San Francisco Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Popular

Woman hit, killed in crosswalk on Geary Boulevard

Claude Wyle — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:11:35 GMT

A 70-year-old woman walking across Geary Boulevard at Ninth Avenue was killed Thursday morning when the driver of a white van hit and killed her while making a left turn.

This was the 23rd pedestrian traffic fatality in San Francisco this year. The crash happened about 8:15 a.m. when the van, heading south on Ninth Avenue, turned onto eastbound Geary Boulevard and hit the woman, police spokesman Officer Samson Chan said.

The victim was identified as Jon Kong, a resident of the Richmond district. Kong was taken to San Francisco General Hospital with life-threatening injuries after she was hit by a car and was pronounced dead shortly afterward, Chan said. No one else was hurt.

Transportation for America’s nationwide survey found the San Francisco region, which includes Oakland and Fremont, is second only to New York for the highest percentage of traffic deaths among major cities in the country. As bike accident attorneys, we think this is unacceptable, but what can be done? Here are some suggestions from sf.streetsblog.org:

Use police reports analyze a large sample of recent fatal pedestrian accidents with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT). PBCAT is a software application designed to assist state and local pedestrian and bicycle coordinators, planners, and engineers in addressing pedestrian and bicyclist crash problems.
Compile the actual investigative follow-up from the crashes -- were charges filed, were other countermeasures recommended or implemented?
Condense the results into a report that breaks out the most common factors, outcomes and recommended countermeasures.
Convene a pedestrian safety summit with NJ DOT, Traffic Safety, law enforcement, elected officials, pedestrian safety experts and transportation planners all at the table.
The summit would then generate a list of recommendations and goals for the state and local governments to implement.
Follow up with an evaluation of the process. Did the recommendations actually contribute to reducing pedestrian deaths?

These are all excellent suggestions; please join us in an effort to convince city officials to take some of these steps and save lives.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Infant Suffocation Deaths result in Recall of 2.1 million Stork Craft Cribs

Claude Wyle — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:58:05 GMT

We learned earlier this week that more than 2.1 million drop-side cribs by Stork Craft Manufacturing of Canada are being recalled after reports of four infant suffocations. What troubles me is that while the Stork Craft name is being broadcast, many people still don’t know that the dangerous cribs which are being recalled date back to 1993 and nearly 150,000 of the cribs carry the Fisher-Price logo. In total, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has said the recall involves 1.2 million cribs in the United States and almost 1 million in Canada, where Stork Craft is based.

Even more troubling in this case is that the CPSC has admittedly not acted swiftly enough to recall these cribs. Further compounding the problems with the cribs is that they are often passed down from child-to-child within a family and from family-to-family throughout communities. In most cases, original model numbers have long since been lost or forgotten. The recall efforts therefore must be more strenuous before more children are hurt or killed by these defective products.

As defective product attorneys, one of our goals is to eliminate dangerous products from the marketplace and we are happy that the government is finally taking the necessary actions. Unfortunately, as this case demonstrates, we simply cannot rely on the government to ensure that defective products are redesigned or taken out of production. If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a defective product, please consult an attorney who specializes in the area. Not only may there be compensation for you and your family, but it might also prevent other families from enduring the same tragedy.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Lane Sharing is Legal and Reduces Motorcycle Accidents

Claude Wyle — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:05:16 GMT

I thought that I should chime in, since I have settled at least four or five lane sharing cases for six figures in the last year or so. You should take these cases and evaluate them carefully. The claims representatives have no idea what is legal in California or what is reasonable riding and they should be educated that lane sharing cases are valid. First of all, I recognize the prejudice in jurors against motorcyclists, particularly bikers who are lane sharing or filtering or lane splitting. No matter how you slice it, car drivers don't like it. Did you know that lane sharing is legal only in two states, California included, and that studies have shown that it is actually safer for a motorcyclist to split lanes than to sit in traffic and await being rear ended? In days gone by, most motorcycles were air cooled and would overheat unless they were actually moving forward (Harleys and Triumphs and Nortons are a good example). Thus, we had bikes dying in traffic, and creating a hazard when they got stuck in the roadway. Bikers were injured when they were rear ended. Bikers were still getting rear ended and getting hurt even when they were not stalled in traffic, because they were more difficult to see than cars or trucks.

