Truck Accidents | Dolan Law Firm

Who is responsible for damage caused by a stolen vehicle?

Written By: Chris Dolan and Eric. St. John

This week’s question comes from Trisha from San Francisco, CA, who asks: I saw a car speeding away from a police run into a fire hydrant and almost hit several people. It turns out it was a stolen car, and the thief ran away from the scene. If someone steals my car and uses it to damage private or public property, will I have to pay for that? Who pays for this type of damage? What if a driver of a stolen car injures me?

Hi Trisha,

On average, in California, nearly 200,000 vehicles are stolen each year. Generally, a real vehicle owner would not be liable when their vehicle is stolen and used in some other negligent or intentional act that harms people or property. To be responsible for someone else’s actions with your motor vehicle, you must have caused the damage in some way, which is rare, or you entrusted (gave permission) to the thief to use your vehicle, which is highly unlikely.

In California, vehicle owners can be held liable for the actions of a third party if they entrusted, or gave permission to use, the vehicle to a third party who is unfit to drive, and that third party then harms someone or something. Entrustment is one way you may be liable for your vehicle being stolen and causing damage. This is one of many reasons why it is recommended to file a police report as soon as you learn that your vehicle has been stolen. Then, file a claim with your insurance company, notifying them of the theft and any damages that may have been incurred to your property. You do not want people to think you gave the thief permission to use your car.

If you are not liable for your vehicle harming others, then who or what is liable? Well, typically, the first place an injured party would look is to the driver. In this case, a thief can be liable for the damage they cause, but in most scenarios, the thief is either:

unable to be found,
uninsured, or
has no money to pay for the damage they caused. So even though they are liable for the damages, the parties involved should be looking elsewhere to get compensation for any damages they incurred.

Which leads us to a very important part of your question, who pays for this type of damage?

Who pays for damage caused by a stolen vehicle depends almost entirely on what type of insurance policies the involved parties have and what those insurance policies cover. The first option would be to seek coverage through any of the thief’s insurance policies if they have any. This is done by setting up a claim with their insurance. The victim of the theft can file a claim for property damage, and the victim of any injuries caused by the driver of the stolen vehicle can file for personal injury and property damages. If it gets complicated, you should talk to an attorney who can help you navigate the insurance world.

In most cases, the thief either has no coverage or does not have enough coverage, so the parties involved will have to look to their insurance policies to find coverage. In some circumstances, the injured parties don’t have any recourse for the damages to be covered. If this is the case, speak to an attorney to see if anything may exist before giving up.

Most commonly, especially in California, people carry vehicle liability insurance. Liability insurance generally covers bodily injury and property damages caused to other parties when you are at fault in a collision. This insurance type does not cover your damages when you are liable and does not typically apply to a stolen vehicle in any situation.

Another form commonly found within liability insurance is Uninsured / Underinsured motorist coverage. This acts similarly to liability insurance but can cover you when someone else causes injury to you but does not have enough insurance to cover the costs. If a thief driving a stolen car damages someone else in an accident, the company insuring the stolen car will not compensate the injured party because the car was taken without consent. With uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, the injured party’s insurance company may pay the costs to them if coverage applies. If you are injured by a negligent driver of a stolen vehicle, this insurance will likely cover you. But, if your vehicle is the stolen property, it is unlikely that this will cover the damage to that car.

Collision coverage is a type of insurance that may be able to cover your property damages in the event of a stolen vehicle but is unlikely to cover others’ damages and certainly won’t cover any possible medical expenses from the incident. Comprehensive insurance offers coverage for theft and damages not caused by a collision. This would cover you, but not others, for the cost of repair or replacement if your vehicle is stolen.

The result of a stolen vehicle causing damage is often stressful and difficult to navigate. Although insurance may cover the damage, it tends to be an uphill battle to find any coverage when the damage is caused by a criminal act. We recommend talking to an attorney who is experienced in this field if it ever occurs to you.

For more information on insurance, click here.

