Car Accidents | Dolan Law Firm

Who is liable for falling trees?

Recently, 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.

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.

This week’s column focuses on a recent incident about which we have received a number of inquiries. On Sept. 18, a Redwood City police officer en route to a reported crime scene lost control of his patrol vehicle and struck a pedestrian standing in the median of El Camino Real, as well as two other cars approaching from the opposite direction. The pedestrian was hospitalized with critical injuries. Readers have reached out wondering who bears responsibility when an officer-involved accident results in serious injury.

In general, the California Vehicle Code (CVC) regulations apply to all drivers, whether or not they are acting in a law enforcement or other public capacity. However, an exception provided in CVC Section 21055 applies when an authorized emergency vehicle is either: (1) responding to an emergency call or fire alarm; (2) engaged in rescue operations; or (3) in immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law. In any of these situations, emergency vehicle drivers are required to warn the public with red lights visible from the front of their vehicles and, when reasonably necessary, activation of sirens. This exception is designed to ensure emergency vehicles a clear and speedy pathway when the risks to the public from an emergency outweigh the risks to the public from the emergency vehicle’s haste.

Municipalities may also establish “general orders” governing local practices for handling emergency vehicle responses in line with CVC requirements. For instance, Redwood City Police Department’s General Order 316.4 further requires officers to “reduce speed at all street intersections to such a degree that they shall have complete control of the vehicle” and to “elect to respond to the call without the use of red lights and siren at the legal speed limit” where the officer judges that violating traffic laws would present an unreasonable risk given present road and traffic conditions.

When an officer is sued for personal injuries or property damage resulting from a vehicular accident, CVC Section 21055 may be raised as an affirmative defense, meaning an officer may avoid liability if they can prove every element of the exception. Such a legal determination depends heavily on the facts of a particular case. However, the defense will generally not apply if the officer: (1) neither received information to justify an emergency response nor reasonably determined from observation that such a response was necessary; (2) failed to warn the public by illuminating a red light visible from the front of their vehicle and, if reasonably necessary, activating a siren; (3) failed to drive with due regard for public safety given the extraordinary circumstances; or (4) exercised their emergency privileges “arbitrarily,” which courts have interpreted to mean acting either with knowledge that serious injury will probably result or with wanton or reckless disregard of the possible consequences.

In the case of the Sept. 18 crash, it appears that the officer was dispatched pursuant to a legitimate emergency, namely reports of a home invasion. However, the affirmative defense still may not apply if a court finds any of the other three conditions to exist. For example, it is not clear from available video footage whether the officer’s vehicle was operating the minimum required forward facing red light, or siren if conditions are found to warrant one. It is also unclear why the officer lost control of the vehicle and, given such a result, whether he would be found to have been driving with due regard for public safety. The narrative initially offered by the Redwood City Police Department relies on a finding of wet, slippery road conditions. However, as stated above, the Department’s own General Order requires officers to use sound judgment, including taking road conditions into account, when considering their manner of response to an emergency. The Department has turned investigation of the accident over to the California Highway Patrol.

Employers are generally liable for the negligence of employees acting within the “scope and course” of their employment. Therefore, if the officer is found to have acted negligently, the city of Redwood City can be held responsible for any injuries caused and forced to pay for legal damages. However, if a court finds the officer to have acted with knowledge or wanton and reckless disregard that serious injury will probably result, this level of culpability may be found to be outside the “scope and course” of his employment, relieving the city of employer liability.

The city may also be found liable for the legal damages involved in this accident if it is found to have resulted from a vehicle defect and a court finds the Department failed to properly maintain, inspect, or repair the patrol car. If the car is found to have been defective upon purchase, the manufacturer and dealer may also bear responsibility under a products liability theory.

This week’s question comes from Becky M. in SoMa who asks:

Q: “When I was dropping my daughter off at elementary school last week, I drove up the street next to the school. It’s a narrow road with one lane in each direction. I was waiting in line for curbside drop-off when a yellow schoolbus stopped in front of us and turned on its red flashing lights. I stopped behind the bus and waited, even though I could have passed the bus in the lane for oncoming traffic. All the other cars behind me started honking and passing the bus on the left side. I was in a rush to drop off my daughter, but I waited for the lights to stop flashing before I went ahead and dropped her off. I thought I was supposed to wait behind the bus, but no one else was waiting, did the law change?”