The only real comprehensive national study on motorcycle accidents is the famous "Hurt Report", and is available as noted below:
Interestingly, Hurt, no pun intended, opined that it was more dangerous for motorcyclists to be stuck in traffic than it was for them to lane split. Of note is the fact that Hurt himself was rear ended on his motorcycle and was injured thereby. So, it is legal here in California, but is it safe? The California Highway Patrol has a brochure on safe motorcycle riding and they used to actually provide the specific parameters as to what was considered safe lane splitting. They have since taken out the specific answers to Mark's question, and replaced them with more of a reasonableness standard. Still, I think that some parameters are still important and the CHP have guidelines for what they consider reasonable without putting it into the brochure. If the reporting officer did not add your biker's conduct as a contributing collision factor, you can bet that they did not believe that he or she was violating the CHP guidelines for lane splitting. 20-25 mph faster than the speed of traffic is marginal. 15mph is a more acceptable figure. 30-40 mph for speed is acceptable but 35 is almost always considered reasonable. I have found that the key to the lane sharing cases is in determining if your motorcyclist was actually engaged in lane sharing at the precise time of the impact. Most of the time, a biker might have been lane sharing, but then will end up in control of a lane just before the other party changes lanes into them. The devil is in the details, and in careful deposition preparation. There are many factors at play, including exactly where the biker was in the lane and what the biker saw just before the car moved into their lane. I would be happy to discuss this topic, or any topic related to motorcycle cases or racing or riding with any of you. Corner me or my partner George at the Convention, or, better yet, come riding with us on any given Sunday morning. Check out the Hurt Report at:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703)-487-4600
and order:
Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures, Volume 1: Technical Report, Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V. and Thom, D.R., Traffic Safety Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90007, Contract No. DOT HS-5-01160, January 1981 (Final Report)
Vol.I (The Main Report and Summary) is PB81206443 (~400 pages)
Vol.II (Appendix: Supplementary Data) is PB81206450 (~400 pages)
Either document is $42.95 plus $3.00 shipping. (circa 1990)

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Cribs are not the only dangerous product- Cords on window blinds can choke or strangle a child

Claude Wyle — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:38:54 GMT

I wrote last week about the recall of Stork Craft cribs. That recall was prompted by the four infant deaths from suffocation caused by a badly designed product—the drop side crib. While I applaud the media attention given to these infant deaths from defective products, I want to make sure that everyone is aware that there are many additional dangerous products.

For example, in November of this year, a 2-year-old Maryland boy, Thapelo Kwofie, was strangled after his head became entangled in window cords.

In fact, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, about one child dies each month from strangling in cords from blinds or shades. Manufacturers of defective blinds have recalled 5 million window treatments – which the agency lists among the top five "hidden dangers" in the home – in just the past few months.

For the first time, the safety commission now recommends using only cordless window treatments in any home where there is a danger of death of a child by such an accident, including where children live or visit, such as a grandparent's house or day care center.

As defective product attorneys, we join Parents for Window Blind Safety in urging you to inspect all the window blinds in your home. Even many blinds that were considered safe in recent years have been found to be dangerous.

How to make window treatments safer

1. Install only cordless window treatments in all homes where children live or visit, especially in children's bedrooms.

2. Move all cribs, beds and furniture away from windows.

3. If not using cordless shades, cut the ends of pull cords, so that the loop can't form a noose.

4. Don't allow cords to dangle. Wrap cords around a hook that's high off the floor out of a child's reach.

5. If using Roman shades with hidden strings on the back side, raise the shades high enough so children can't reach them.

Free safety kits to retrofit window blinds are available at windowcoverings.org.

Sources: Consumer Product Safety Commission, Window Coverings Safety Council

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Toyota Floor Mat And Gas Pedal Defects--Do They Cause Wrongful Deaths?

Claude Wyle — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:11:47 GMT

Federal highway safety inspectors have released new details of a fatal car crash that triggered Toyota Motor Corp.'s largest recall, including a finding that the Lexus ES 350 sedan involved had a gas pedal design that could increase the risk of its being obstructed by a floor mat.

Although Toyota has previously said that the floor mat was improperly installed and may have trapped the accelerator pedal, the latest report by the National Highway Traffic discloses new details, including the fact that the brakes were heavily damaged, possibly due to a design defect in which the Lexus ES braking system loses power-assist when the throttle is fully opened. As consumer lawyers, we investigate whether these defects may have caused other collisions.

Further information indicates that the car was on loan from a Lexus dealership and that the driver may not have been aware how to turn the car off or whether there were other measures he could have taken after the pedal got stuck.

As personal injury attorneys (change to dangerous products attorneys) , we often see the tragic results of poorly designed cars and trucks. The car dealer owed a duty to provide a safe car, however this story shows that we cannot always rely on those whom we believe we can trust. Before driving an unfamiliar vehicle, you might want to inspect the vehicle to determine whether the floor mats are installed properly and whether there is any condition that might interfere with the accelerator or brake pedals.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that last month, Toyota announced the largest recall in its history, asking drivers of 3.8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles to remove their floor mats until a permanent remedy is devised. The recall affects the following Toyota models:

2007 – 2010 Camry
2005 – 2010 Avalon
2004 – 2009 Prius
2005 – 2010 Tacoma
2007 – 2010 Tundra
2007 – 2010 ES350
2006 – 2010 IS250 and IS350

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Runaway Toyota Cases Ignored

Claude Wyle — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:25:00 GMT

Safety investigators dismissed numerous reports of sudden acceleration, then said data were lacking.

