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

Chris Dolan Awarded California Lawyer CLAY Award

Thank you, California Lawyer, for this honor. On December 2, 2016, there was a music and art event in an old warehouse in Oakland. This “artist colony” was an unpermitted space where people were living, and “happenings” took place. About 50-60 people were present when, at around 11:20 p.m., a fire broke out. The building, filled with pianos, wood carvings, tapestries and other combustibles rapidly fed the hungry fire and 36 bright, young, promising free spirited souls were overcome with toxic smoke, couldn’t find their way out through the unlit and unmarked exits, and died in what has become known as the “Ghostship fire.”

Many of the finest lawyers throughout California, who were approached for representation, said there was no way to hold the City of Oakland and PG&E accountable, and turned these cases down. We were undeterred and willing to take on the fight even if they said we couldn’t win. These 36 young adults at the threshold of their lives, along with their grieving families, called out for justice and accountability and we took that call.

This case required all my life experience, education, and decades of “figuring it out.” As a young man, I worked dirty, hot, tiring jobs in construction to fund my studies. As a young lawyer, I renovated two old San Francisco buildings including our Market Street headquarters, learning about electrical systems, transformers, voltage drop, metering, and building/electric  codes involved in old buildings. So much of what I bring to the table is practical knowledge. Mary Alexander and I literally dug through the rubble and I used “old school” methods to understand and map out the faulty electrical services. Using my Georgetown Law degree, I “went into the rabbit hole” for 2 solid weeks and researched the s#!t out of the Oakland Municipal Code, State Fire Code, and CPUC regulations to develop the Complaint against the City and PG&E with Bob Bale. Tom Brandi and Brian Malloy used their decades of public entity law knowledge to doggedly drive the case against the City with several arduous, but successful, trips to the court of appeals.

Mary, Bob, Brendan Way, and I relentlessly pursued PG&E through multiple depositions, and a mountain of documents. Eventually, we found a few key documents, with a few critical sentences, to support our allegations that PG&E had violated the CPUC regulations and knew that multiple businesses were drawing too much power through one meter, making the piecework, often un-permitted, electrical system a tragedy waiting to happen.
I was able to focus our energies, using my practical knowledge, to pull these facts from the ashes and build a case with these great lawyers, and many others, including Bobby Thompson, Sophia Acherman, Jennifer Fiore, and Sandra Ribera-Speed. The Executive Committee, Mary, Tom, Bob, Bobby, and I, never considered defeat an option and, in the end, we honored these 36 beautiful lives, and their families, through accountability. We did what they said couldn’t be done. As Margaret Mead said, ‘Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.

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

People boating under the influence may be held responsible

Written by: Christopher B. Dolan

Today’s question comes from Terry M. from the East Bay: 

Terry M.: “My son was out on a lake boating with some of his friends on Labor Day. Aside from the fact that I am not happy about the fact that there were a bunch of kids hanging around when they should be social distancing, there was alcohol involved. He is over 21 so that’s not the problem.  A number of people were on jet skis. To make matters worse, some of them didn’t have any experience. One of the jet ski owners let an inexperienced friend use his jet ski. As this person was showing off, the kid came in too fast and crashed into my son severely injuring his leg.  He had to go to the hospital and have screws put in place. The police were not called but my son said the kid who hit him had been drinking heavily. What can we do now without there being a police report? We have thousands in bills and my son can’t work.”

Dear Terry: Terry, unfortunately each year we receive numerous calls from people who are injured in boating accidents. These crashes often lead to serious injuries, drownings, mutilation by propellers and in too many cases, death. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, in its 2018 Recreational Boating Statistics Report, there were 633 fatalities nationwide in 2018. In that same period, there were 2,511 recreational boating injuries and 4,291 accidents. Alcohol is the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents accounting for 100 deaths or 19% of the total fatalities. 

Several issues arise from your question: drinking, experience and also lending a watercraft to an intoxicated person.

First, the law examines facts and events to see if there was “negligence.” Put simply, negligence is the failure to control yourself, your actions and property, as  a “reasonable person would.”  Often, what is “reasonable” is codified in a local, state or federal law.

Starting in January of 2018, the State of California began phasing in a boater education requirement and California Boater Card (CBC- often referred to as a boating license) requirement. As of January 1, 2020, California Harbors and Navigations Code Section 678.11, requires a boater to be 16 years or older. Any boater 35 years or younger (16-35) must be in possession of his/her CBC to operate any vessel powered by 15 horsepower or more, including personal watercraft (jet skis). From what I gather, the operator didn’t have a license.

Harbors and Navigations Code Section 655 (a) provides that, “No person shall use any vessel or manipulate water skis, an aquaplane, or a similar device in a reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person.”  Section (b) states: “No person shall operate any vessel or manipulate water skis, an aquaplane, or a similar device while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, any drug, or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug.”

Section (c) states: “No person shall operate any recreational vessel or manipulate any water skis, aquaplane, or similar device if the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more in his or her blood.” Also, Section (f) states: “No person shall operate any vessel or manipulate water skis, an aquaplane, or a similar device while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug, and while so operating, do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in the use of the vessel, water skis, aquaplane, or similar device, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than himself or herself.”

Here it appears that the operator violated Harbors and Navigations Code Sections 655 and 678.11. Note that Section 655, subsections (b) and (f), do not require a determination of a blood alcohol limit, only a showing of being under the influence which can be demonstrated by testimony of witnesses. Therefore, while a police report would have been helpful, it is not necessary. The driver is, therefore, negligent.

Although the driver is negligent, he may not have any insurance. If he has personal assets they may be attached, following a trial, to satisfy any monetary award. Here, however, it appears that the owner of the jet ski, knowing the operator’s inexperience and that he had been drinking, is potentially liable for, “negligent entrustment,” of his jet ski, and, if he has insurance on the jet ski, it may pay for your son’s medical bills, lost wages, and the pain and/or disfigurement he has suffered. 

Have your son contact a trial lawyer, with experience in boating accidents, to get a consultation.

 

Christopher B. Dolan is the owner of the Dolan Law Firm. Email questions and topics for future articles to: help@dolanlawfirm.com.

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

Drivers, slow down for students

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

read more

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

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

Here are two links to related news stories:

Pedestrian Seriously Injured In Redwood City Police Officer Crash

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

read more