A: Thank you for your question, Becky. The law has not changed. You did the right thing by stopping for the bus and remaining stopped until the bus turned its flashing lights off. California Vehicle Code section 22454(a) requires “[t]he driver of any vehicle, upon meeting or overtaking, from either direction, any schoolbus equipped with signs as required in this code, that is stopped for the purpose of loading or unloading any schoolchildren and displays a flashing red light signal … visible from the front or rear, shall bring the vehicle to a stop immediately before passing the schoolbus and shall not proceed past the schoolbus until the flashing red light signal … cease[s] operation.”

Simply put, this means that when the bus stops and flashes its red lights, located at the top front and back of the bus, you must bring your car to a stop, even if you are traveling in the direction opposite the bus. You must stop with enough clearance to allow for children to safety cross the street in front of the bus. You also must stay stopped until the bus turns off its red flashing lights, even if you do not see any children crossing the street. While it might seem inconvenient to stop and stay stopped for such a long time, this is an important, life-saving rule. When the bus is stopped with its red lights flashing, it means that children are either getting on or off the bus and are likely to be crossing the street. Because the bus is large and the children are small, your view of the children crossing may be obstructed.

The consequences for breaking this law can be astronomical — your careless decision could take away a precious, young life. Even if you are lucky enough not to harm a child while passing a stopped bus with flashers activated, your selfish act can earn you a $1,000 fine and a 1-year license suspension.

With school back in session for Fall, it is a good time to remind ourselves to slow down, be patient, and drive safely. Here are a few good rules of thumb to help keep school children safe:

School Zone Speed Limits: Drivers should always observe reduced school speed limits, typically 25 mph or even as low as 15 mph. Watch out for school crossing guards and follow their instructions.
Watch for Pedestrians and Bicycles: Drivers should be extra vigilant in keeping an eye out for children walking, biking, or scootering to school. Young children riding bikes or scooters can be unsteady, unpredictable, and are often inexperienced.
No Distractions: Keep your eyes on the road rather than on your phone or any other device. Taking your eyes off the road for just two seconds means that you may not see a child crossing in front of your car.
Talk to your Child: Teach your child to be safety-conscious. Remind your child to keep a proper lookout for cars in the roadway, be alert while crossing the street, and make sure that drivers see you/acknowledge your crossing. Also, remind your child to be aware of cars entering driveways or backing up.

If you were injured in an accident caused by a careless driver, you have the right to seek compensation for your economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages include items such as property damage, medical bills and lost wages; non-economic damages include things like pain and suffering, physical impairment and inconvenience. It is important to retain a skilled trial attorney to ensure that you receive full and just compensation for your injuries.

Several Bay Area News agencies have reported that a Redwood City Police Officer hit a pedestrian and two vehicles while responding at high speed to reports of a home invasion crime. According to the reports, the incident took place at approximately 10am on Wednesday, September 18th while the officer was responding from the vicinity of James Avenue and El Camino Real to the 300 block of Poplar Avenue.

Here are two links to related news stories:

Pedestrian Seriously Injured In Redwood City Police Officer Crash

Redwood City Accident: Police officer spins out on wet road striking pedestrian, colliding with 2 other cars

This week’s question comes from Karen in the East Bay, who writes:

Q: “Chris, I need your advice. I took my car to a neighborhood car wash. While I was going through the wash, the car behind me accelerated and rear-ended my car. At the time, I was reaching for papers in the glove compartment. The force from the collision, while not great, was enough to shove my head into the dashboard. I ended up with a nasty gash above my eye that required stitches and may leave a permanent scar. I also suffered a neck injury, which hopefully will heal through physical therapy. I don’t know how the driver of the car behind me hit me. It might not matter. He doesn’t have car insurance. The car wash owner claims he has no responsibility because there was nothing wrong with the car wash’s machinery. My friends joke that I got into a collision inside a car wash. I am not laughing. Incredibly, I am already looking at more than $10,000 in hospital and medical bills. What should I do?”

A: Karen, I am sorry to learn of your injuries and how others have reacted. Often, an accident that can appear to some as only having caused a minor injury can actually have resulted in a significant injury.

At the outset, is there a police report? If not, go to the station nearest the car wash and have them fill one out. Insurance company that handle auto-related claims will want to see a police report.

