Pedestrian Accidents | Dolan Law Firm

Who is Responsible for collisions involving driverless vehicles using AI?

Written By Chris Dolan and Cioffi Remmer

This week’s question comes from Leo from San Francisco, who asks: Now that self-driving cars are becoming a reality, who bears the responsibility for collisions involving driverless vehicles? Are there any laws protecting citizens?

Dear Leo,

Driverless cars, indeed, are becoming a reality. Over the last few years, self-driving vehicles have surged to the forefront of technological innovation, promising to revolutionize how we commute and interact with transportation. Driverless vehicles have undergone significant advancements in testing and production using artificial intelligence (AI), sensor technologies, and cutting-edge computing power. Major automotive industry giants and startups have been competing to bring this transformative technology to the masses, with the Bay Area leading the way.

For example, when companies like Waymo and Cruise test out their driverless taxis on city streets, the question that almost always comes up is, “Who is responsible for collisions involving driverless vehicles?”

Autonomous or driverless vehicles are supposed to have the advantage of obeying all road laws, having more reaction time, and the ability to avoid collisions. However, as of July 10, 2023, the California DMV had received 623 Autonomous Vehicle Collision Reports.

It is usually the case that technology outpaces legislation. Our legislatures have plenty of time to develop common sense rules and regulations for issues that foreseeably cause public tension. Health and safety are at the heart of most rules and regulations that govern technology and its interactions with the public. This concern would be tenfold in the case of thousand-pound motor vehicles without human control. Currently, in California, Autonomous Vehicles (driverless) are only allowed on public roads for testing purposes.

The California legislature has attempted to codify some essential regulations for testing driverless vehicles, codified in the California Vehicle Code Section 38750. Imagine a scenario where an autonomous vehicle (AV) collides with another vehicle or pedestrian. What would they require under California law?

A properly licensed individual must operate the AV. That means there should be a person in the vehicle with a valid driver’s license or a remote operator who monitors the vehicle live if no driver is physically present. That operator must also have a proper, valid driver’s license.
The manufacturer of the AV is required to have a testing permit and insurance in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000), of which proof thereof is to be maintained in the vehicle.
A plan with law enforcement agencies and first responders on interacting with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations, which includes, but is not limited to, instructions on:
- How to communicate with the remote operator (who must always be available);
- Where in the vehicle is the proof of registration and proof of insurance;
- How to safely remove the vehicle from the roadway;
- How to disengage autonomous mode.
Once law enforcement arrives, they must follow their plan to interact with Autonomous Vehicles. For example, the San Francisco Police Department has a current directive on interacting with autonomous vehicles. SFPD is required to document both injury and non-injury crashes involving an AV, whether physically operated or remotely monitored, using the CHP555 collision report, which they forward to the Commercial Vehicle Unit.
Within ten (10) days of the collision, whether it resulted in damage of property or bodily injury or death, the manufacturer must also report the incident to the Department of Motor Vehicles after the collision.

Ultimately, who is responsible? Like any roadway collision, this is usually determined by figuring out who is at fault. One of the advantages of AVs is that there is audio and video recording at all times, and usually electronic data or telemetry. But determining fault may or may not be as simple as reviewing video or looking at electronic data. In either case, the manufacturer would likely submit the claim to their insurance carrier. If you’re involved in a collision with a driverless vehicle, it is critical to report it to law enforcement and your vehicle insurance carrier. If you’ve been injured in the collision, contact an attorney to help determine your rights.

Written By Chris Dolan and Emile Davis

This week’s question comes from Josh in San Francisco, CA, who asks: I was leaving a store last Friday and was in the parking lot heading toward my car. As I walked, I looked up to see where I had parked. I tripped over one of those parking block things at the end of a parking space. I went down and scraped my knee and hands, but thankfully, I was mostly okay. But it got me thinking about how many of those things are everywhere. If someone is seriously hurt tripping on one of those, do they have a lawsuit?

Hi Josh,

I am happy to hear you were not severely injured. I can tell you that we have represented many pedestrians, like yourself, as well as bicyclists, who have unexpectedly encountered a parking block, causing injury. Parking blocks, or wheel stops, as they are sometimes known, are the small barriers used at the end of parking spaces to assist drivers with parking their vehicles. They are one of the hazards we see regularly.

