San Francisco Injury Attorney Blog

A horrific accident at a Watts intersection did permanent damage to a Los Angeles family, leaving a father dead and a daughter suffering from severe and permanent physical injuries. According to a lawsuit the family recently filed, the tragedy was preventable, as the intersection had a long reputation for danger and injuries, but the school district took no actions to try to minimize that danger, the Southwest Riverside News Network reported.

Jose Luis Arreola, a father of two, took his wife and three-year-old daughter to the Ritter School in Watts to attend an award ceremony honoring several children, including the couple's eight-year-old daughter. After the ceremony, as the family entered a crosswalk on Santa Ana Boulevard near Watts Avenue, a car stopped for the family. However, the driver of an SUV chose to pass the car and proceed through the intersection. The SUV struck the father and the eldest child, killing the father and leaving the girl with permanent injuries.

The Arreola family subsequently sued the Los Angeles Unified School District, along with the City and County of Los Angeles, for wrongful death, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the family's complaint, the intersection where the accident occurred had a long history of accidents, causing local residents and Ritter School parents to nickname the location the "intersection of death." The school district allegedly held a community meeting to discuss the problematic intersection the day before the Arreolas' accident.

Despite the widespread knowledge of the intersection's danger, which the family argued that the city, county and school knew about or should have known about, no steps had been taken to alleviate the risks of the area. According to the complaint, the section of Santa Ana Boulevard where Arreola died had no stops signs, speed bumps, traffic signals or speed limit signs in the area approaching the intersection. "Cars are unaware of the presence of the school, the intersection, or the need to moderate their speeds," the complaint contended.

The complaint stated that the eldest daughter suffered paralysis as a result of the accident, and that her injuries are so significant that she requires around-the-clock care, and will need such care for the rest of her life.

Prompt action is an essential component of pursuing a case like this. Under California statutory law, a city or county may be liable if the victims can prove that a dangerous road condition caused, or at least contributed to, the accident. However, victims must file their cases against government entities within 180 days.

Traffic or highway accidents can cause great damage to individuals and families, and the attempts to obtain compensation may be very complicated, especially if a roadway condition helped cause the accident. As with many cases, timely action is essential. If you've been injured, or lost a loved one, as a result of a vehicle collision, contact our experienced San Francisco car accident and wrongful death attorneys. The determined San Francisco injury attorneys at Callaway & Wolf can help you ensure than you have the opportunity to pursue all avenues of recovery to which you are entitled.

A woman who entered a Torrance hospital for a routine surgical operation witnessed one of a patient's worst nightmares: a procedure gone horribly wrong and massively injuries as a result. In a lawsuit, the woman claims that malpractice allowed a post-hysterectomy infection to sweep through her body and result in the amputation of both her arms and legs, the Los Angeles Daily News reports.
In the summer of 2012, Annette Ramirez elected to undergo surgery to address a benign mass on her uterus. On Aug. 1, Ramirez entered the Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center for a routine laparoscopic hysterectomy. The procedure involved inserting a camera and several instruments through small incisions in the patient's skin. According to the patient's complaint, the doctors who performed the procedure, James Scharffenberger and Lisa Fisher, poked a hole in her colon during the operation. Allegedly, the doctors did not notice the hole and reported the surgery as "without complication."
Over the next two days, Ramirez allegedly showed telltale signs of infection, including low blood pressure, elevated heart rate and low urine output. While the patient's nurses noticed these problems and expressed concern, Scharffenberger allegedly ignored the signs and the nurses, instead prescribing extra pain medicine and an enema. The enema exacerbated the problem, as it increased the volume of bowel waste leaking the hole in Ramirez's colon. Ultimately, this allegedly led to peritonitis. Two days thereafter, doctors discovered the perforated bowel and returned Ramirez to surgery to close the perforated bowel.
Unfortunately, the damage was already done as gangrene had set in. Her skin began turning black and doctors amputated part of her arms and legs, including both legs above the ankle, her right arm above her elbow, and her left arm above the wrist.
Ramirez has sued the hospital, Scharffenberger, Foster, and six other doctors, seeking damages for negligence, loss of consortium and home services. "She knows she's lost her arms and legs. She knows she's never going to be able to take care of her young children," Ramirez's attorney, Bruce Fagel told the Daily News. "She's never going to be able to go back to work." Ramirez works for the USC Alumni Association and is the mother of two children, ages 6 and 13.
Fagel told the Daily News that the crux of the complaint was the failure to identify, and treat, the obvious signs of infection in a timely manner. "Basically, what occurred here is a complication of this particular kind of surgery, which if they had recognized it and treated it right away would have been nothing. It would have been no big deal. It would have been treatable and dealt with," the attorney said.
According to the California Medical Board's website, Scharffenberger had a record devoid of disciplinary actions or malpractice settlements.
Recently, the family of 54-year-old North Carolina woman received a $7 million judgment after doctors perforated her colon during a routine hysterectomy. The resulting septic shock and organ failure ultimately killed the woman.
Any medical procedure, even a seemingly routine one, is a serious health matter, requiring the utmost in attention from doctors, not only during the operation, but in post-operative care, as well. When they do not, serious consequences can result. Our San Francisco medical malpractice attorneys are here to help when doctors do not live up to the required standard of care. Our San Francisco medical malpractice attorneys are knowledgeable and experienced at helping injured patients assert their legal rights fully.

