Is a Trial the Same as An Arbitration?

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.  

read more

Minors Involved In An Accident: Who Is Responsible?

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.  

 

 

read more

Do I Need a License To Ride An Electric Bicycle?

Written By Chris Dolan

This week’s question comes from Jared from San Francisco: E-bikes are taking over the streets. I see more and more every day. Do you need to get a special license to ride one, like a motorcycle? And do you need insurance to ride one? 

Thank you for the questions about e-bikes, Jared.

Electric bicycles have become a common form of transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is valuable to know what e-bikes are and what the law is regarding the use of e-bikes.  

An electric bike (e-bike) is a bicycle with an electric motor that assists the propulsion of the bike instead of being propelled solely by the pedaling of its rider as with a traditional bicycle. There are a variety of e-bikes that differ in operation and power of the motor. In California, e-bikes’ motor must be less than 750 watts. If the motor is over 750 watts it will qualify as a motor driven cycle and have requirements similar to a motorcycle. 

In 2015 AB-1096 was passed by the California legislature. This law sets forth three classifications (Class 1, 2 and 3) of e-bikes based upon their maximum speed, propulsion assistance by the motor, and method of operation. 

  • Class 1: A class 1 e-bike is a low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle. Class 1 e-bikes are equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
  • Class 2: A class 2 e-bike is a low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle. Class 2 e-bikes are equipped with a motor that may be used to propel the bicycle without pedaling, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
  • Class 3: A class 3 e-bike is a speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle. Class 3 e-bikes are equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and equipped with a speedometer. 

E-bike riders must follow the rules set forth in California vehicle code. Some general rules to remember are:

  • Pedestrians have the right of way. This includes pedestrians in and out of a crosswalk; bike riders are required to yield to pedestrians. 
  • Riders are required to stop behind crosswalks, leaving them clear for pedestrians. 
  • E-bike riders must stop at stop signs and obey traffic lights just like motor vehicles. 
  • Reflectors and a front white light are required by law at night time.
  • Class 3 e-bikes are prohibited from Class 1 multi-use bike paths such as hiking or recreational trails.
  • Class 3 e-bike riders must be over the age of 16 and wear a helmet.

California state law and vehicle code sets forth most of the rules regarding e-bikes, but local ordinances also impact how e-bikes can be used. In San Francisco it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk if you are over the age of 13. Also, in San Francisco riders must keep at least one ear open and free from any headphones or other devices that can cause distraction. You must leave one ear free to ensure you can hear your surroundings. 

When it comes to licensure and insurance, e-bikes are treated like bicycles rather than motorcycles. E-bike riders are not required to obtain any special licensure to operate them. As of 2017, all e-bikes in California are required to have a label that describes its type, top assisted speed, and motor wattage. This can be used to identify what class of e-bike is being operated. It is also unlawful to tamper with or alter an e-bike’s speed capabilities without replacing the label on the bike that specifies what the speed capabilities are.  

E-bikes are not treated as motorcycles in California and therefore liability insurance is not required. As we mentioned above, an e-bike motor is less than 750 watts, if a bike’s motor is over 750 watts the bike is classified as a motor driven cycle and will require insurance and licensure similar to a motorcycle.  

Some insurance company policies may cover injuries from accidents involving e-bikes. Base policies will generally not specifically cover accidents involving e-bikes but will cover personal injury accidents. This can leave some room to get financial compensation even if you or the other party doesn’t specifically have e-bike insurance. If you want to know the details of e-bike insurance available to you, you should contact your insurance agent or a skilled accident attorney to discuss what coverage is available under the circumstances.  

With a growing population of e-bike riders in the Bay Area it is important to stay vigilant and safe on the road. If you are ever in an accident with a bicycle, make sure your attorney knows the difference in e-bike classifications and what rights and responsibilities motorists and bicyclists have under California Law. Be safe out there, thank you for writing in with your questions.

read more

Freedom To Walk Act Ends Jaywalking, When It’s Safe To Cross

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. 

read more

Are Bicycle Lights Legally Required?

Written By Chris Dolan

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

Thank you, Luca, for the question.

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

What is a Bicycle Light?

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

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

What is a Bike Reflector?

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

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

How Bright Does my Light Need to Be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read more

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

Written by Chris Dolan and Cristina Garcia

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

Dear Patricia,

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

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

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

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

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

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

read more

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

Written By Chris Dolan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read more

Who is responsible for a dog bite or dog attack?

Written By Chris Dolan and Carole Okolowicz

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

Phill,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-economic damages can also include:

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

Contact an Animal Attack Lawyer or Dog Bite Lawyer

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

read more

What Are Some of My Rights As a Pedestrian?

Written by Christopher B. Dolan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read more

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

Written By Chris Dolan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens if you don’t have insurance?

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

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

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

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

read more