Reckless Driving during COVID-19

Written By: Christopher B. Dolan and Megan Irish

Kara from San Francisco writes:
I’m so frustrated by the attitudes of drivers on the road these days, what are people thinking? It seems like people are zooming past, zigzagging in and out of the lanes, and just going too fast. Don’t people know it’s dangerous to drive like that?

Dear Kara: You are right and the statistics are supporting your observations. People are driving faster and more erratically. Following several years of declining fatalities, the pandemic has killed in more ways than just the virus. When people were ordered to stay at home and shelter in place, many did.

Overall, the National Safety Council’s numbers are on target to show that 13% less miles were driven in 2020 as compared to 2019; that is clear evidence of many Californians’ abiding by the stay-at-home orders. Nonetheless, despite fewer miles driven, more people died in car crashes in 2020 than in 2019.

How is this possible? The simple answer is speeding.

Nationally there were 42,060 traffic collision deaths in 2020 as compared to 39,107 in 2019. Only nine states had fewer deaths in 2020 than in 2019. Of the over 42,000 deaths in the United States, 3,723 of these deaths occurred on California roadways. Many of these lives were lost due to reckless driving and speeding.

The National Safety Council tracks collisions on a national level and breaks down the collisions by state. The California Highway Patrol, Office of Traffic Safety, also tracks traffic collisions within California and analyzes how and why collisions occurred.

Unfortunately, with fewer cars on the roadway, it seems some drivers saw the less crowded roadway as an invitation to speed. Many of those who decided to drive recklessly caused severe collisions with fatalities to themselves and/or others.

Law enforcement made efforts to ticket bad actors, and anecdotally police have related that they stopped more speeders and issued more speeding tickets in 2020 than in years past, but they were unable to stop everyone. For a “standard” speeding ticket, drivers can get a point on their driver’s license and often they can go to traffic school.

But, when a driver is more than a few miles over the speed limit, or has other aggravating factors such as alcohol and driving under the influence, a driver’s actions can be considered “reckless.” California Vehicle Code Section 23103 defines reckless driving as “a person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”

There are severe consequences for reckless driving that will impact a person’s life and finances. For instance, a driver can be sentenced to serve between five and 90 days in county jail. The fines can be up to $1,000 (CVC 23103(c)), and a conviction would also get them two points on their DMV record.

A reckless driving conviction will also drive up drivers’ insurance premiums and their car can be impounded. Retrieving an impounded car is expensive, as some impound yards charge as much as a $125 for the tow, a hundred or more in “release fees” and daily storage fees on top of that. Additionally, a driver’s license can be revoked by the DMV for up to six months, which would interfere with a person’s commute to work, and obligations to family members. Choosing to violate the suspended license would have a whole host of other severe consequences.

The reckless driving charge can be charged as a felony if it causes bodily injury. In addition to the monetary consequence of fines, court fees and increased insurance premiums, such a conviction can lead to anywhere from 16 months to three years in prison. Even if a driver only gets set with a misdemeanor, it will show up on background checks, and can deter a future employer from selecting them for a new job. Reckless driving can have severe and lasting consequences for a driver.

Separate and apart from reckless driving, there is “excessive speeding” which is driving at over 100 mph. Excessive speed can be an infraction under CVC 22348(b) and carries fines up to up to $500. If a driver is going over 30 mph above the freeway speed, or 20 mph on a roadway it can also be a criminal offense. Excessive speeding fines range from $900 for first time offenders to $4,190 for repeat offenders.

A driver’s license can be revoked from 30 days for a first-time offense, or up to a year for repeat offenders. As well, there can be two points added to a driver’s record with the Department of Motor Vehicles and increased insurance premiums.

With all of this one would think that responsible driving should be the rule, not the exception, and yet it often is not. Be safe out there.

read more

A Closer Look at California’s New Laws for 2021

Written By Christopher B. Dolan and Jeremy M. Jessup

This week’s question comes from Johanna in Truckee who asks: Every new year there are hordes of new laws that are enacted but I find it difficult to know what they are. Is there any way you can provide some highlights of California’s new laws?

