when traveling. This means avoiding noise canceling ear buds and other distractions. 

Your safety should be your primary concern when traveling on foot. Even the sidewalks can pose risks to pedestrians. Watch out for holes, cracks and unkept walkways. 

If you are ever injured in San Francisco you should contact an experienced personal injury attorney who is knowledgeable about pedestrian laws and will fight to recover compensation from those responsible.

Be safe out there Kevin, thank you for voicing your concerns.

read more

I Was Involved in a Motorcycle Crash: What Can I Do?

Written By Chris Dolan

This week’s question comes from Rob in Foster City, who writes: I was in SoMa last weekend, and got in a motorcycle crash. Coming home late at night on my motorcycle, when a van in the left lane beside me swerved into my lane nearly hitting me. I jammed on my brakes and hit the back of the van. The driver said he had no insurance. The van he was driving belonged to the company he worked for. I broke my wrist, and my bike is a wreck. What can I do?

Thank you for your question, Rob. I started riding motorcycles as a teenager and, as a lawyer, regularly represent injured motorcyclists. One of the most common scenarios in the motorcycle crash cases I litigate is when a driver, without signaling, cuts off a motorcyclist or turns suddenly from the opposite lane in front of the motorcyclist. In both cases, the resulting collision can be fatal to the motorcyclist. I am relieved your injuries, while serious, were not life-threatening.

Here, the van driver violated California Vehicle Code Section 21658, which states,

“Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction,” it is the rule that “(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.”

I assume the damage to your motorcycle was more than $750. If that is the case, you have to report the accident to the DMV within 10 days of the accident. If you have not already filed the report, go the DMV website, search for Form SR-1, complete the form and send it in right away to the DMV.

You didn’t mention whether you have motorcycle insurance. Assuming you do, you need to ask your agent about whether your insurance policy contains uninsured and/or underinsured motorist coverage. What is uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage? Let’s start with what it isn’t.

When we think of insurance, we think of liability insurance. It protects your assets if you are at fault for an accident and you hurt someone or damage someone else’s property.

Liability insurance does not, however, protect you from damages you suffer in an accident that is someone else’s fault. That’s where uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage applies. Because many drivers in California violate the law and drive without insurance – or have a bare bones policy – California law requires insurance companies to offer consumers this coverage.

Even though the other driver did not have insurance, your insurance policy may be sufficient to cover both the financial loss you suffered – your wrecked bike and any days missed from work – as well compensate you for your broken wrist and medical expenses due to the collision.

What happens if you don’t have insurance?

I hope that is not case. But if it is, the company that owned the van may be legally responsible for your motorcycle crash injuries under the legal doctrine respondent superior, which is Latin for “let the master answer.” The doctrine is codified in California Civil Code Section 2338. It holds an employer responsible for the torts (wrongs) committed by its employees that fall within the “scope and course of their employment.”

You have to show that that the employee was negligent (acting in a manner that was unreasonable or illegal), and that the employee was also involved in the employer’s business enterprise at the time of the collision.

Here, the employee’s negligence is clear: He violated the vehicle code. Was the van driver also involved in the employee’s business? If he was delivering an item for the company or returning the van to the company parking lot after he completed his work shift, the answer is yes.

Determining if an employer is legally responsible for an employee’s negligence requires a thorough investigation of the facts. I suggest you consider contacting an experienced motorcycle crash attorney to advise you further on your legal rights and remedies.

read more