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 Christopher Dolan and Emile Davis

This week’s question comes from an anonymous writer who asks: I was recently in a bad car accident. I was in the hospital and required surgery to put some screws and a plate in my shin. I am in therapy for some very private and personal issues arising from an abusive relationship. I don’t want to share that information with anyone, but, I have also been talking to my therapist about the difficulties in recovering from the accident and being so limited with my leg while I heal. It wasn’t my fault, but I am scared to bring a lawsuit.

Is there anything I can do to get compensated but not let the driver who hit me or the insurance companies know my personal business from my therapist even though I talked to her about the accident?

Dear Anonymous,

You have raised an interesting dilemma that affects many people who file a lawsuit and are in litigation. What you describe is at the heart of many privacy laws in California- the conflict between a litigant’s privacy and the need for information to get to the truth of a matter.

We need to start at the most basic level to understand how this conflict plays. First, every person has a privacy right to their medical records. The California constitution expressly provides that all people have an “inalienable” right to privacy. This clause has created a zone of privacy that protects against unwarranted compelled disclosure of certain private information, including medical records.

However, this privacy right is not absolute. As your question understands, certain medical privacy rights are waived by bringing a lawsuit. Clearly, in evaluating a leg injury like the one you have suffered, prior injuries to that leg would help inform a clear understanding of the damage this accident caused. Defendants sometimes litigate and argue that all privacy in medical records is waived by bringing a lawsuit. Courts have held the line well, limiting physical records to the body parts in question in the litigation or if the body parts are directly implicated.

Mental health records follow a similar analysis, but there is a more transparent and absolute way to protect therapy records from being disclosed. Part of the damages a Plaintiff in a civil lawsuit arising from an auto accident generally includes what is referred to as non-economic damages: pain and suffering, emotional distress, fear, and anxiety.

Since the non-economic damages are likely discussed in therapy records, as it is in your case where you have explained the difficulties of the recovery process with your therapist, they would be directly relevant to the litigation. However, the law has developed a mechanism to allow protections and allow the maintenance a litigant’s privacy.

The Plaintiff can make an election between what is known as a “garden variety” claim for emotional distress damages or what is called a “special claim”.

When making a “garden variety” claim, the Plaintiff indicates that “no claim is being made for mental and emotional distress over and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed.” If the emotional distress suffered is of the type expected from the physical injuries, a Plaintiff’s therapy records would not likely be at issue and could be kept from disclosure.

A special claim is the opposite. It is where the emotional injuries exceed what would be expected from the physical injuries. An example would be when someone had a severe emotional reaction and sought psychological treatment to deal with the emotional injures from the accident.

With the bit of information, we have from your question, it seems that a garden variety claim would accomplish your goals of moving forward with a lawsuit while, at the same time, likely keeping your therapy records private. Please understand that there is no half-measure; if some of the records from a therapist are disclosed to prove how difficult your recovery has been, that will often open up the rest of the therapy records.

If you choose to move forward with a lawsuit, make sure to find an attorney who is knowledgeable about these things and can advise you regarding these important issues.

Written By Christopher B. Dolan and Corinne D. Orquiola

This week’s question comes from Angelica H. in Pacific Heights who asks: I was at a complete stop at a red traffic light at the intersection of Market Street and 6th Street, when suddenly and without a warning, the vehicle directly in front of me reversed straight into my vehicle when the light turned green. The forceful impact caused me to crash into the vehicle behind me, leaving me sandwiched in between the two vehicles. The front of my vehicle is destroyed. To make things worse I began to feel excruciating pain in my right wrist, and it became swollen immediately after the impact. This is my first car accident, and I don’t know where to begin. I exchanged information with the other drivers and gave a statement to the reporting police officer. All I know is that my car is undriveable and I have a mounting pile of medical bills that I have not been able to pay since I had to take time off work after my wrist surgery. I realize that this is not a typical car accident, but is there anything I can do to recover for my medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering?

Dear Angelica: The short answer is yes, you may seek compensation for the economic and non-economic damages you suffered as a result of this collision. You did the right thing exchanging information with other drivers. After a car accident, it is very important to obtain the other driver’s information which includes:

Full Name
License Plate
Car Insurance Information

It is also important to obtain a copy of the police report and to take pictures of your injuries, the property damage, and the accident scene itself to give context.