A former professional football star's tragic suicide has taken another turn, with his family suing the National Football League for wrongful death, accusing the league of hiding the true extent of the risk of brain injury to its players, the Associated Press reported.

Junior Seau was professional football player from 1990 to 2009. Seau retired from football in 2010. Just two years later, he fatally shot himself in the chest. Seau's family now claims that the emotional state that caused the football star to kill himself was the result of brain disease brought on by years of collisions he incurred playing the sport. Tests conducted on Seau's body after his death revealed that he had developed chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

The family, in the lawsuit, which was filed in Superior Court in San Diego, claimed that Seau developed CTE from the two decades of delivering and receiving hits in his head area. The family argued that the league either ignored or concealed the dangers, of which it was aware, to players as a result of recurring blows to the head. The science had existed for decades. "Since the 1950s and 1960s, a substantial body of medical and scientific evidence has demonstrated neuro-cognitive injuries in the sport of football as a result of" mild traumatic brain injury, the complaint stated.

Furthermore, the league's motivation in ignoring or hiding the dangers to its players was strictly economic, the family alleged. The league raked in billions of dollars using a marketing strategy that "propagated the false myth that collisions of all kinds, including brutal and ferocious collisions, many of which lead to short-term and long-term neurological damage to players, are an acceptable, desired, and natural consequence of the game, and a measure of the courage and heroism of players involved at every level of the game," the family asserted. The league was invested in hiding this danger because it "knew or suspected that any rule changes [to address brain injury risks] would impose an economic cost that would significantly and adversely change the profit margins enjoyed by the NFL and its teams," the complaint stated.

Also named in the suit was Riddell, Inc., the company which manufactures helmets worn by NFL players. The family's complaint stated that the Riddell helmets worn by players like Seau were unreasonably dangerous and unsafe. The helmet maker was negligent in the manner that it carried out its designing, testing, assembling, manufacturing, marketing and engineering of its helmet, the family claimed.

"You can't deny it exists, and it is hard to deny there is a link between head trauma and CTE. There's such strong evidence correlating head trauma and collisions and CTE," Seau's ex-wife, Gina, told the Associated Press after doctors first diagnosed the late football star with CTE.

While few people work in an environment like Junior Seau did, everyone can reasonably expect to be able to have a workplace free from potentially fatal dangers that employer knows of, but hides to maximize profit margin. If you've lost a loved one, or experienced a traumatic brain injury, contact our knowledgeable San Francisco wrongful death attorneys and traumatic brain injury atorneys to discuss your matter. Our San Francisco wrongful death attorneys are knowledgeable in this area of law and experienced at handling these important cases.

Trial courts in Florida will now have a new outlook for how to handle rear-end vehicle crash injury lawsuits. In resolving a pair of conflicting appellate court decisions, the state's highest court determined that the second driver in such an accident is not necessarily the sole party at fault, the Miami Herald reported. In a unanimous ruling, the state's Supreme Court decided that juries should hear all evidence relating to each driver, and apportion liability according to each driver's comparative fault.
The decision means that the case of Maria Cevallos gets another chance to argue her case. Cevallos, who had originally been deemed solely at fault, may now seek partial, comparative damages against another driver, Keri Ann Rideout, in her case. Cevallos alleged that Rideout was using her cell phone and rear-ended a car in front of her, and that Cevallos was unable to avoid rear-ending Rideout's vehicle. In making the ruling, Supreme Court Justice Jorge Labarga stated that the "facts introduced into evidence at trial provided sufficient basis for the jury to conclude that [Rideout] failed to use ordinary care in operating her vehicle, and that this failure was at least one of the proximate causes of the collision."
The ruling also means that Crystal Charron will get her day before a jury, as well. Crystal Charron was injured when the motorcycle upon which she was riding flipped over. The motorcycle's driver lost control of the vehicle when he unsuccessfully attempted to avoid a vehicle driven by Warren Birge. Charron argued that Birge was responsible since he suddenly slammed on his brakes for no reason. The trial court had ruled that the motorcycle driver was 100% at fault, but the appeals court in that case had agreed with Charron and reversed.
The Supreme Court explained that, although Florida law presumes that the rear driver in a rear-end vehicle collision is the negligent party, parties may introduce evidence an attempt to overcome that presumption. The Florida ruling is in line with the state of the law in many locations, including California. California Vehicle Code Section 22350 (the basic speed law) prohibits driving "at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." In many rear-end collisions, it may be concluded that the rear driver failed to drive at a reasonable speed given the condition of that road at that time. California does not, however, place automatic liability on the rear driver, and allows the introduction of evidence that the front driver was, in fact, the one driving in a negligent or unsafe manner.
Vehicle accident injury lawsuits are often complicated matters, hinging upon detailed and intricate facts, and how those facts are presented to a judge or jury. If you've been injured in a vehicle crash, you should consult experienced injury attorneys about your case. Our San Francisco injury attorneys are here to help you analyze your case and determine the best legal path for you.