To understand how that works, in a legal sense, we must look at the many factors determining if the wheel stop would form the basis of a lawsuit. When those blocks are in a privately owned area, the lawsuit would be known as a “premises liability.” It would be a “dangerous condition of public property” in a publicly owned area. The central part of either of those cases is the same – Did the block’s placement create a foreseeable risk of harm?

As you described, parking blocks are often used in parking lots to prevent vehicle encroachment into an opposite parking stall or onto sidewalks. They are not designed to be an actual barrier to stop a vehicle but to notify a driver that they have reached the end of the space.

We all have expectations about where we expect to see parking blocks. People expect them to be there and can account for that when walking or cycling. They create less of a hazard when neatly lined along a curb or in rows at the end of defined parking spaces. When a person’s expectations of placement are met and they have the ability to see with time to react, it is easy to navigate through or around wheel stops.

However, when the placement diverges from expectations, it can create a more dangerous situation. For instance, if the block is at the end of a parking stall, but in the middle, or if it is not centered within the stall, placed off to one side, it is much less likely that people will be able to anticipate and avoid encountering the hazard. A parking block in a completely unexpected location, such as being placed on a bicycle path or at the end of a trailhead, it becomes an even greater hazard.

You must be able to see a parking block to avoid it. Therefore, sufficient lighting that allows visual recognition of parking blocks is essential. In addition to illuminating the area, the parking blocks must stand out from the underlying pavement to avoid tripping. You may have noticed that parking blocks are often made of light-colored concrete, which stands out against the dark pavement below them. This contrast in color helps to make the blocks more visible. They can be made even more visible by adding reflective stickers, or paint, in a contrasting color.

In a parking lot, visibility is crucial because people tend to focus on finding their vehicle or watching out for moving vehicles. This makes it challenging to pay attention to where they are walking, and any unexpected environmental changes can be risky. If a block does not have a contrasting color, it can blend in with the surroundings and become difficult to spot.

If you, or someone you know, is injured by tripping, cycling, or otherwise encountering a wheel stop, or parking block, have them call an attorney experienced in this area of law, such as the Dolan Law Firm, to evaluate their claim.

Written By Christopher Dolan and Cioffi Remmer

This week’s question comes from Robert in Oakland, CA, who asks: How will AI and the ChatGPT app impact the practice of personal injury law?

Dear Robert,

The public’s interest in Artificial Intelligence has surged recently with the introduction of “ChatGPT,” OpenAI’s Artificial Intelligence application. On ChatGPT, you can prompt the AI program to write essays, articles, speeches, book reports, answer questions, and even write software code. To answer your question, I asked ChatGPT to write an article on AI’s impact on practicing personal injury law in the next five, ten, and 20 years. Here’s what ChatGPT wrote:

“Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming various industries, and the legal industry is no exception. AI-powered applications like ChatGPT have the potential to revolutionize the practice of personal injury law in the coming years. In this article, we will explore the impact of AI on personal injury law over the next five, ten, and 20 years.

Personal injury law involves cases in which a person is injured due to the negligence of another party. Such cases can be complex and time-consuming, requiring extensive research and analysis of legal precedents and statutes. This is where AI-powered applications like ChatGPT can be particularly useful.

In the next five years, AI-powered legal research tools will become increasingly common. These tools can quickly and accurately analyze large volumes of legal data, including court opinions, statutes, and regulations. This will allow lawyers to conduct legal research more efficiently and effectively, saving time and money for their clients.

Furthermore, AI-powered applications can assist lawyers in predicting case outcomes and settlement values. By analyzing data from past cases and considering various factors, AI algorithms can provide insights into the potential outcomes of a case. This can help lawyers to make better-informed decisions and advise their clients accordingly.

In the next ten years, we can expect to see AI-powered applications being used to streamline the litigation process. For example, AI algorithms can analyze medical records and other evidence to help lawyers build stronger cases. This can reduce the need for expensive expert witnesses and simplify the discovery process.