You should reach out to the car wash’s liability insurance company. The manager should be able to give you that contact information. Since the incident occurred on their property, they most likely have medical payments coverage, which helps defray medical bills, regardless of who is at fault, for injuries suffered on the premises. There is no deductible for this coverage. Call now to get this benefit so your credit doesn’t get hurt for unpaid medical bills.

Hopefully you had auto insurance on your vehicle. Auto insurance falls into five basic categories: liability coverage, comprehensive coverage, collision coverage, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and medical payments coverage.

Liability insurance covers a driver who causes an accident. Comprehensive insurance covers damage or loss due to a non-accident, such as theft, falling trees and cracked windshields. Neither liability nor comprehensive coverage applies in your situation. However, the other three types of auto insurance, to the extent that your purchased them, are relevant.

Collision insurance repairs or replaces your car if it is damaged in an accident regardless of who is at fault. Your collision policy should cover the damage to your car, minus your deductible. If you get hit by an at-fault driver who has no insurance or inadequate insurance, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage may pick up the difference to the level of your coverage. Uninsured/underinsured coverage will compensate you for past and future medical expenses, lost wages and your physical and emotional pain and suffering.

If your auto policy includes medical payments insurance, your auto carrier may help pay off some of your outstanding bills. Make sure that you confirm the limits and procedures for receiving reimbursement from your carrier.

Karen, I also suggest you consult with an experienced trial attorney to review your case. The damages you suffered may exceed the various vehicle policies particularly if you need plastic surgery to remove the scar above your eye or your neck requires injections or surgery. The culpability, if any, of the business needs to be evaluated.

Under California Civil Code, Section 1714, “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for any injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person …”

All businesses owe a duty to protect their customers from unreasonable risk of harm or injury. It’s imperative that car washes inform customers — through either clear, visible signage or an attendant — when to enter, stop and place their vehicle into either neutral or park. Believe it or not, we have handled several serious car wash injury cases involving injury to the attendant as well as those involving harm to the drivers. In the wrong combination, cars, water, soap and machinery can be deadly.

A skilled trial lawyer should put the car wash on notice that an investigation is underway and request that all video and photos taken on the date of your injury be preserved. They should also inspect the car wash and develop a clear understanding of how the collision occurred.

This doesn’t require a law degree, just the cost of a car wash. An iPhone or GoPro can record the signage and sequencing. Often, car washes video record their operations. Your attorney should evaluate whether clear warning signs were displayed at drivers’ eye level at the entrance to the car wash. Were the instructions only in English? As we live in a multi-lingual society, the issue of language should be evaluated along with whether there was an attendant stationed near the entrance of the car wash to confirm the driver saw and understood the instructions and put the car in neutral.

We have seen situations where, in a fully automated system, the light said enter before the car in front had cleared the wash. We have also seen situations where the car wash attendant, being distracted, kept waiving a car to keep proceeding forward as the car hit the one in front of it. Likewise, we have seen situations where people feel the bump of the roller and, having left the car in drive, hit the gas (thinking they were breaking) slamming into the car in front of them.

Karen, I hope that you heal quickly. In the meantime, follow the instructions above to best protect and preserve your rights.

This week’s question comes from Mayra B. in the Presidio, who asks:

Q: “I was recently rear-ended by a vehicle while I was stopped at a red traffic light. My car was wrecked and my leg was injured. I thought this would be an easy process as I didn’t do anything wrong. However, when I called my insurance company, they said my policy had lapsed. I was surprised to hear this because I always pay my car insurance on time; however I had recently moved to a new place and had not realized that I had forgotten to pay my insurance premium. After speaking to a lawyer, I found out that I could sue the other driver to get my car repaired, my hospital bills paid, and my time off work paid, but I cannot obtain compensation for my pain and suffering. How is this possible? It was not my fault.”

A: Mayra, thank you for your question. Unfortunately, the information your lawyer gave you is correct. In 1996, California voters passed the Personal Responsibility Act, known as Proposition 213, codified in the California Civil Code Sections 3333.3 & 3333.4. Prop 213 bars uninsured drivers from recovering for non-economic damages if they were not insured at the time of the collision.

California Civil Code Section 3333.4 states: “in any action to recover damages arising out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle, no person shall recover non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other nonpecuniary damages if . . . [t]he injured person was the owner of a vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle was not insured as required by the financial responsibility laws of this state.” You may be wondering, “How could this be?”, especially for someone like yourself who only experienced a momentary lapse in insurance coverage. The answer is that Proposition 213 was framed as a law intended to punish drunk drivers and fleeing felons from obtaining compensation for pain and suffering. However, many voters did not realize that the proposition also sandwiched uninsured drivers between the drunk drivers and fleeing felons.