Dear Johanna: Out with the old and in with the new, as the saying goes, and as you pointed out — and that includes a number of new laws that went into effect on January 1st here in California or are going to come into effect shortly. There were hundreds of bills that were signed into law and some that were voted on by the people. A number of these will not start until later this year, such as being prohibited from buying more than one semiautomatic rifle in a 30-day period. Some may begin even later, like a flavored-tobacco ban that was set to go into effect on the 1st, probably will not be adopted until some time in 2022.

Here are some of the laws that have gone or are going into effect for 2021:

Additional penalties for texting and driving

It’s already the law that you must use hands free devices while driving, whether you’re talking or texting. Now the punishment is getting stricter. Two convictions in 36 months will add a point to your record starting in July 2021.

 Hot car rules

It’s already against the law to leave a child under 6 in a car unattended. Now those who try to help are protected from civil or criminal liability for property damage or trespassing if they break into the car to rescue the child.

Minimum wage 

Starting January 1s California’s minimum wage is $14 at companies with 26 or more employees and $13 at companies smaller than that. This is a $1 increase from last year’s hourly minimum. Some cities, like Palo Alto, Sonoma and Mountain View have already increased their minimum wages to $15 or more this year.

Expansion of paid family-leave benefits

Family-leave benefits for nearly six million residents have been expanded. In addition, Californians who work for an employer with at least five employees are included in job protection benefits. The new law also expands on the potential reasons for taking leave, making it possible for workers affected by COVID-19 to take time off to care for a parent, sibling or grandchild.

Transgender protections

The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act allows incarcerated transgender, gender-nonconforming and intersex individuals to be housed and searched according to their gender identity.

Workplace COVID-19 protections

The new law requires employers to take specific actions, like written notifications to employees, within one business day of a potential exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace. The notification must be written in English and another language, if applicable. This law does have a sunset provision, which is the end of 2023.

Inmate Firefighters

After a devastating fire season, when many inmate firefighters were released early because of the pandemic, prisoner firefighting crews served a crucial role; a new law will now allow nonviolent offenders to petition to get their records expunged and to use their training to gain employment as firefighters. Previously, inmates were precluded because of their criminal records from becoming firefighters upon release.

Parolees’ right to vote

Voters passed Proposition 17 in the November election, which restores felons’ right to vote after the completion of their sentence.

Youth criminal justice reforms

Starting in July, the state will be phasing out juvenile prisons. In addition, a new law prevents kids who are acting out in school from being referred to probation programs or becoming a ward of the court; instead, they’ll be referred to community support services. Finally, it will become easier for minors in police custody to get legal counsel before being questioned.

The three remaining state youth facilities will no longer accept newly convicted youth after July 2021. The state will be transferring the responsibility of the convicted youth back to the counties. 

Student loan borrowers

Effective July 2021 will be Assembly Bill 376 which offers new protections for student loan borrowers and makes it harder for lenders to take advantage of people who may not know all their rights or how to navigate the system.

Demilitarizing police uniforms

Law enforcement will no longer be allowed to wear uniforms that have camouflage or otherwise resemble military uniforms. This law does not apply to members of various tactical response teams, such as SWAT, nor does it apply to the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Bans on certain police restraint tactics

AB 1196 eliminates the use of any chokehold or carotid restraint technique by law enforcement. The bill prohibits any state or local law enforcement agency, including campus police, from authorizing the use of a carotid restraint or chokehold. The bill defines a chokehold as any defensive tactic involving direct pressure applied to a person’s trachea. It also defines a, “carotid restraint,” as any restraint, hold, or other defensive tactic that applies pressure to the sides of a person’s neck, which involves a substantial risk of restricting blood flow, and that may render the person unconscious.

read more

Safety Measures for Cyclists and Truck Drivers

Written By: Christopher B. Dolan and Emile A. Davis 

This week’s question comes from William B. in Berkeley who asks: On the news I heard about a truck that collided with a group of cyclists. It was horrendous. Some cyclists were terribly injured and one even died. I realize, as a cyclist, how vulnerable we cyclists are, even when we are being cautious and aware. What protections do we have if a truck takes us out? Anything?