A tragic apparent suicide in the Bay Area spawned a considerable debate over morality and public policy after rescue workers stood by and watched for an hour as a man drowned him in the San Francisco Bay. It also triggered a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of Alameda, but a judge dismissed that suit earlier this month, concluding that the rescue workers had no duty to save the man and took no action that heightened the risk of harm to him, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

On Memorial Day, 2011, 52-year-old Robert Zack went to the Robert Brown Memorial State Beach and waded into the 54-degree waters of the San Francisco Bay. Onlookers called 911 and police and firefighters from the City of Alameda arrived at the scene. The officers cleared the beach, but took no steps to save the man. After approximately one hour, the man drowned in the surf. An off-duty psychiatric nurse, acting against the instructions of fire and police personnel, entered the water and retrieved Zack's body from the bay.

The city explained that, due to budget cuts, it had eliminated its water rescue capabilities. City policy prevented the officers from entering the water because they were untrained in water rescues. According to the Alameda Sun, the incident led to a "scathing" operational review from a former state fire marshal.

The city later restored water rescue funding and purchased a new boat for water rescues.

Zack's brother and sister sued in Alameda County Superior Court. The siblings argued that the officers had a duty to attempt to rescue their brother, and that they worsened the risk of harm when they cleared the beach and told civilians not to enter the water to attempt to save the man.

Judge George Hernandez, Jr., however, concluded that the police and firefighters had no duty to save the man. At no time did the officers undertake any action that would amount to assuming a duty to rescue the man, and none of their actions, including clearing the beach, increased the risk of harm to the drowning man. The judge wrote that the "policy of preventing future harm ... and consequences to the community of finding a duty weigh heavily in favor of not imposing additional tort liability that would deter police and firefighters from responding to emergencies and rendering assistance."

Rob Cartwright, an attorney for the siblings, expressed disappointment with the ruling. "We respectfully disagree as to ... whether they had a duty to Zack, and whether they violated the duty. There's a reason that the public was outraged at what happened there."

City Attorney Janet Kern, in a press release, stated that, it was "unfortunate that Mr. Zack was so distraught that he took his own life," but that "the ruling amounts to a finding that the responding police officers and firefighters acted reasonably and diligently in what was undeniably a very difficult situation."

In recent years, especially in the current era of severe public budget limitations, the public, and the courts, have wrestled with the issues of the proper bounds of liability for emergency response officers. If you've lost a loved due to another person's negligent action, or inaction, our San Francisco wrongful death attorneys are here to help. The hardworking San Francisco wrongful death attorneys at Callaway & Wolf have years of experience handling wrongful death cases and are ready to help you pursue your rights under the law.

The City of Tampa, Fla. is considering a potential settlement in a negligence lawsuit arising when a city worker drove over a four-year-old boy in a tricycle, the Tampa Bay Times reports. Like most settlements, this one would not require the city to admit any fault, and would place nearly $50,000 into a trust for the boy.
In 2009, Willie Thornton Jr. was meter reader for the City of Tampa. Thornton, while out of his truck, to explain some aspects of his work to a local resident, Donna Holt. The worker then returned to his vehicle and prepared to leave. The resident called out to several children to move away from the truck. However, neither Thornton nor the resident saw four-year-old Esdras Vanegas, who was pedaling his "Big Wheel" tricycle in front of the truck. Thornton's truck struck the boy's tricycle, snagging Vanegas in the vehicle's undercarriage and dragging him for a distance of 13 feet.
Police did not cite Thornton, and the city did not discipline the worker for the incident, who consistently received excellent assessments in his 10 years of employment reviews, including for attention to safety. The boy's family authorized Holt, and her husband Michael Holt, who are not related to Vanegas, to act on the boy's behalf. The Holts sued the city, alleging that Thornton was negligent in operating his truck. "When you're in a residential community, and you know that there are minor children on or near the street, you have a duty to use reasonable care," explained James Loper, attorney for the Holts. The city, however, contended that Thornton did use reasonable care and was not negligent. The failure, the city argued, rested with Vanegas's mother, for not watching him more carefully.
Now age 7, the boy has scars near his right eye, right ear and over the upper portion of his body. A plastic surgeon examined Vanegas and opined that repairing his scars probably would cost $35,000 if completed today. However, the surgeon recommended postponing the surgery until the boy is at least 14.
Currently under consideration by the city is a settlement in which the city pays $65,000, but admits no liability for the accident. Once the Holts' attorney receives his fees, and court costs are paid, $46,646 would remain, according to court records. This remainder would be deposited into a trust for the benefit of the boy. Additionally, a guardian ad litem has been appointed on the boy's behalf as part of the case.
The City Council is scheduled to vote on the settlement soon. James Shimberg Jr., attorney for the city, declined to comment on the either case or the settlement.
Here in the Bay Area, compensation for an injury such as this would likely be significantly higher. In any settlement for a minor, a court hearing is required, and attorney's fees are often limited by the judge.
If you or your children have been injured by another driver's negligence, you should consult capable San Francisco accident attorneys about your case. Our San Francisco accident attorneys can help you review your case and determine what rights you have and what plan works best for you.