As a result of Prop 213, California law now restricts damages for injured car owners and drivers in three situations: 1) where the driver themselves is convicted of DUI; 2) where the driver owns the vehicle and does not have the state minimum liability insurance at the time of the accident; and 3) when injury is sustained while committing a crime or fleeing from a crime which they are later convicted of as a felony.

Under Prop 213, an uninsured driver can still obtain compensation for special damages. Special damages are items that are quantifiable such as property damage, medical bills, and loss of earnings. However, the law restricts the uninsured driver from obtaining compensation for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering, physical impairment, disfigurement, inconvenience, and emotional distress.

There are some exceptions to the restrictions Prop 213 imposed. For example, a car owner or driver who does not have insurance coverage may recover for their non-economic damages if he/she was operating their employer’s uninsured vehicle, since the responsibility to insure the vehicle falls on the employer, not the employee driver. Another exception allows noneconomic damages when the accident occurs on private property, because state law only requires drivers to have auto liability insurance to drive on public roadways, not on private property. Prop 213 restrictions will also not apply if a driver borrows a vehicle that does not have insurance coverage, but the driver did have insurance coverage on another car. Lastly, Prop 213 does not apply to a passenger who was injured while riding in an uninsured vehicle. Unfortunately, there is no exception for drivers who were uninsured due to an unintentional lapse in insurance, no matter how brief.

Due to the complexity of this law, it is important you contact a qualified trial lawyer to review the situation to see if one of the other exceptions applies to you.

If you were injured in an accident as a result of someone’s negligence, you still have the right to seek compensation for your economic damages such as your property damage, medical bills and lost wages, even if Prop 213 applies to your case. However the best practice is to make sure that you have insurance on your vehicle. Having vehicle insurance will protect you in the event that you harm someone else in a vehicle accident, but it will also allow you to be fully compensated if you are injured by another driver.

This week’s question comes from Jennifer in Mill Valley, who writes,

Q: After this year’s rainy winter, new potholes seem to be appearing daily. After I predictably blew a tire a few weeks ago, I thought I’d write a note to the city asking for reimbursement of the cost of replacing my tire. I just received a letter back stating that my claim, which was for less than $150, had been denied. I’m not going to pursue legal action over such a small sum, but I’m irked that the city is able to skirt responsibility for probably hundreds of similar cases, when their roads don’t seem to stand up to the weather.

A: Thank you for your question, Jennifer, and you have my sympathy in this frustrating and all-too-common situation. Potholes are indeed more prevalent after heavy rains, as water seeps through pre-existing cracks in the asphalt and settles underneath, making the ground more susceptible to erosion and sagging as vehicles travel over top. And while this seasonal occurrence seems predictable enough, a city is often not held liable for damage caused by any particular pothole.

A city, like any other property owner, is charged with maintaining their premises in a reasonably safe condition. However, reasonable does not mean perfect and maintenance is not expected to be instantaneous. For example, a deviation in a road’s level measuring under one inch will generally be deemed “trivial” as a matter of law and, therefore, not deemed to be the city’s responsibility. As such, many damages resulting from potholes may simply not fall within any property owner’s scope of liability.

As discussed in previous columns, 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. Courts have held these conditions to include premises that are “physically damaged, deteriorated, or defective in such a way as to foreseeably endanger those using the property itself.” Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (2015). This description would seem to clearly implicate potholes that make driving on city roads dangerous.

However, the existence of a non-trivial dangerous condition itself does not mean that a city is liable for damages it causes: the “dangerous conditions of public property” doctrine further requires that the city have either (1) caused it via negligent conduct, e.g. during roadwork, or (2) were actually aware of it (actual notice), or should have been under the circumstances (constructive notice), and had sufficient time to make appropriate repairs. Cal. Gov. Code § 835. Conduct is deemed to be negligent if the actor unreasonably failed to exercise due care, determined by weighing the probability and gravity of potential injury against the practicability and cost of alternative action. Cal. Gov. Code § 835.4. A determination of constructive notice may involve analysis of the dangerous condition’s severity and visibility, as well as the frequency of traffic to the location and occurrence of any previous adverse events, among other factors. Therefore, unless the pothole was specifically and unreasonably caused by a city itself or lay conspicuous and unrepaired for an unreasonable amount of time, the city will still not be held liable for any damages due to even the worst pothole on the road.