Dear William: Thank you for this important question about trucks, cycle safety and protections. As a cyclist myself, and having represented hundreds of cyclists, I am all too aware of the dangers caused by automobiles in general and the particular issues raised by large trucks. To answer your question, I look to three categories of protection:

1) steps that can be taken, as a cyclist, to avoid accidents with trucks;

2) rules truck drivers must follow to ensure they are alert and aware; and, finally, if the first two fail,

3) remedies and inquiries to seek justice after a collision.

Steps that Cyclists Can Take to Avoid Accidents

The sad truth is that many motorists simply do not see cyclists. It is not merely inattention, but a neurologic phenomenon sometimes called, “filling in.”  People’s brains are continuously anticipating what we will see. If an object is obstructed, the brain simply, “fills in,” the missing information with its best guess. There are several steps a cyclist can take to make sure they are actually seen. The easiest is to use anti-camouflage; wear bright colors and reflective gear, have lights and reflectors on a bicycle in order to stand out from the environment and draw attention to yourself. That way the cyclist is seen and the driver does not just, “fill in,” the scenery. 

You hit upon perhaps the most important other steps that can be taken – actively being cautious and using situational awareness to know when danger is increasing. These are key to a cyclist’s safety in relation to not only trucks, but traffic in general as well as roadway defects.

Department of Transportation Rules to Keep Truck Drivers Safe and Alert

Often, thankfully, long haul truck drivers are some of the best and most experienced drivers on the road. Additionally truck drivers are subject to many specific rules and regulations designed to make sure they are alert and driving safely. The Federal Department of Transportation, through the FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) has regulatory authority over truck drivers. They have a number of safety-based regulations affecting property-carrying vehicles. Initially, the driver must be at least 21 years of age, possess a commercial license and complete a road test. Any driver who has been convicted of a DUI or transporting drugs would be disqualified from employment in this field.

Once a driver is hired, they must record and certify in a log their driving start and end times as well as days off to demonstrate that they have followed basic safety requirements such as:  

  1. A driver must have had 10 hours off duty before beginning a shift.
  2. A driver may not drive after a period of 14 consecutive hours until he has had 10 hours off duty.
  3. A driver may drive for a total of 11 hours out of this period of 14 consecutive hours.
  4. A driver may not be on duty for a period of more than 60 hours in 7 consecutive days or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days.

The requirements are even more stringent if the driver is transporting passengers. A complete list of DOT regulations can be found at: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/b/5/3

Recovery if a Collision Does Occur

Unfortunately the above precautions are not always enough and a cyclist is injured by a truck. When that occurs the law provides that a responsible party pay for the damages suffered by the person injured.  The law anticipates that trucks have the potential to cause greater harm than typical automobiles. Insurance coverage for trucks, unlike the relatively small insurance policies required by automobiles, are more substantial. Large commercial trucks transporting goods are required to carry a minimum of $750,000 in available insurance. Companies are often also encouraged to carry additional Commercial General Liability insurance to protect their assets, and individuals injured because of the potential trucks have for creating very serious injury, such as the collision that prompted you to write.

To obtain justice for a person injured by a truck a good lawyer will confirm all available insurance policies. They will also investigate to determine if the DOT safety regulations were properly followed.  Where there was a failure, it is important to determine if it was merely a failure of the truck driver to do the right thing, or, whether the employer of the driver set expectations or policies that required a driver to push the limits of the regulations and to drive unsafely. Similarly, a company that employs truck drivers may not properly screen or train drivers appropriately for the type of driving they are tasked to do. Employer failures of this type can open the employer up to the potential liability to compensate an injured person beyond the limits of an insurance policy.