As the National Football League faces a potentially multi-billion dollar legal action regarding its culpability in the traumatic brain injuries its players suffered while playing in the league, athletic governing bodies and lawmakers at all levels are seeking out ways to make the sport of football safer, and to protect the brains of the players who participate.
According to a 2011 U.S. Centers for Disease Control report, medical providers reported more than 200,000 emergency room visits annually from injuries related to sports and recreation, with nearly two-thirds of those traumatic brain injuries happening to children age five to 18. During the previous decade, the number of ER visits skyrocketed from around 150,000 in 2001 to nearly 250,000 in 2009. Of those injured people, the highest rates occurred among 10-to-19-year-old males. The activities generating the largest number of brain-oriented ER visits were bicycling, football, playground activities, basketball, and soccer. For the oft-injured group of 10-to-19-year-old males, the most injurious activities were football and bicycling.
California, in recent days, has taken steps to improve player safety for interscholastic and youth sports. Assembly Bill 25, which Governor Jerry Brown signed into law in October 2011, places new restrictions on school sports, or any sports activities occurring at school facilities. The new law requires that coaches or administrators who suspect that a player has suffered a concussion or head injury, immediately remove that player for the remainder of the day. The law prohibits the player from returning to sports activity until a licensed medical provider, who is properly trained in diagnosing concussions and brain injuries evaluates the player and gives the player written clearance to return to his or her sport.
Additionally, the law requires a player's parent or guardian to sign and return a concussion and head injury information sheet. The player cannot practice or compete until submission of the form.
Some believe these measures are not enough, Dr. Geoffrey T. Manley, the Chief of Neurosurgery at San Francisco General Hospital, wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle. "We ... need to study the long-term outcomes of concussions and better track the concussions that athletes sustain in their careers. Today, this information is generally not recorded in a standardized way to be shared with athletic and medical personnel over time."
Manley also pointed to the equipment players wear as a factor. "[W]e need to find ways to ensure that new helmet technology and other advances are not confined to the most elite level of the sport but filter their way down to every level of play, where the majority of the injuries are happening and prevention is most needed... [W]e need to do more to better protect our most vulnerable and numerous athletes - the youngsters."
Participation in school sports such as football can help build skills such as teamwork, leadership and communication. These sports, however, may also offer an unfortunate side effect of harm, including traumatic brain injury. Schools have a duty to keep their athletes safe when they participate in interscholastic sports. If you have a loved one who suffered a head injury, call our brain injury attorneys to discuss your case. Our San Francisco injury attorneys can go over the duties others had to protect your loved one's safety and the right to recovery your family may have.

The attorney for a man injured at a bar hopes that his case, and its multimillion dollar judgment, will serve as a flashpoint for change in how bars address customer safety. The bar, however, plans to appeal, arguing that the jury did not get to hear the whole case, according to Hawaii News Now.
Ernie Verdugo was the designated driver for a group of friends who visited the Mai Tai Bar in Honolulu. According to Verdugo, the exit path of the bar was blocked by a crowd of people and the bar's tile floor was covered in beer. The man slipped and fell, injuring his leg. In the ensuing seven years, the man underwent seven surgeries, four to address a blood clot in his leg. After battling the blood clot, the man then developed a clot-related condition called post-thrombotic syndrome. As a result, Verdugo had impaired circulation in his leg and experienced daily pain and swelling. Because of these limitations, Verdugo, a former tour guide, was unable to work.
The man sued and won, with the jury returning an award of $2 million in general damages, along with another $144,000 in special damages. The man told Hawaii News Now that the money was a poor substitute for what he had lost: "I don't care if they gave me $10 million I would rather have my life back, to where I was the day before I had my accident."
Howard Glickstein, Verdugo's attorney, expressed a hope that the judgment could change the way bars address safety issues and become more diligent in ensuring customer safety. "It's not okay to have wet floors and rely on four waitresses to make sure your customers don't slip and fall and die," he stated to Hawaii News Now.
But, Glickstein said, no such changes occurred at the Mai Tai Bar. "Anyone who goes into the Mai Tai Bar on a night when there is live music they are taking their lives into their hands literally." Bars, and all businesses open to the public, have a duty to maintain a safe environment. This duty includes keeping floors clear of hazards. To recover, though, a person who falls and is injured must prove that the business had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. Actual notice can rarely be proved for spills, and these cases usually turn on whether the business inspected and cleaned the floors often enough.
In a written statement, Steve Schienthal, the Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Mai Tai's parent entity, Landry's, indicated that the bar planned to appeal the ruling. Schienthal stated that the trial judge in the Verdugo case wrongfully excluded several pieces of key evidence. The evidence, Schienthal stated, showed that the man was predisposed to his leg problems.
Schienthal also accused Glickstein of improperly trying to influence the business's decision regarding an appeal. "[I]ncredible as this sounds, the plaintiff's lawyer threatened to generate negative publicity against us unless we agreed not to seek an appeal of this case." This is a serious allegation, which could lead to discipline and/or a lawsuit against the plaintiff's attorney if it were proven.
Restaurants, bars and clubs sometimes fail to be attentive to maintaining safe conditions. If you've been injured in a slip and fall at a business establishment, call our experienced San Francisco injury attorneys right away. Businesses have a legal duty to maintain their premises in a safe condition for their employees and patrons, and if you're injured when they fail to do so, our skilled slip and fall attorneys will help you what you may be entitled to recover.