Even if all these statutory requirements are met, a city may still raise a number of defenses to defeat liability. It may argue that it had exercised due care by blocking off the location or posting warning signs to prevent the vehicles from making contact with the pothole; alternatively, it may argue that the pothole was in fact so “open and obvious” that no such blockade or warning sign was necessary and the damage was solely attributable to the driver’s inattention to road conditions. A city may claim “design immunity”; that is, it should not be held liable for risks incidental to a previously-approved road design, where the approval was made in the discretion of an appropriate decision-making body based on substantial evidence of the design’s reasonableness. Cal. Gov. Code § 830.6.

As you can see, your frustration with the city’s response is quite likely not due to the obstinance of the city’s legal department, but rather the law itself. However, it is still very important for you to report poor road conditions! Not only will reporting increase the chance that the condition will be promptly repaired, it will also put the city on actual notice of the defect, increasing the chance that it will be held liable for future damages if appropriate repairs are not made. There is a good chance that your reporting will help prevent damage to someone else’s vehicle or even someone being seriously injured.

There are two types of hydroplaning: viscous hydroplaning, associated with lower speeds on roads with little to no texture, and dynamic hydroplaning, which can cause total lack of control over steeting and braking.

This week’s question comes from Holly H. in Berkeley, who asks:

Q:“My wife was traveling on a roadway which has a 45 mile an hour limit. It had been raining very heavily for several days but the weather had cleared for at least 4 hours. She was driving about 30 and everything was fine. As she came around a bend, there was an a huge lake of water in her lane. Her car lost traction, she couldn’t break or steer, and she crossed into the other lane colliding with another car. Thank God no one was seriously injured but someone could have been killed. After the collision a nearby neighbor came out and said that there was a storm drain which had been backing up there all year and despite calls to the Public Works Department nothing had been done and this was the third accident there this year. What rights do people have when the drains are not being maintained and they are harmed?”

A: Holly, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the second greatest factor in causing collisions (2 percent) is environmental conditions such as rain, snow, etc.(The greatest factor, 94 percent, is human error.)

What you describe is the phenomena known as “hydroplaning.” On wet or flooded pavement hydrodynamic pressure increases as the speed of the vehicle increases eventually leading to the tire losing contact with the roadway. There are two types of hydroplaning: 1) viscous hydroplaning or 2) dynamic hydroplaning. Viscous hydroplaning is a problem associated with low speed operation on pavements with little or no texture. We see this frequently in rear end collisions during or following rainy conditions. Dynamic hydroplaning occurs in situations with a more significant depth of water as a water wedge is driven between a moving tire and the pavement surface causing a complete separation of tire and roadway. What you describe is full dynamic hydroplaning, a serious life and safety hazard, causing a total lack of control over steering and braking.

Under California Law a government entity: city, county, or state, can be held liable for a dangerous condition of public property if they fail to maintain the roadways, and drainage, in a reasonably safe condition. The condition must cause more than a trivial risk of harm of the type that was suffered and the entity needs to have actual or constructive knowledge of the condition with sufficient time to remedy it and have failed to do so.

Actual knowledge is when they know about the condition by seeing it themselves, being informed by others, or when they themselves cause the condition to exist. Constructive notice is when the condition, and its dangerousness, should be apparent to them by a reasonable inspection system or, perhaps, in this situation if they have had to come clean this drain numerous times or they are aware of numerous accidents happening under the same conditions.

I have handled many similar cases as the one you present here. Most involve known flooding areas, improperly constructed roadways and/or blocked or broken drains. Unfortunately, these conditions can often prove deadly.

It appears that the entity had actual notice based on the neighbor’s complaints. Additional evidence of notice can be obtained by obtaining DPW documents pertaining to the drainage at that site.

A usual defense is that the driver was traveling too fast for the conditions (Veh. Code 22350). Given the break in the rain, your wife’s reduced speed, and the fact that the pool of water was around a corner, this defense could probably be surmounted.

My best advice to everyone, check your tread depth (it should be at least 4/32 in the front and 2/32 in the rear ), properly inflate your tires and as my daughter says “avoid the pain, go slow in the rain.”