As with many activities, if everyone does their part to avoid accidents, they become far less likely. However, they do still occur. If you or someone you know is injured by a truck driver, while cycling or otherwise, consult an attorney such as those at the Dolan Law Firm who are experienced in that area of law.

read more

Bicycle Accidents on Crosswalks

Written By: Christopher B. Dolan and Cristina Garcia

This week’s question comes from Heather M. in Pacific Heights who asks: “I was riding my bicycle down Oak Street, approaching Franklin Street when I realized my backpack was not closed properly, so I pulled over onto the sidewalk to adjust my backpack. As I jumped back on my bike, I noticed that the pedestrian walking signal was on, so I began riding through the intersection within the marked crosswalk. Suddenly a vehicle came racing down the street and struck me. I was thrown off my bike and fell to the ground. I was transported by ambulance to the hospital. At the hospital, the attending doctor told me that I had broken my left ankle and it would require surgery. The driver is adamant that the collision is my fault because I should not have been riding my bicycle within the crosswalk. But he was driving so fast that even if I would have walked my bike across the street, he would have still struck me because he wouldn’t have had enough time to stop. I realize that maybe I shouldn’t have been riding my bike on the crosswalk, however, is there anything I can do to recover for my medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering?”

Dear Heather,
I am sorry to hear about your accident. The short answer is yes, you may seek compensation for the economic and non-economic damages you suffered as a result of this collision. Economic damages include items such as property damage, medical bills and lost wages; non-economic damages are commonly known as pain and suffering, physical impairment and inconvenience. However, there are a few hurdles you will need to overcome in order to obtain compensation. Additionally, the compensation may be reduced by what is called, “Comparative Fault,” which will be discussed in more detail below.

As a general rule, adult bicyclists have the same duties and responsibilities as motor vehicle drivers under California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 21200. Therefore, under CVC 21200, it is unlawful to ride a bicycle within a crosswalk. In order to comply with California law and for your own safety, bicyclists should dismount their bicycle and walk it across the street within the marked crosswalk.

Many times, the police report will place the bicyclists at fault because they were riding within the marked crosswalk, which makes it more difficult for individuals to pursue a claim. It is not surprising that the driver of the vehicle is refusing to accept any liability as many insurance companies will rely on the police report and CVC section 21200 to place 100% of the fault on the bicyclist. However, if a serious bicycle accident occurs within a crosswalk, that does not automatically mean that you are precluded from recovering compensation for your injuries.

Based on the limited information you have provided, it appears that at the time you were riding within the crosswalk pedestrians had the right of way. This means that the driver of the vehicle had the responsibility to yield-to-pedestrians. Therefore, had the driver of the vehicle been driving as a reasonable and prudent driver, instead of speeding down the street, he would have had sufficient time to stop. Thus, as a result of his negligence, you suffered personal injuries.

An issue that is likely to be raised is, “Comparative Fault,” also referred to as, “Comparative Negligence.” Comparative Fault is the percentage of fault, if any, that will be assigned to the injured party. Under California law, 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%. This percentage is generally assigned by the driver’s insurance adjuster if the case is settled 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 accident as a result of someone’s negligence, you have the right to seek compensation for your economic and non-economic damages. Due to the complexity of cases involving Comparative Fault, it is important that you 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

Assembly Bill 47 Increases Penalties for Distracted Drivers

Written By: Christopher B. Dolan and Taylor French

Beginning July 1, 2021, California drivers will face increased penalties for using handheld devices while operating a motor vehicle. Specifically, a driver convicted of violating California’s laws prohibiting the use of handheld technology will be issued a point on his or her driver’s license under certain circumstances.

In an effort to curb motor vehicle collisions caused by distracted drivers, California has enacted several laws throughout recent years restricting drivers’ use of handheld devices while driving.