Republican senators and representatives issued strong critiques of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department earlier this week, complaining that the department has failed to perform its duties regarding medical malpractice reform options, thehill.com reported.
The issue of medical malpractice reform is a long-standing priority of Republicans in Congress. Based upon a 2009 speech, Republicans believed they shared some common ground with President Barack Obama. President Obama stated, at that time, that he was willing consider legislation that placed caps on damages awards in lawsuits against medical providers. The president also agreed that, in some cases, doctors sometimes conduct unnecessary tests, simply because they fear being sued and believe that the superfluous tests will help guard them in the event of a malpractice claim.
In 2010, HHS, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, awarded more than $23 million to study malpractice reform. According to the Republicans, though, the funds have yielded little in the way of results. Obama's 2009 "speech gave the clear impression that taxpayers' monies would be spent, in significant part, on projects related to "traditional" medical malpractice reforms," the Republicans asserted in a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of HHS. Despite this, the Republicans complained that "it appears that none of the $23.2 million awarded has gone to researching or implementing 'traditional' medical malpractice reforms."
The Republicans support a "traditional" reform policy like the approach advocated by the American Medical Association. The AMA favors capping non-economic damages for medical malpractice suits at $250,000. Non-economic damages, which may include pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium or companionship, and other intangible injuries, are often the most unpredictable portion of a jury award. Reform advocates claim that this unpredictability causes malpractice insurers to charge significantly higher premiums, and the high cost of medical malpractice insurance, in turn, results in the extraordinarily high cost of healthcare.
Opponents of such reform measures argue that such caps, which may also include abbreviated statutes of limitations and caps on attorneys' fees, serve only to create an unfair impediment to access to justice for injured people. Mary Alice McLarty, president of the American Association for Justice, noted in a CNN.com opinion article that "98,000 die every year" as a result of "preventable medical errors." Malpractice reform does not work, McLarty asserted, because "when no one is accountable, no one is safe." McLarty also noted that one of key stated objectives of reform, reigning in healthcare costs, does not follow from traditional reform measures. She pointed out that Texas enacted a $250,000 non-economic damages cap in 2003, but that state's healthcare costs have risen faster than anywhere else in the country.
Medical malpractice reform will remain a hot-button political issue as long as healthcare costs remain so expensive. While limiting the cost of care is important, there is clear evidence that limiting compensation for victims is not the answer. Studies have shown the the entire cost of the medical malpractice compensation system are only about 1% of U.S. health care costs. If you've been injured by negligence of a doctor or other health care provider, our San Francisco malpractice attorneys are here to help.

A northern California woman has begun a campaign to get dogs out of certain parts of an area park after an American bulldog attacked her son. According to a NBC Bay Area report, the city had placed signs stating that dogs were not allowed, but parks workers admitted they had not enforced the restriction for years.

Nine-year-old Jakob Buzynski was playing inside a softball field area of a Suisun City park when he approached a woman and her dog, asking permission to pet her dog. The owner stated that the dog was friendly, but it attacked the boy, causing significant damage to his lip and face. The dog's owner later stated that the animal lives with three small children and had never attacked anyone before.

The boy's mother, Lorelei Burzynski, later questioned why the city permitted the dog inside the softball field area, since signs posted at the entrance to the softball fields stated, "no pets allowed." The mother told NBC Bay Area that dogs should be excluded from the softball fields, so that her son and other children could be safe and comfortable while playing there.

Mick Jessop, the city's director of recreation, stated that enforcement had become more relaxed over the years. Furthermore, NBC Bay Area reported that the current Suisun City ordinances allow dogs at city parks if leashed. City leaders told NBC Bay Area that, in light of the attack on Burzynski, the signs and the city ordinances need to be revisited.

Often dog owners are covered by homeowners insurance, even when the dog is out in public. In many cases, other parties, such as a landlord, can be held liable for injuries caused by a dog owned by someone else, such as in the situation where a dog is known to be dangerous, but the landlord does nothing to prevent harm.
The first step, of course, in any dog bite situation, is to report the incident to police and seek medical attention, as needed. The Solano County web site states that persons seeking to report an animal attack should contact the county's Animal Care Services or, if not during business hours, the Sheriff's Office dispatch. After reporting the incident to the appropriate authorities, though, you should contact a dog bite injury attorney to discuss the incident. Depending on the facts of your case, you may be able to obtain compensation for your injuries, and not only from the owner of the dog. In some cases, a town or city can have liability for failing to take steps to prevent dog attacks. California has a two-year statute of limitations for dog bite injuries, but this time is shortened to six months for cities and other governmental agencies.