This week’s question comes from Shawn J., in Novato, who writes:

Q: “I read your column every week. I was heading home from an appointment [earlier this month] in the East Bay and got stuck for hours when the Richmond Bridge was shut down because of falling concrete. While I was sitting there, I was wondering who would be responsible for any injuries caused if the concrete crashed through a windshield, or caused someone to swerve, leading to injury? Later it turned out that only a car was damaged, thank God, but the question still lingers in my mind.”

A: Shawn, first of all, thank you for being a loyal reader. It feels good to know people actually read this column! Believe it or not, sometimes it takes up to three hours to research and write as I strive to provide substantive responses with citations to California statutes and case law.

The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, connecting Marin and Richmond along Highway 580, opened in 1956. It is a 5.5 mile long cantilever and truss bridge with a steel structure and a concrete deck, different from the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges, which are suspension bridges. It was originally three lanes but, in 1977 it was narrowed to two to accommodate a massive water pipe feeding water from the East Bay to Marin during a drought that left Marin with no other reliable water source. In 1978, when the pipe was removed, the third lanes were not reopened to traffic. In 2018, given a double-digit increase in traffic volume, a third lane was opened on the westbound lower-deck during rush hour. The third lane on the upper deck is slated to become a pedestrian/bike way.

As the bridge reached its originally projected useful life, a $762,000,000.00 retrofit project was completed in 2005 by Tudor Saliba, a major highway and civil engineering firm, under contract with CalTrans. The work included retrofitting and reconstruction of the decking’s concrete and expansion joints. This is the ultimate source of the concrete’s failure and Thursday was not the first time since then that concrete has fallen onto the lower deck. In early 2006, just months after the retrofit was complete, concrete chunks fell from holes in the upper deck, leading to another $25,000,000.00 in retrofit costs.

The bridge is under constant physical stress, and not only from its substantial traffic flows. The bridge connects land sitting on the Rodgers Creek Fault, running through Marin and Sonoma, with land on the Hayward Fault, which runs through the western part of Alameda, and tremors regularly test the bridge’s retrofitting, designed to withstand a 7.4 magnitude quake on the east and an 8.3 quake on the west. The bridge is also subject to high winds that put lateral stress on the structure and cause bridge closures from time to time. The most recent structural failures appear to be occurring in the expansion joints, which look like zippers connecting stretches of concrete and allow the roadway to expand and contract under various loads, temperatures, tremors, and wind conditions. CalTrans claims to have inspected the joints last August and found no problems.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15, which sets a ten year statute of limitations for “latent” property defects not apparent on reasonable inspection, the contractors, designers, and engineers who retrofitted the bridge in 2005 are most likely free and clear of any responsibility. However, CalTrans may be responsible under Government Code Section 830, which prohibits maintaining a “dangerous condition of public property,” defined as a non-trivial defect that creates a substantial risk to people using the property with due care. Govt. Code Section 835 provides for governmental liability if “the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and . . . either: (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. Actual notice occurs when someone is actually aware of a defect as a result of inspection, observation, or report. Constructive notice exists when there was, or should have been, an inspection program to evaluate safety hazards (if funds and means existed for such a program) and a condition had existed long enough that a reasonable inspection should have led to the discovery of the condition and its dangerous character.

I believe a legal basis exists to hold CalTrans liable. If injury is caused in the future by falling concrete, CalTrans will most certainly be held accountable. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

Consequences of Vehicular Homicide

Jane in San Rafael asks: “I am an avid bicyclist and supporter of the Marin and San Francisco Bike Coalitions. It is frightening to ride on city streets. Last week there was a DUI-related fatality in Marin and another bike death in Windsor. What does the law do to punish people that kill bicyclists? Maybe letting readers know of the penalties might help them think twice and prevent more of these deaths.”

Jane, as a supporter of the Marin, Oakland, and San Francisco Bike Coalitions who rides with his children, I am horrified to see the increase in injury and death occurring in the cycling community. I am intimately familiar with the case in Windsor: we have been retained to represent the family of the young woman who was killed by a large truck. The Marin case, involving the drunk driver, is very tragic: people ruining their own lives by drinking is a shame, and when they kill innocent people on top of that, it’s criminal.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 3602 people were killed in California motor vehicle collisions in 2017. The majority of fatal collisions involve more than one vehicle and other vehicle occupants are the most likely victims of fatal collisions, followed by pedestrians, motorcyclists, and bicyclists. Thirty-one percent of these involved at least one driver with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit and 20 percent involved a driver with at least twice the legal limit. California Vehicle Code 23152 makes it unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug to drive a vehicle while intoxicated, which is presumed at a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or greater, by weight. Commercial drivers, and drivers carrying passengers in exchange for compensation (taxis, Uber, Lyft, etc.) are presumed to be intoxicated if they have a blood alcohol level of .04 percent or greater.