Under California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 21451 (a), a driver facing a circular green signal, “…shall proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign prohibits a U-turn.” Furthermore, CVC 22106 states that, “No person shall start a vehicle stopped, standing, or parked on a highway, nor shall any person back a vehicle on a highway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.”

In your case, the driver violated these two sections because they failed to proceed straight through the intersection as mandated by CVC 21451(a). Second, they did not start the vehicle from a stop with reasonable safety because they did not notice that the vehicle was in reverse gear. Clearly, they were operating the vehicle negligently.

If you were injured in a car accident because of another’s negligent driving, you have the right to seek compensation for your economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages include tangible losses that can be easily calculated such as medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage. In regard to the medical expenses you have incurred, you are entitled to recover the amount paid by your health insurance as well as any out-of-pocket expenses. For this reason, it is important to keep copies of your medical expenses, including but not limited to:

medical bills
receipts for pain medication, and
receipts for any medical devices you had to purchase as a result of the accident.

Similarly, you will want to gather information to support your loss of wages claim such as pay stubs or a letter from your employer confirming the dates you missed from work as a result of this collision.

Non-economic damages are more difficult to quantify as those damages relate to the types of harm that do not come with a receipt. Under California Jury instruction 3905A, you may recover for non-economic damages which include things like pain and suffering, physical impairment, disfigurement, grief, anxiety, humiliation, inconvenience and emotional distress. Be mindful of how your life has changed since the accident and take note of activities you are unable to do as a result of your injury as they will form part of your non-economic claim.

We have handled numerous cases in which individuals have suffered bodily injuries due car accidents. However, this column does not constitute legal advice and it is important that you consult with an experienced trial lawyer as soon as possible, especially if you suffered personal injuries.

Safety Regulations for Commercial Trucks Carrying Fruits and Vegetables

This week’s question comes from Mark C. in Modesto who asks:

Q: “Yesterday morning I was driving on the freeway when a large semi-truck merged into my lane. The semi-truck was loaded with tomatoes which were not covered and appeared to be overflowing. As he merged into my lane the semi-truck jerked a bit, which caused some of the tomatoes to fall and splash onto my windshield and on the road ahead of me. I lost control of my vehicle and I almost crashed into the center divider. Thankfully, I was able to regain control of my vehicle, but this incident could have easily turned into a tragic accident. What are the laws regarding commercial trucks transporting fresh produce? Shouldn’t they be required to cover the fresh produce or refrain from over loading the truck to prevent spillage?”

A: Mark, I am glad to hear that you were not seriously injured, although I can imagine this was a frightening experience. California has established laws that apply to just this risk of escaping cargo posed commercial trucks. The purpose of these laws is to prevent spillage, which can cause traffic problems and, most importantly, serious injury or death to other motorists driving on the highway.

Under California Vehicle Code Sections 23114 and 23115, it is against the law to operate on the highway a vehicle which is improperly covered, constructed, or loaded so that any part of its contents or load spills, drops, leaks, blows, sifts, or in any other way escapes from the vehicle. The only contents that are allowed to fall from a truck are feathers from live birds and clear water. California Vehicle Code Section 24002 also provides that, “It is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in an unsafe condition, or which is not safely loaded, and which presents an immediate safety hazard.” Moreover, the Department of Motor Vehicles’ (“DMV”) Commercial Driver Handbook also provides that any person who willfully or negligently damages any street or highway is liable for the costs of removing the debris from the roadway. A driver can be cited for spilling tomatoes on the road and the company can be fined for the costs incurred to clean up the mess. The semi-truck that merged into your lane had a duty to abide by both the California Vehicle Code’s spill protection safety requirements and the the littering prevention mandates of the DMV Commercial Driver Handbook. .

Under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior, codified in California Civil Code Section 2338, the employer of an individual is responsible for the torts (wrongs) committed by its employee that happen within the “scope and course of their employment,” in order to spread the risk through insurance and carry the cost thereof as part of his costs of doing business. In this case, the trucking company had the responsibility to make sure that the tomatoes were properly loaded. The cargo on the semi-truck should have been covered or in the alternative it should have been loaded with sufficient space below the upper edge of the semi-truck to prevent spillage. Clearly, the semi-truck driver and his employer did not follow the safety requirements as provided by California laws and negligently packed the tomatoes, which subsequently caused them to fall off the truck as the semi-truck was merging into your lane.