Moreover, AI-powered applications can assist lawyers in drafting legal documents, such as pleadings and motions. These applications can analyze past cases and legal precedents to generate documents that are tailored to the specific needs of a particular case. This can save lawyers a significant amount of time and improve the quality of their work.

In the next 20 years, AI-powered applications may even be able to assist with settlement negotiations and courtroom arguments. For example, AI algorithms could analyze the personalities and behavior of judges and opposing counsel to predict their responses to certain arguments. This could help lawyers to craft more persuasive arguments and negotiate more favorable settlements for their clients.

However, as with any technological advancement, there are also potential drawbacks to the increasing use of AI in personal injury law. One concern is the potential for bias in AI algorithms. If these algorithms are trained on biased data, they may perpetuate existing inequalities and injustices in the legal system. Moreover, the use of AI may raise ethical concerns around the role of lawyers and the potential de-skilling of certain legal tasks.

In conclusion, AI-powered applications like ChatGPT have the potential to significantly impact the practice of personal injury law in the coming years. While there are potential risks and challenges associated with the increasing use of AI in the legal industry, there are also significant benefits to be gained. As AI continues to evolve, we can expect to see even more innovative applications being developed to assist lawyers in their work.”

Written By Chris Dolan and Anna Pantsulaya

This week’s question comes from Mark in Oakland, who asks: I read your article last week on Store-front crashes and was surprised by the 7-Eleven statistics of car crashes into the store, one per day! A few weeks back, when it was raining, my friend and I were inside the convenience store, and he slipped. His feet rose in the air, and he landed on his lower back. He seems to be okay. Are business owners responsible for slip-and-falls on rainy days?

Hello Mark,

Thank you for your question. With California’s unprecedented rain, your concerns about slip-and-fall as a business invitee are not without.

What is a slip-and-fall claim?

A “slip-and-fall” is a type of California premises liability claim that occurs when someone falls and sustains an injury due to the owner or operator’s negligence. Not all falls lead to slip-and-fall liability. Slip-and-fall accidents regularly lead to broken bones, traumatic brain injuries, sprains and strains, scars, and lacerations. Slip-and-fall accidents can even cause death in the most severe cases. Slips, trips, and falls cause over 700 fatalities and other severe injuries yearly and are responsible for over 50% of all accident-related deaths. According to the CDC, one of every five slip-and-fall accidents results in a broken bone or head injury.

There are also different considerations to make depending on what caused the slip-and-fall to occur. Common causes of slip-and-fall liability in California include:

Wet floors,
Spills,
Leaks,
Poorly maintained rugs or carpeting,
Uneven/defective floors,
Lighting,
Uncovered cables and cords,
Broken or missing railings, and
Failure to warn about known hazards.

Liability for Slip-and-fall:

In California, the law of premises liability places on property owners and managers a duty of care to:

maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, and
warn guests and visitors of dangers that may not be obvious.

The duty of care requires people who own, possess, or control property to reasonably maintain their property, inspect for and repair potentially dangerous conditions, and give adequate warning when ownership still needs to correct the dangerous condition. The general rule is that to impose liability for injury to an invitee due to a dangerous condition, the condition must have been known to the owner or occupant or have existed for such time that it was the duty of the owner or occupant to have known of it.

But who do you file a claim with when such an incident occurs? Different insurance policies are applicable depending on when and where the slip-and-fall occurred. For example, if you slipped and fell in a store or other business, you can file a claim under the company’s commercial liability insurance coverage. If you tripped and fell at a neighbor’s house, you may be able to file a claim under their homeowner’s insurance policy. If you slip-and-fall while in the course and scope of employment, you must file a worker’s compensation claim through your employer.

Does a rainstorm affect slip-and-fall liability?

We all must watch where we are going. Although there may be liability on a property/business owner for slips-and-falls, that may not always be the case. Businesses often argue that a reasonable person has the wherewithal to appreciate the increased risk of slip-and-fall during rainstorms. Nevertheless, that same logic is used to show notice to the business of the need to maintain the areas that track in the most rain due to customer use.