In 2008, a California law went into effect prohibiting all drivers from using a handheld wireless phone while operating a motor vehicle. In 2009, California’s Wireless Communications Device Law went into effect, banning drivers from writing, sending, or reading text messages while operating a motor vehicle.

In 2017, California law went a step further, prohibiting drivers from holding a cell phone while driving. The 2017 law made it so that a driver’s phone must be mounted on the windshield or center console rather than in a driver’s hand. The only permissible actions on the device are a finger tap or a single swipe. As of 2017, drivers could no longer use their cell phones while driving to navigate map apps or utilize music apps. A driver 18 years of age or younger, however, is prohibited from driving while using a cell phone, regardless of whether it is being used hands-free.

Currently, the penalty for failing to use hands-free technology while operating a vehicle amounts to 162 dollars – a relatively small fine for an activity that can have fatal consequences for those on the road. Indeed, a violation for driving while using a cell phone carries the lowest base fine for any violation of the Vehicle Code. The only other violation with a comparable penalty is the failure of a bus driver or bus passenger to wear a seatbelt. Moreover, existing law provides that drivers cannot be issued a point on their record for violations of hands free device laws.

California’s new law, however, establishes that a driver convicted of a distracted driving offense will be issued a point on his or her record for each conviction occurring within thirty-six hours of a prior conviction for the same offense. Points are used by the Department of Motor Vehicles to determine whether a driver should be considered a negligent operator.

What is the consequence of being considered a negligent operator? The DMV may suspend or revoke a negligent operator’s driving privilege. Additionally, insurers may increase a driver’s insurance rate depending on the number of points on the driver’s record. So, in effect, drivers who continue to utilize handheld devices while driving will not only face monetary fines, but they could also potentially lose their driving privileges or suffer increased insurance rates.

An individual with four or more points in 12 months, six points in 24 months, or eight points in 36 months is considered a negligent operator. Except for those issued for driving under the influence, points will remain on a driver’s record for a total of 36 months. The Department of Motor Vehicles can issue points on a driver’s record for various violations of the Vehicle Code, including speeding, crossing a double line, or making illegal U-turns.

AB 47, the bill increasing the penalties for distracted driving offenses to include a point on a driver’s record, unanimously passed both the Senate and Assembly this summer and was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in October. The bill’s author, Assemblymember Tom Daly, explained the need for the increased penalties: 

“Driving while using a cell phone is a serious safety issue. In 2017, there were 243,760 distracted driving offenses in California related to cell phone use. During that same year, there were 932 collisions – 31 of which were fatal – where distracted driving due to cell phone use was determined as the factor”

“Currently, driving while using a cell phone results in a small fine (oftentimes less than a parking ticket), but it has not proven to change behavior. For example, a 2016 study found 7.6% of all drivers were seen to be using their phone while driving, compared to 5.4% in 2015. This change marks a 2.2% increase. This bill elevates a distracted driving citation to the same status as other dangerous driving violations, such as speeding or running a red light, helping discourage people from taking part in this dangerous behavior.”

Hopefully, moving forward with the new penalties in effect, drivers will consider the increased ramifications of driving while using a cell phone and turn their focus away from their devices and onto the road and their surroundings. Doing so would serve to not only protect the drivers themselves but all other individuals on the road, decreasing vehicle collisions and saving lives.

read more

California law addresses safety for bicyclists

Written by: Christopher Dolan and Taylor French

Drivers and bicyclists must coexist in an environment that, at times, can feel too crowded for both.

California has enacted several laws throughout the years in an effort to ensure the safety of those sharing the roads, but none is more important than the Three Feet for Safety Act. In 2013, California’s legislature passed the act, codified as California Vehicle Code section 21760, requiring drivers to give bicyclists a minimum of three feet between the motor vehicle and bicycle when passing in the same direction on a highway. This law became operative on Sept. 16, 2014.