Case of pit bull attack in Santa Monica park settles
Recently, the City of Santa Monica settled a dog bite case, where a pit bull mauled a boy in a city park. In that case, the dog broke through a defective gate that enclosed a dog run at the city's Memorial Park. Once free, the dog mauled seven-year-old Zachary Rasmussen, causing brain, neck, back and shoulder injuries. Zachary's family sued, and the city and the family ultimately settled the case for $325,000, the Los Angeles Times reported.

It is important to consult a San Francisco dog bite attorney if a dog attacks and injures you. The law may allow you to obtain compensation from the animal's owner, or others responsible for controlling the animal, depending on the circumstances of your case, such as an animal's history of aggression or violence. Even if the animal has no negative history, you may still be able to recover, as California law has no "one bite" rule with regard to animal attacks.

See Other Blog Posts:

Pit Bull and Other Dog Bites

A jury took only a half-hour to find in favor of an elderly woman's doctor in a case involving the death of the woman's partner. The deceased man's family contended that the doctor, by failing to initiate steps to have authorities revoke the woman's driver's license, bore some of the blame for the accident she caused, which killed the man. The jury concluded that the doctor's failure to report the woman did not violate the appropriate standard of care or state law, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Among Dr. Arthur Daigneault's patients was 82-year-old Lorraine Sullivan. Daigneault had treated Sullivan for memory loss, dementia and Alzheimer's disease since December 2007. The doctor last saw Sullivan in May 2010, where the patient complained of still-worsening memory. The doctor switched Sullivan to a different Alzheimer's drug. Although California law, specifically Health and Safety Code Section 103900, requires doctors to submit a confidential report to the local health department officials when a patient is diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease or related disorders, including dementia, that are severe enough to be likely to impair the patient's ability to operate a motor vehicle, the doctor did not report his patient. Daigneault testified that he believed Sullivan's memory issues were not sufficiently severe to require a report to the health department.

Two weeks after that last appointment, Sullivan drove her Toyota Corolla into oncoming traffic. The ensuing accident injured her, but killed long-time partner William Powers, who was riding in the passenger's seat. Powers' family sued Daigneault for wrongful death. The doctor argued, however, that neither the statute nor the standard of care he owed Sullivan required him to report her to state authorities. While severe cases of Alzheimer's might be a valid trigger for reporting and revocation of a driver's license, Daigneault contended that Sullivan's problems were comparatively mild. According to the doctor, Sullivan was lucid and competent enough that she was still able to hide her memory loss from her family.

The Orange County jury sided with the doctor. Daigneault did not act improperly by declining to report Sullivan, the jury determined. The doctor's attorney cheered the verdict after the case's conclusion. "The purpose of the statute is not to get forgetful people off the road," the attorney told the Times. Powers' son, Craig Powers, who served as one of the plaintiffs in the case against Daigneault, expressed disappointment to the Times but also stated his hope that, even in defeat, the case placed a spotlight on the issue of elderly drivers and the dangers posed by declining reflexes and memories. The son expressed an interest in advocating for changes to the statute to reduce the amount of independent judgment doctors have in deciding whether or not to report seniors with dementia or related problems. "Why not err on the side of safety?" the son asked.

Although this case was unsuccessful, other cases brought under California's Health & Safety Code section 103900 have prevailed. Typically, these cases have involved diagnosis of a condition which causes seizures or blackouts, such as epilepsy. In some cases, doctors have avoided liability by claiming that other doctors made the diagnosis before, so they believed that the condition had already been reported.

Any time a person dies as a result of a vehicle crash, it is tragic. In many cases, though, it is also preventable. If you have lost someone in a car accident, you should call a San Francisco wrongful death attorney right away to discuss the circumstances surrounding the situation. Any of a number of people who could have prevented the accident may have also had a legal duty which they failed to meet. An attorney can help you find out whether the law holds someone else responsible for their failure to take actions which could have prevented the incident.