In Scott v. Alpha Beta Co., 104 Cal. App. 3d 305, 163 Cal. Rptr. 544, 20 A.L.R.4th 511 (2d Dist. 1980), an action for damages sustained by a business invitee who, on a rainy day, slipped and fell in the grocery store immediately after stepping off of a rubber mat. The court found the grocery store 60% negligent and the injured party 40% negligent. It held that the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that the grocery store knew of the slippery condition of its floor and had failed to take reasonable precautions. Noting that it was raining at the time of the accident and had been doing so all day and that the grocery store had approximately 2,000 customers per day, the court explained that it knew or should have known that the floor would become wet.

This case highlights the responsibility of businesses to keep patrons reasonably safe from harm but also demonstrates that courts do consider the negligence of the patron when evaluating the extent of the owner’s liability. Businesses will use many defenses to fight even the most obvious liability against them. That is why it is essential to immediately contact an attorney who has experience preserving and gathering evidence that is important to prove your claim.

Written By Chris Dolan and Cristina Garcia

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

Dear Kathy,

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

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

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

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

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

Written By Chris Dolan and Carole Okolowicz

This week’s question comes from John from San Francisco, who asks: What is the difference between having a trial versus going to mediation?

Dear John,

There are many ways to resolve a legal dispute, whether a lawsuit is filed or not. Most people have heard of a trial in front of a jury because the media has popularized it. However, most cases do not go to trial. Experts have estimated that some 98% of all legal disputes resolve before trial. I will explain these options for resolving legal disputes: settlement, mediation, arbitration, and trial.

Informal Settlement Negotiations

Most cases resolve through settlement. Mediation is a method used to achieve a settlement. (More on that later.) Where criminal cases typically seek to put a person in jail, civil cases seek monetary compensation for the harm caused. Since the goal is for the suing person to get money if the person sued agrees to pay, there is no longer a need for the lawsuit. Lawyers often write a demand letter, which is a letter that lays out the known facts of the case, any evidence the plaintiff has in their possession (a police report, medical records, photos, employment records), and the legal reasons why a jury would award money should the case go to trial. Sometimes the two sides can work out a deal through informal communications like emails and phone calls. In these situations, the plaintiff will typically agree not to file a lawsuit concerning the matter and the defendant will agree to pay the agreed amount. Note that this is a voluntary settlement. Neither party is forced to pay; no party is forced to dismiss the case or agree to not sue. The parties decide to avoid litigation, or further litigation, by resolving the matter informally.

Mediation

If informal settlement negotiations are not possible, the parties may seek to resolve the matter through mediation. Mediation is a means to achieve a voluntary settlement. When parties agree to mediate, they hire a neutral person to help resolve the case. At an agreed-upon time and place (or remotely), the parties go into separate rooms and the neutral mediator talks separately to both sides. Many mediators are retired judges or seasoned litigators so they will often provide insights as to how a jury might think about certain aspects of the case. The mediator’s goal is to get both sides to agree on a settlement amount. As with informal settlement negotiations, each party typically writes a brief that, like a demand letter, lays out the facts, law, and evidence.

It is a common saying that a good mediation is one in which both sides leave unhappy. The plaintiff worries they could have gotten more; the defendant worries they paid too much. But the benefits of settling at mediation are great. As with settling through informal negotiations, the parties save on continued litigation costs, including the cost of a trial which can be very expensive. There is a cost associated with litigation. The mediator charges a fee and mediations can often take a whole day of your attorney’s time. But the cost is much less than trial. Further, trials are risky, and the outcome can be hard to predict. Settlements are certain.

Arbitration

Arbitration is another route to settlement, but unlike the two options discussed above, where resolution is voluntary, it is typically binding. Arbitration is a private court. Like mediation, the parties must voluntarily agree to enter into arbitration; you cannot be forced into arbitration. However, embedded in fine print in many of the agreements we are asked to approve before using everyday items and services, like our cell phones, apps or software, streaming services, rideshare transportation, and medical services, is an agreement to arbitrate any legal disputes.