Such negligent conduct by companies in charge of transporting cargo can cause serious personal injury to motorists on the road when they fail to follow safety procedures. In your case, as a result of their negligence, tomatoes splashed onto your windshield and onto the roadway which caused you to lose control of your vehicle. Generally, the statute of limitations for personal injury is two years from the date of the incident; however, it is important to highlight that if a government entity is involved, such as the California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”), under California Government Code Section 910 you must bring a claim against the government entity within six months after the incident. you must serve a 910 Government Claim Form on the district, and certain specific rules about serving this document, what must be included in this document, and when it must be filed must be followed to provide the district notice that you will file a civil case. I urge you to contact an attorney experienced in this area to assist you in this complex process.

We have handled numerous cases in which individuals have suffered bodily injuries due to the negligence of semi-truck drivers. However, this column does not constitute legal advice and it is important that you consult with an experienced trial lawyer as soon as possible, especially if you you suffered personal injuries.

Christopher B. Dolan is the owner of the Dolan Law Firm. Email Chris questions and topics for future articles to help@dolanlawfirm.com.
We serve clients across the San Francisco Bay Area and California from our offices in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles. Our work is no recovery, no free or also referred to as contingency-based. That means we collect no fee unless we obtain money for your damages and injuries.

The Six-Car Accident Was Caused By a Big Rig Peterbuilt Truck

Escalon, CA (October 6, 2016) – A man was killed and five other people were injured in a multi-vehicle crash on Highway 120 on Monday, October 3, 2016. The crash occurred at about 5:05 p.m. during regular commuting hours on the eastbound Highway 120 at Main Street. Two men and three women suffered injuries of various levels.

Fatal Highway 580 Crash Highlights Dangers Posed By Large Trucks

Highway 580 Crash.jpg

A fiery six-vehicle crash involving a semi-truck before 6 a.m. on Wednesday, April 27, 2016, on Interstate Highway 580 in Pleasanton, California took the life of the driver of a BMW. A big-rig slammed into the BMW which caught fire. The driver, a 43-year old man from Brentwood, was trapped inside and died. Although other vehicles also caught fire in the chain reaction accident, no other drivers or occupants were seriously injured.

The fatal Highway 580 fatal crash highlights the vulnerability of people traveling in cars when a large truck accident occurs. Each year nearly 2,500 persons in cars drivers and passengers die in accidents across America involving a large truck.

As explained by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, “trucks often weigh 20-30 times as much as passenger cars and are taller with greater ground clearance, which can result in smaller vehicles underriding trucks in crashes.”

Bus And Truck Driver Fatigue A Significant Safety Threat

Greyhound Bus crash

Today’s question comes from Marisol S. in South San Francisco who asks “my friend was on the Greyhound bus that crashed on Monday. They say that the driver may have been too tired and fell asleep. Isn’t the bus company supposed to make sure that the drivers aren’t drunk or falling asleep? How can they let someone who is falling asleep drive a bus? What laws apply? What are her rights?”

NTSB Makes Truck And Motorcoach Recommendations

A 2014 California collision between a semi truck, a passenger car and a motorcoach led to an extensive investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board. That investigation culminated in the NTSB releasing several recommendations designed to improve highway safety. The accident claimed the lives of 10 people, some of which might have been saved if the safety measures had been in place beforehand.

Truck Accident Deaths Rise Again

The traffic fatality data from 2013 has been released. The U.S. Transportation Department announced the results of the report and the news is largely positive. In 2013, traffic fatalities dropped 3.1 percent to a total of 32,719. The news was not all positive, however. Large-truck accident deaths rose for the fourth consecutive year. In addition, the total number of crashes rose. Those crashes were obviously survived at a greater rate, but the collisions themselves are still up. With fatalities down overall, more attention will likely be paid to the areas where safety has not improved.