A family, seeking to recover for the loss of their loved one, who allegedly died from an untreated complication of a routine surgery, received an unusual favorable ruling when a trial court allowed them to pursue punitive damages in the case. The court determined that, not only did the family raise an issue of wrongful death, but also of fraud and a conspiracy between the surgeon and the hospital to hide the true cause of death.
In January 2010, Tyrone Taylor went to the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center to have a herniated cervical disc removed from his neck. After the surgery, a hematoma developed around the surgical site, which obstructed his airway. The hematoma expanded and ultimately asphyxiated Taylor. In a wrongful death civil suit, the Taylor family contended that the hematoma was a routine complication of the surgery, and that Taylor only died because hospital staff failed to tend to the patient and ensure that his airway was clear.
According to the Taylor family's civil complaint, Taylor's wife began inquiring as to how her husband died, but hospital staff told her that the cause of death was undetermined pending autopsy results. Hospital staff allegedly never mentioned the hematoma to the wife at all. The hospital retained the services of an ethically suspect pathologist, who would then file a false autopsy report asserting a natural cause of death, according to the complaint. While Taylor's neurosurgeon, Donald Ramberg, told the wife that the patient died from fatty liver, Ramberg indicated cardiac arrhythmia and enlarged heart on the patient's death certificate.
The family contends that in addition to wrongful death, Ramberg and the hospital conspired to fraudulently conceal the true cause of the patient's death and hide their culpability in that death. The family conceded that, generally, California law does not allow for the recovery of non-economic or punitive damages in cases alleging only wrongful death, but that in light of the doctor and hospital's conspiracy, fraud and cover-up, the law entitled them to seek punitive damages.
In what a press release issued by the family's attorneys described as a "rare" ruling, the San Luis Obispo Superior Court agreed. "Although the jury could conclude that these facts prove nothing other than a series of unfortunate coincidences surrounding a tragedy, it also could conclude that Defendants attempted to cover up the true cause of death, and that Sierra Vista deliberately hired a pathologist who would muddle the causation waters in order to head off a potential lawsuit." In addition, the court concluded that the family raised triable issues regarding whether Ramberg and the hospital "feigned ignorance" of the patient's cause of death, why the hospital retained an outside pathologist when a doctor was present when Taylor died, and why the hospital rushed Taylor's wife to consent to the autopsy.
Sometimes, medical procedures go awry and tragedies occur, through no one's fault. In many cases, though, such unexpected tragedies are not result of mere back luck, but of medical professionals who fail to do their jobs properly. If you have lost a loved one as a result of what was supposed to be a routine medical procedure, you should consult a wrongful death attorney. Our San Francisco wrongful death attorneys can help you get to the bottom of your case and discover if others owe you for their failure to meet the requirements of a medical professional's standard of care.

A California jury awarded a motorcyclist $31,500,000 recently, concluding that his injuries were the foreseeable result of an unsafe condition along a stretch of a California state highway. The California motorcycle accident lawyers at our firm understand that motorcycles face many risks when on the road, both from other drivers and from inherently dangerous conditions

David Evans, a Los Angeles County District Attorney, was riding his motorcycle eastbound along California State Route 138 when a car struck him. The other car's driver was attempting to turn left at the intersection of Highway 138 and Mountain Road, in violation of the California Vehicle Code. The accident left Evans with severe brain and spinal cord injuries that will require 24-hour nursing care for the rest of his life, PR Newswire reported.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) had identified the intersection as "skewed," meaning that the angle of the intersection exceeded the preferred 90 degrees. Evans' accident was one of a string of injury wrecks along that stretch of Route 138, giving the roadway a notorious reputation and leading to nicknames like "Death Highway" and "Blood Alley."

At trial, lawyers for Evans presented evidence that Caltrans knew of the intersection's dangerous condition. "This condition has been a problem since more people moved into the area," Evans' legal team explained. Records indicated that the traffic count on Route 138 exploded from 3,000 motorists per day in 1990 to 10,000 in 2000 and with the increased traffic volume inevitably came increased danger. The evidence at Evans' trial included 10 previous accidents at the same intersection and a complaint from a local citizen warning Caltrans about the intersection's dangerousness some 18 months before Evans' accident, Yahoo reported. Despite the reports of increased usage, accidents and local citizen complaint, Caltrans did nothing to address the unsafe condition of the intersection, Evans' attorneys contended.

The jury in the case agreed that Caltrans was partially liable for the accident. The jury determined that the other driver bore 85 percent of the responsibility for the accident, but that 15 percent of the fault lay with Caltrans. Evans' attorneys cheered the verdict as sending an important message to the state agency. "We are very pleased that the jury concluded that this is a dangerous condition. State Route 138 needs to be changed for public safety. We're confident that Caltrans will listen to the jury and make the appropriate corrections," Evans' attorneys stated in a press release. "It is important that Caltrans fixes problems they know exist. Public safety should be paramount," Evans' legal team added.

Continue reading "California jury awards motorcyclist $31.5M due to unsafe road conditions " »