A judge following state or federal rules oversees your case when a lawsuit is filed. When the parties agree to arbitration, a neutral arbitrator or group of arbitrators oversees your case. The parties may agree to the rules they will follow, which often mirror state or federal rules. Arbitration can be faster, more efficient, and cheaper than court litigation and trial. As in court litigation, the parties can demand documents and information from each other through a discovery process, but it is expedited and limited. Arbitration typically ends with a hearing, like a trial, in which witnesses testify. At the end of the hearing, the arbitrator – not a judge or jury – decides. That decision is binding, which means the parties must abide by it. The parties can only dispute an arbitration award on narrow grounds; the intent is that the decision is final. Arbitration is costly but can often be less expensive than litigation and a trial, depending on the case.

Trial

A trial is often the last resort. Trials are a risk for both sides. First, they are expensive. At trial, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove their case. That means unless the defendant agrees that the plaintiff was injured, for example, the plaintiff has to prove that they was injured. That often requires getting the emergency room doctor, nurses, EMTs, orthopedic doctors, primary care doctors, and other health care providers to testify that you were injured. Your attorneys will likely have to hire experts to provide an opinion to persuade the jury. Healthcare providers’ and experts’ time can be very valuable and can get into the thousands of dollars. Your attorneys may hire someone to make trial exhibits to show the jury. Your attorneys will be working on your case night and day before and during the trial. Trials can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Trials are costly and risky.

If you prove your case, a jury may award you damages. Some juries award larger damages, and some juries award smaller damages. Some jurors do not believe in compensating injured persons for pain and suffering and may only agree to award your medical costs. Most jurors in a civil trial must agree to form a verdict.

While trials can be dramatic, they are typically not as fun as watching a trial on tv, even a real one. That is because it is your money, your health, and your life that is going to be decided. If you win, it can be vindicating as well as exhausting. If you lose, it can be defeating – and exhausting. If you are a plaintiff or defendant, you generally must be present each day of the trial. You typically will testify at trial, possibly for a day or multiple days. Trials can be any length, from days to months.

However, sometimes trial is unavoidable. If the other side has offered nothing or very little, and your attorneys believe you have a strong case, you may have no option but to go to trial.

The Dolan Law Firm is a trial firm, meaning we will use all our legal resources available and are always ready to go to trial for you.

Assembly Bill 2147 defines when a police officer can stop, arrest, or cite a pedestrian

Written By Chris Dolan and Cioffi Remmer

This week’s question comes from James from San Francisco who asks: Is jaywalking now legal? Would you please explain the new jaywalking law?

Dear James:

Thanks for your question. We have received several enquiries about this topic and think is worth discussing again. Our office has people who grew up in major cities across the U.S. and often dealt with intense traffic on a daily basis. For example, Mr. Remmer, originally from Chicago, a bustling metropolis, recalls walking the streets of the Loop or the Magnificent Mile, where you could always spot the tourists from the locals by how they treated street-crossing. In cities like Chicago and New York, resident pedestrians, always seemingly in a hurry, do not wait for a white stick-man figure to tell them when they can cross the street. They look both ways, observe no cars coming, and keep moving.

Once Mr. Remmer moved to Los Angeles, in did not take long for him to ditch this practice. Constant anecdotes, refrains, and warnings from friends about receiving “$197 tickets for ‘jaywalking’” elicited the fear he needed to reconsider his street-crossing habit. Law enforcement cited citizens for egregious conduct, as crossing in the middle of the street, or for something as harmless as entering the crosswalk when the countdown signal had already begun.

Even more nefarious, concerned California citizens and activists noticed that these seemingly innocuous citations seemed more to serve as a pretext for police officers to engage in racially biased, unnecessary “stops,” searches, and arrests.

In response, the legislator has passed Assembly Bill 2147, which goes into effect on January 1, 2023. The Freedom to Walk Act would de-criminalize jaywalking. AB2147, (Ting) states in pertinent part as follows:

“Existing law imposes various duties relating to the rules of the road, including, but not limited to traffic signs, symbols, markings, and pedestrians’ rights and duties. Existing law prohibits pedestrians from entering roadways and crosswalks, except under specified circumstances. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions is an infraction. Existing law establishes procedures for peace officers to make arrests for violations of the Vehicle Code without a warrant for offense committed in their presence, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a peace officer, as defined, from stopping a pedestrian for specified traffic infractions unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power…” (emphasis added).