Prior to the act, the California Department of Motor Vehicles had already provided that maintaining three feet between cars and bicycles was the best practice, but the act gave law enforcement the ability to stop a motorist and issue an infraction for failing to keep this distance. An infraction issued for a violation of California Vehicle Code section 21760 results in a minimum fine of $35. If a collision occurs between a car and bicycle causing great bodily injury to the bicyclist, the driver of the car will be issued a $220 fine. In addition to these fines, however, the motorist will also likely incur court fees and/or other administrative fees, which could significantly increase the cost of a violation.

While the act is as straightforward as it sounds — a car may not pass a bicycle traveling in the same direction unless it provides, at a minimum, three feet between the car and the bicycle — there is another important caveat. Subsection D of California Vehicle Code section 21760 states:

(d) “If a driver is unable to pass with three feet of distance due to traffic or roadway conditions, the driver shall slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent, and may pass only when doing so would not endanger the safety of the operator of the bicycle, taking into account the size and speed of the motor vehicle and bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, visibility, and surface and width of the highway.”

The language of subsection D appears to give some discretion to officers stopping motorists for passing too closely and to drivers when deciding whether to pass a bicyclist. Ultimately, this language also gives judges discretion in issuing fines, should a driver contest the violation.

In addition to an infraction, a violation of California Vehicle Code section 21760 may carry additional ramifications that drivers may not anticipate. For example, if a driver hits and injures a bicyclist in violation of California Vehicle Code section 21760, the driver can be found to be, “negligent per se,” in a civil lawsuit.

Negligence per se is a legal doctrine establishing a presumption of negligence for a violation of a statute, ordinance or regulation. If a defendant in a civil lawsuit is found to have violated a statute, the violation caused the type of harm the statute was designed to protect, and the plaintiff is of the class of people the statute was designed to protect, then the defendant is considered negligent per se. In other words, as a matter of law and as applicable here, a defendant driver who violated California Vehicle Code section 21760 — thereby causing bodily injuries to a bicyclist — could be considered negligent and liable for those injuries and the resulting damages.

So, what can drivers do to ensure they are maintaining at least three feet from bicyclists and to avoid a violation of California Vehicle Code section 21760? Most importantly, if in doubt, drivers should assume they are too close to a bicyclist. Remember, the act provides the minimum distance from a bicyclist that a driver must maintain, but there are certainly situations where three feet is simply not enough space.

Drivers should consider the amount of time it takes to bring a car to a complete stop to avoid hitting a bicyclist. When passing, drivers should consider changing lanes rather than attempting to sneak past bicyclists. And remember, drivers can only pass a bicyclist when it is safe to do so, and risking a bicyclist’s life to save a few extra minutes during one’s commute is never a risk worth taking.

Finally, what can bicyclists do to ensure a safe distance around them? Bicyclists should always make sure they are visible and should never assume a driver will maintain a three-foot minimum distance.

While the act puts the burden on the driver to maintain the three-foot buffer, bicyclists should always make sure to monitor the distance and avoid careless, distracted or inexperienced drivers. Bicyclists can even wear a “Three Feet” bike jersey to remind drivers of the distance requirement. It just may save a life and get the bicyclist some compliments in the process!

 

read more

Texting isn’t the only illegal phone activity while driving

This week’s question comes from Sandra in the Upper Haight, who writes:

Q: “Chris, can you settle a matter for me? My best friend and I share a car. She is new to The City and constantly holds her phone while driving to check directions. When she is not doing that, she uses Spotify on her phone to listen to music through the car’s speakers. I love her dearly and don’t want her to cause or be in a crash. I have told her she can’t use the phone in her hand while driving. She claims it’s only illegal to hold the phone to talk or text. Is she right?”

A: Sandra, your friend’s understanding of the law is incorrect.