Accidental deaths caused by motor vehicles generally fall under the rubric of vehicular manslaughter. California Penal Code (CPC) Section 192(c) defines vehicular manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being while: (1) driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act (not a felony); or (2) driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner. Vehicular manslaughter may be committed with or without gross negligence, defined as so slight a degree of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to the consequences. Causing death while perpetrating an accident insurance scheme, where the vehicular collision was knowingly caused for financial gain, may also be tried as either vehicular manslaughter or murder. If the driver is acting lawfully in a lawful manner, a resulting death is not considered a homicide.

According to CPC Section 193, the sentencing and punishment for vehicular manslaughter depends upon whether the offense is charged as a misdemeanor or felony. A misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter conviction is punishable by up to one year in county jail. A felony vehicular manslaughter conviction is punishable by up to six years in state prison. We recently handled a case on Highway 680 where a slow-moving construction crane, without its lights on and without warning or guides, entered the freeway from a staging area directly into 65 mile per hour traffic, causing death when another driver collided into the rear of the crane. In that case, the defendant crane driver plead no contest to vehicular manslaughter and was subject to a year of house arrest. The driver and the insurance company representing the business paid many millions to compensate the family for the loss of their husband and father.

Cases where the driver was intoxicated often command more severe penalties under CPC Section 191.5 defining “gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.” Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, if committed without malice, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for up to four years; with malice, for up to 10 years. A person with one or more prior convictions of drunk or reckless driving who causes a fatality is subject to imprisonment in state prison for a term of 15 years to life. Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated may be charged even if the driver’s blood alcohol level does not exceed the legal limit, as well as when an impaired driver is not the sole cause of death. In one case, a man with a blood alcohol level of .03 percent was traveling late at night on his way home from a concert, proceeded to fall asleep and rear-ended a car. After the initial accident, the occupants were able to get safely to the shoulder, but a truck driver, not paying attention, swerved to avoid collision with the car and killed the passenger of one of the vehicles. The impaired driver who caused the initial collision was charged with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.

Finally, if the driver’s conduct rises to a such level of wantonness as to support a finding of “implied malice,” it may be prosecuted as second degree murder. “Malice” is the mental state that distinguishes manslaughter, caused by the perpetrator’s criminal negligence, from murder, in which the perpetrator either intends to kill or acts deliberately with conscious disregard for human life despite knowledge that their conduct is dangerous. The California Supreme Court, in its seminal 1981 decision, People v. Watson, held that the statutory language crafted specifically for vehicular manslaughter does not preclude a charge of second degree murder where a perpetrator exhibited subjective appreciation of a high degree of risk to human life. In that case, the defendant had driven over 80 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone with more than twice the legal blood alcohol level. When a driver willfully consumes alcohol to the point of intoxication, knowing that they will later operate a motor vehicle, they can be held to exhibit a conscious disregard for human life. The capability of the intoxicated driver to form malice in the act of reckless driving may later be evaluated with respect to a diminished capacity defense.

The vehicular homicide cases I have handled have involved people from all races and socioeconomic backgrounds. The law doesn’t discriminate between a rich guy driving a Porsche and a poor laborer driving a beat-up pickup truck. District Attorneys have little sympathy for drunks or unlawful drivers who cause harm or death. I hope that anyone reading this will refrain from driving even if they have had “only a couple of beers.” My heart and prayers go out to the families of the bicyclists who have been so senselessly killed.

Who is liable for falling trees?

Identifying liability in an officer-involved accident

Drivers, slow down for students

Redwood City Police Officer Hits Pedestrian and Two Other Vehicles in High Speed Accident

Can I Collect from a Car Wash Collision?

Prop 213 Prevents Injured Drivers from Recovering Damages

Bumpy Road for Pothole Liability

Go slow in the rain

Who’s responsible for maintaining the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge?

Consequences of Vehicular Homicide