The bill incorporates the changes to Section 21456 of the California Vehicle Code, amended as follows:

Veh. Code Sec. 21456

…

(c) A pedestrian facing a circular green signal, unless prohibited by sign or otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, may proceed across the roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that the signal is first shown.

(d) A pedestrian facing a green arrow turn signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, shall not enter the roadway.

(e)(1) A peace officer…shall not stop a pedestrian for violation of subdivision (c) or (d) unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.

…

Assembly Bill 2147, and Vehicle Code 21456(e)(1) do not repeal jaywalking laws. Instead, they define when a police officer can stop, arrest, or cite a pedestrian. While it is unclear if this measure will increase pedestrian safety, it hopes to decrease unnecessary, pretextual police interactions they can weaponize against vulnerable citizens.

Written By: Christopher Dolan and Jeremy Jessup

This week’s question comes from anonymous from San Carlos who asks: I recently read about the heartbreaking story involving the couple from San Carlos who were killed in a motor vehicle collision in Redwood City. Based upon the news articles, the at fault driver may have been a 17-year-old kid, with friends in the car. If the teenager is in fact at fault, can their parents be held accountable? What about the friends?

You are absolutely correct; this was a tragic and heartbreaking event that did not have to happen. Those children should still have both of their parents. And the answer to your first question, is yes, the parents can be held liable for the acts of a 17-year-old. In California, the parent or legal guardian of a minor who is under the age of 18, must sign a driver’s license application for said minor to receive their license. As a result of signing that application, the parents or legal guardian are bound by Section 17707 of the vehicle code, which essentially spells out civil liability for that parent or guardian if the minor causes a collision.

That code sections says:

“Any civil liability of a minor arising out of his driving a motor vehicle…is hereby imposed upon the person who signed and verified the application of the minor for a license, and the person shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages proximately resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of the minor in driving a motor vehicle.”

Thus, this code section makes a parent or legal guardian jointly liable for “any damages proximately resulting” from the accident. That includes compensation for non-economic losses like pain and suffering and those associated with a wrongful death matter. Given the severity of this collision, it could add up to a significant amount.

With regards to the friends, this is a bit more complicated and depends on the facts. But the short answer is yes. A passenger can be held liable for a collision if they undertook very specific acts. One would be operating the vehicle as a passenger. This would include controlling the steering wheel, the brakes the gear shift or any other part of the vehicle that would affect the maneuvering of the vehicle. Another means in which a passenger could be held liable, is if they incapacitated and/or distracted the driver. This could occur by blocking their vision, bumping them, or distracting them by whatever means. Finally, a passenger may be held liable if they “encouraged” the driver. Encouragement can take many forms. Some classic examples include encouraging an intoxicated driver to drive and a semi-recent example would be a passenger encouraging the driver to drive faster.

In the case of Navarrete v. Meyer (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1276, Hayley Meyer was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by her friend, Brandon Coleman. While driving to their destination, she told Coleman to turn on Skyview Drive, a street she knew dips that could make a vehicle become airborne. She also knew the speed limit was 25-mph. According to the facts, Hayley told Coleman about the dips and that it would be fun to drive at a high rate of speed on them, and he should do it. Coleman turned onto Skyview Drive, and she told him to “go faster.” He did. Unfortunately, Coleman sped up, went airborne, lost control of the car, and crashed into a parked vehicle, killing a father of three.

The court was presented with the issue of whether or not Haley Meyer could be sued for negligence, even though she was not actually the driver of the car. The Court ruled that she could.

If the teen driver is at fault and it can be argued that the two passengers, believed to be 15 years old, encouraged the teen to drive fast, they too could be held accountable. The next logical question is, could their parents?

This one is more complicated for a couple of reasons. First, if the passengers were in fact 15-years old or did not possess a driver’s license/learners permit, then we have no parent or legal guardian signing off on their license. In addition, section 17707 specifically hinges liability on the parent/guardian for “civil liability of a minor arising out of his driving a motor vehicle”. In this case, the passengers were not “driving” the vehicle.