Before discussing the law, even if your friend’s phone use was legal, it is extremely dangerous. More than 11,000 drivers and passengers are annually killed or injured in traffic collisions involving distracted driving in California. And distracted driving is on the rise. Nearly 13 percent of the state’s drivers were seen talking, texting or using a cellphone in some manner during a study conducted last year by the state Office of Traffic Safety, compared to 9 percent in 2015.

Taking your eye off the road for even a few seconds can result in a devastating crash. It takes 4.6 seconds to read or type the average text message. Just three seconds of driving at 65 mph is far enough to travel 100 yards, or the length of a football field. Most crashes happen with less than 2 seconds of reaction time.

Using a hands-free device — such as speakerphone, an earpiece, ear buds or the car’s communications system — does not make driving safe. In fact, research shows that headset mobile phone use while driving is not substantially safer than handheld use. Drivers need to have their eyes on the road, hands on wheel and mind on driving. It’s a myth that drivers can multitask well. There is no safe way to make a call or text while driving.

Since 2011, it has been illegal to drive a vehicle while using a phone unless also using Bluetooth or other hands-free technology. Furthermore, drivers under the age of 18 may not drive while using a phone — even if it is equipped with a hand-free service. Both statutes contain exceptions for making a call in an emergency.

California had another statute that focused on texting while driving. It was illegal to write, send or read a text while driving unless the driver was using the phone with voice-operated and hands-free technology.

The statute was written before phone applications came into common use. Thus, it was legal to drive while scrolling through the phone’s music playlist, searching for nearby restaurants, viewing status updates on Facebook or reading a Twitter feed. In People v. Spriggs (2014), the appellate court found a driver did not violate California Vehicle Code in accessing and using a navigation application on his phone while driving. The prior text was replaced last year with a new statute that became effective on Jan. 1.

It remains illegal to drive a vehicle while holding and operating a phone (or any type of “electronic wireless communications device”) unless it is “specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, and it is used in that manner while driving.” The broad loophole in state law allowing drivers to access the internet or use applications while holding the phone in their hand, however, has been eliminated.

A driver may use his or her hand to operate a phone while driving only if (1) the phone is mounted on the vehicle’s windshield use in the same manner as state law allows for portable GPS devices to be mounted or is affixed to a vehicle’s dashboard or center console in a manner that does not hinder the driver’s view of the road; and (2) “the driver’s hand is used to activate or deactivate a feature or function of the handheld wireless telephone or wireless communications device with the motion of a single swipe or tap of the driver’s finger.”

Sandra, to comply with the law, your friend needs to buy a bracket and properly mount the phone in the car. Even then, she cannot enter an address into the phone navigation app while driving. She must do this prior to driving or pull over, stop driving and then input the address. Likewise, she cannot actively use Spotify while driving. Instead, she should set her playlist beforehand and let it run.

Finally, even though the new statute closes an important loophole in phone use while driving, it is still best to turn the phone off or put it away while driving. Hundreds of thousands of serious injury crashes occur across America each year due to drivers distracted by calls, emails, texts and increasingly social media and other applications on their phones.

read more

Who pays when at fault drivers are minimally insured?

This week’s question comes from Lydia in South San Francisco who asks:

Q: “I was driving with my daughter in the car when a guy in an old pickup truck ran a stop sign and T boned us.  I broke my arm and my back is messed up pretty bad. My daughter was in a car seat on the other side of the car from where we got hit and was cut by broken glass and shaken up pretty bad.  I was hella scared that she had been badly injured because she was crying and bleeding. We both were taken to General Hospital by ambulance. My daughter was released that day without any stitches, but I had surgery to put in a steel plate in my arm and had to stay a couple of days.  My car is totaled and I’m off work, not getting paid. The guy’s insurance company says that he has only $15,000.00 insurance on his truck. I know he is a painter because there were ladders and paint in his truck and on the ground. I have pretty good insurance, but I don’t know if it pays for my medical bills. The other guy’s insurance company wants me to sign off to get his $15,000.00.   This is really stressing me out. What are my options?”