A grieving mother recently sued a sorority her daughter was pledging, contending that the actions of the sorority's leaders contributed to the auto accident that took her daughter's life. The mother expressed hope that the lawsuit might help end the "hazing culture" at the sorority, the Charlotte Observer reported.
In the fall of 2010, Victoria Carter was a student at East Carolina University, pledging membership in the Delta Sigma Theta sorority. The sorority required its pledges to endure several weeks of hazing, concluding with what was known as "Hell Week," which involved depriving pledges of sleep and forcing them to engage in embarrassing activities. The sorority demanded its 17 pledges, during the initiation period, to reside in a two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment, and to perform various demeaning tasks for the members.
Additionally, and likely the most dangerous, though, was the preparation for "probate," a ceremony where the sorority makes an elaborate show of introducing the pledges as the newest members of the sorority. The sorority required the pledges to endure long hours of ceremony preparations, working to perfect their performances. Allegedly, on the eve of the ceremony, the sorority's members, advisers and alumnae ordered the pledges to practice their parts in the ceremony "over and over again until they 'got it right'."
The sorority's members booked a 6:30 a.m. hair salon appointment for Carter and three other girls on the morning of the ceremony. According to the mother's suit, the girls did not have an opportunity to sleep between their final probate ceremony practice session and the hair appointment, and had endured weeks of sleep deprivation as a result of their living situation. One of the other girls, Kamil Arrington, drove the group to the appointment, but they never arrived. Arrington fell asleep at the wheel, veered off the road, and struck a tree. Carter died instantly.
University officials investigated and, finding the sorority members less than forthcoming, immediately placed the chapter on two years' probation. The sorority's national leadership also investigated and decided to suspend the ECU's chapter charter until at least 2015.
Carter's mother, Bernadette Carter, initially brought her wrongful death suit against only Arrington. After further investigation by her lawyer, though, Carter recently decided to add members of the sorority to the action. According to Carter's complaint, the sorority's hazing requirements left Arrington suffering from extreme exhaustion, fatigue and sleep deprivation, which caused her to fall asleep at the wheel and wreck her vehicle.
While Carter's lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for the loss of her daughter, her attorney indicated that his client had an additional goal in mind. "There's no amount of money that's going to bring their daughter back. What they really want to do is change the culture," the attorney told the Observer.
This is a good example of a negligence case where the conduct which caused the harm is somewhat novel, not specifically illegal, and did not directly result in harm. Basic negligence law comes into play in determining whether the sorority can be held liable for the death. One key issue in answering this question is whether the death was a forseeable result of the conduct. In applying the "forseeability test," courts look for a reasonably close connection between the other party's conduct and the harm. In most cases this determination is made by a jury, following guidelines given by the court.
While college can be a time for experiencing many new things, recklessly and needlessly harmful, and potentially fatal, things should not be among them. When people put others in situations that they know, or common sense should them, are dangerous, they should be liable for the harm they do. That why our San Francisco wrongful death attorneys are here. Our experienced lawyers can advise you regarding your case, helping you decide what your next steps should be.

In the name of safety, states have begun enacting a variety of laws meant to restrict the driving privileges of teenage drivers, the New York Times reports. A 2010 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) report concluded that these enhanced restrictions significantly reduced the number of fatal crashes in the states that had them, though our San Francisco car accident attorneys appreciate that there are many competing issues at play with these laws.

The push for added restrictions on teenage drivers began with Florida, which, in 1996, passed a graduated licensing system. The current Florida system requires teens to maintain a learner's license for at least one year before obtain a driver's license and log 50 hours of driving experience. Pennsylvania recently establish the highest standard for practice driving, at 65 hours.

Gradually, other states followed Florida's lead. 43 states prohibit a teenage driver from driving with multiple other teens in the car, and 15 states (and the District of Columbia) prohibit the teen driver from having even one other teen in the vehicle, the Times reported. The IIHS recommends as statutory best practices: a minimum license age of 17, a minimum permit age of 16, at least 65 supervised practice hours, a night driving restriction starting at 8:00 p.m. and a ban on teen passengers. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the IIHS's study indicated that its best practices would save 500 lives and 9,500 crashes each year.

New Jersey, which has long had the highest driver's licensing age, at 17, has taken extra steps. The state requires teen drivers to place a red decal on their vehicle's license plates, and the state is considering making parents take a driver education course, according to the Times report. Some New Jersey parents see the decal law itself as presenting a safety risk. Gregg D. Troutmann, who launched an unsuccessful court challenge to the New Jersey decal law on privacy grounds, told the Times that he instructs his teenage daughter to drive without the decal, believing that his daughter's driving a marked vehicle could make her a target of sexual predators.

Our San Francisco accident lawyers know that California currently has a provisional licensing system for drivers age 16-18. Under the California law, a parent or guardian must accompany a 16 and 17-year-old driver, for the first 12 months, when the teen is carrying passengers under 20 years of age, or is driving between the hours of 11:00 p.m and 5:00 a.m.

Some see the new laws as needed reform to increase roadway safety. "We don't want to say that teens are a menace to us all, but the reality is, when teen drivers crash, it's people in other cars or teen passengers who end up dying," Justin McNaull, director of state relations for AAA, told the Times.

Others, though, see the rules as unfairly targeting a politically powerless group, since 16 and 17-year-olds cannot vote. To the contrary, though, several states have restrictions on the elderly, who vote in larger percentage numbers than any other group. 18 states have shortened renewal period for seniors' licenses, eight make elderly drivers take vision tests at each renewal, and Illinois and New Hampshire require drivers age 75 and older to take a road test at each renewal.

See Related Blog Posts:
Pedestrian Injury and Death in San Francisco
Distracted Driving, Texting, and Motorcycles