However, this type of liability may be covered by California Civil Code section 1714.1, which states:

“Any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person, or in any injury to the property of another, shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages.”

However, the statute puts a few limitations on the amount the parent or legal guardian can be liable for, which is $25,000.00 (this amount is subject to cost-of-living adjustments every two years. The most recent figure appears to be $47,100.00). In addition, it does not allow compensation for pain and suffering, only economic damages, such as medical expenses.

Regardless of who may be held liable, as we head into the holiday season, it is a good time to remind all of your loved ones to drive attentively and carefully so that we might decrease the number of tragic roadway collisions and not have to worry about questions such as these.

Written By Chris Dolan and Alexandra Cotroneo

This week’s question comes from Betty from San Francisco, who asks: Can you explain what The Freedom To Walk Act is all about? Why is jaywalking safe and better for pedestrians?

Hi Betty,

That is a great question, and I am sure many people are asking themselves the same thing.

This past September, Governor Gavin Newsom signed The Freedom to Walk Act, Assembly Bill 2147, sponsored by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco). This new law will go into effect on January 1, 2023. The Freedom to Walk Act allows pedestrians to jaywalk without the fear of ticketing. While jaywalking is still technically illegal, the Act precludes police officers from issuing tickets. Police can, however, ticket for jaywalking when it is unsafe, for instance, when there is an immediate risk of a collision with a vehicle. Hence, pedestrians must still exercise due care for their safety, and so must drivers for the safety of any pedestrians crossing a roadway.

The crime of jaywalking resulted from the automotive industry’s efforts to shift the public’s mindset on who owned the road: the automobile or the pedestrian. In the 1920s, roads were a communal space where pedestrians, carriages, vehicles, and vendors existed together. As cars became more popular and sales increased, so did pedestrian deaths. While memorializing killed pedestrians, communities blamed drivers and their automobiles. These deaths prompted a growing sentiment that vehicles should be restricted, including their speed limit. Automakers quickly changed the existing pedestrian laws while launching a media campaign to shame pedestrians who failed to use crosswalks. Thus, the term “jaywalking” came into existence. Jaywalking was a derogatory term used to reference someone from the country who was ignorant of city life. Ultimately, the public shaming campaign headed by the automobile industry succeeded: authorities criminalized jaywalking, and the onus shifted from the automobile to the pedestrian. Since then, police have not equitably enforced jaywalking laws.

According to data collected from 2018-2020 by the California Racial and Identity Profiling Act, police disproportionately ticket Black pedestrians for jaywalking. Black pedestrians are four and a half times more likely to be stopped for jaywalking than White pedestrians. This inequitable enforcement has led to dangerous police interactions with pedestrians of color. Chinedu Okobi is one instance where the unfair and disproportionate enforcement of jaywalking resulted in tragedy. In 2018, police stopped Chinedu Okobi for jaywalking in San Mateo, California. The confrontation quickly escalated, and excessive force was used, resulting in the death of Chinedu Okobi, an unarmed black pedestrian.

With the passage of The Freedom to Walk Act, pedestrians will now have fair and equitable use of roadways. The Freedom to Walk Act will remove a pretense for over-policing pedestrians of color, eliminate the financial burden of fines and fees to those disproportionately ticketed for jaywalking, and grant rightful use of roadways to both pedestrians and motorists.

Nonetheless, pedestrians and motorists must still use precautions and safely use the roads, even if police will no longer ticket pedestrians for jaywalking. However, you have the right to pursue pedestrian accident compensation as an injured pedestrian. Contact a personal injury lawyer who will advocate for your rights.

Written by Chris Dolan and Cristina Garcia

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

Dear Patricia,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is Responsible for collisions involving driverless vehicles using AI?

Written By Chris Dolan and Cioffi Remmer

Parking Blocks Can Cause Pedestrian Accidents

Written By Chris Dolan and Emile Davis

How Will AI Transform the Practice of Personal Injury Law?