A: Lydia, thank God you and your daughter are alive.  It’s bad enough that you got injured but, like many of my clients, you were hit by someone who was minimally insured and, therefore, there are a lot of variables that need to be analyzed in order to determine if there is other available insurance to help cover your injuries and those of your daughter.

Under the law you are entitled to recover all medical expenses for you and your daughter, your wage loss, property damage, and other quantifiable economic losses.  Additionally, both you and your daughter are each entitled to compensation for your personal non-economic injuries such as pain, suffering and emotional distress. The law also recognizes that, in addition to recovering compensation for the harm which you suffered because of your injuries, when you witness a loved one be injured, you suffer a distinct and additional harm to your psyche.   This is called the negligent infliction of emotional distress. We commonly refer to economic and non-economic damages as “personal injuries” Under the terms of an insurance policy these harms are referred to as “bodily injury” damages.

Liability insurance, which we all must carry on our vehicles, is designed to “cover” these types of injuries.   In this case, the other driver appears to have been carrying only the state minimum: $15,000.00 per person, $30,000.00 per occurrence.  This means that the insurance company, no matter how great the harm, is responsible to pay no more than $15,000.00 to any one person, and no more than $30,000.00 to everyone who may have been harmed in the same accident.  Therefore, if the other driver’s insurance company is telling you that there is only a total of $15,000.00 available to cover the injuries for you and your daughter, they are not telling you the whole truth. Your injuries warrant payment of the $15,000.00 without question and, there is up to $15,000.00 to pay for your daughter’s injuries too. 

The state minimum also requires that a driver have coverage of  up to $5,000.00 for property damage caused by their negligence. A negligent party must pay the lesser of the amount to repair the car or its fair market value (the cost of a similar replacement vehicle).  Property damage coverage also pays for towing, storage and usually the cost of a rental vehicle until the car has been repaired or it has been “totaled” and the fair market value has been paid. Therefore, up to $5,000.00 is also available to compensate for your property damage.

Your recovery is not limited to the driver’s insurance.  If the driver has assets, such as real estate, you may look to those assets as a way of receiving full compensation.

If the driver worked for a painting company, even if he was off duty, his employer may be liable for his negligent conduct.  Under the law, if someone is in the “course and scope” of their employment [on the clock and working] at the time of a collision, or they were  using their vehicle for the benefit of their employer, such as carrying paint, ladders, etc. for work the next day or next job, then their employer is responsible for the harm they cause. Many  employers carry a “Certificate of General Liability” which is, in essence, business insurance. Therefore, this avenue must be fully investigated before you consider whether to settle your claim or not.

If there are no assets, and there is no employer liability, you then must examine your own insurance policy to see whether you have “uninsured,/underinsured” (UM/UIM) coverage.  This is insurance which you purchase to compensate you if you are injured by someone with no coverage or inadequate coverage. For example, if you have $100,000.00 per person, $300,000.00 per occurrence  in UM/UIM coverage, and he has a $15,000.00/$30,000.00 policy, you have an additional $85,000.00 in available insurance for each of you from your own policy. (I highly recommend that everyone carry a large UM/UIM policy as approximately 25% of all California drivers are uninsured and many more are underinsured.)  

You also may carry “comprehensive’ coverage which can provide additional funds to compensate you for your property loss above the $5,000.00 state minimum.

Depending on how “good” your insurance is, you may have “medical payments coverage” (med-pay) which provides for some money to help pay your medical bills.  This is not usually a large amount but every little bit counts. Making a claim against your own policy for UIM or med-pay coverage should not increase your premiums.

I suggest that you speak with a good Trial Lawyer before accepting any offer.  You have a serious injury deserving of serious compensation and the driver’s insurance company is not going to act in your best interests.

read more

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.

read more

Identifying liability in an officer-involved accident

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.

read more