I am sure many of you were shocked to learn that since 2001, more than 1,000 Toyota and Lexus owners have reported that their vehicles suddenly accelerated on their own. In some cases, the runaway Toyotas slammed into trees, parked cars and brick walls, among other obstacles.

The crashes resulted in at least 19 wrongful deaths and scores of injuries over the last decade. Federal regulators say that is far more than any other automaker has experienced.

Luckily, owner complaints have helped instigate at least eight investigations into sudden acceleration in Toyota and Lexus vehicles by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the last seven years. Unfortunately, Toyota Motor Corp. recalled fewer than 85,000 vehicles in response to two of those probes, and the federal agency closed six other cases without finding a defect.

But, and here is what I find distressing, those investigations systematically excluded or dismissed the majority of complaints by owners that their Toyota and Lexus vehicles had suddenly accelerated, which sharply narrowed the scope of the probes.

For reasons that are not now clear, Federal officials eliminated several categories of sudden-acceleration complaints, including those in which drivers said they were unable to stop runaway cars using their brakes; incidents of unintended acceleration lasting more than a few seconds; and reports in which owners did not identify the possible causes of the problem.

Meanwhile, fatal crashes involving Toyota vehicles continued to mount and the statistics are not good for Toyota: NHTSA records show that a total of 15 people died in crashes related to possible sudden acceleration in Toyota vehicles from the 2002 model year and newer, compared with 11 such deaths in vehicles made by all other automakers.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that it located federal and other records of 19 fatalities involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles from the same model years in which sudden or unintended acceleration may have been a factor, as well as more than 1,000 reports by owners that their vehicles had suddenly accelerated. Independent safety expert Sean Kane, president of Safety Research and Strategies, said he has identified nearly 2,000 sudden-acceleration cases for Toyota vehicles built since 2001.

Other experts say the numbers may be far higher, pointing to a 2007 NHTSA survey of 600 Lexus owners that found 10% complained they had experienced sudden acceleration.

Most sudden accelerations did not result in a crash, but there were notable exceptions. Bulent Ezal, a retired engineer, plunged 70 feet off a Pismo Beach cliff into the Pacific Ocean surf. He was hospitalized with minor injuries, but his wife of 46 years was killed.

"By the time they pulled me out, the tide was about to cover the car," Ezal said.

He said his 2005 Camry had suddenly accelerated in a parking lot.

In its research, The Times examined thousands of federal defect investigation records, complaints filed with NHTSA by Toyota and Lexus owners, lawsuits against the company, and reports by independent safety experts and local police agencies.

For its part, Toyota is blaming the latest incident on an incorrectly installed floor mat that jammed the accelerator pedal. The company announced a recall of 3.8 million vehicles in September and is designing a fix aimed at preventing sudden acceleration caused by floor mats.

What scares me is that this recall is not addressing other potential problems, including electronic engine control system or cruise control system. So, if you have a Lexus or Toyota on the list below, please be aware of these issues and see an attorney, possibly even a “runaway Toyota attorney” to evaluate your case and determine whether Toyota may be liable for your damages.

The recall affects the following Toyota models: the 2007-2010 Camry, the 2004-2009 Prius, the 2005-2010 Avalon, the 2005-2010 Tacoma and the 2007-2010 Tundra, as well as the 2007-2010 Lexus ES 350 and the 2006-2010 Lexus IS 250 and IS 350.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Can we prevent another fatal crash on Bay Bridge?

Claude Wyle — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:50:36 GMT

Most of us have heard the tragic news of the big rig driver who failed to negotiate the recently installed “S” curves in the Bay Bridge. A truck driver from Hayward died on Monday after he lost control on that portion of the bridge; he died when his truck crashed through the barrier on the upper section onto Yerba Buena Island 200-feet below.

In the wake of this latest automobile accident—there have been about 40 crashes on the "S" curve section since it opened in September—Caltrans plans to install a sign that shows drivers how fast they're going. The speed limit on the temporary span now drops from 50 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour. According to the CHP, excessive speed was blamed for the fatal crash.

Reducing the speed is certainly a step in the right direction, but is more to be done? As truck accident attorneys, our goal is to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on our roadways each year, so we are thinking of other methods that could make the “S” curves safer. One additional measure might be so-called “rumble” dots—the dots across the road that alert drivers to dangerous conditions in the road. Increased signage would also help. In the meantime, please be alert as you travel the Bay Bridge.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Bus Driver Identified In Fatal Bus Crash; Investigation Ongoing

Chrissie Cole — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:09:00 GMT

Officials have not determined the cause of a deadly crash of a tour bus Tuesday in Monterey County. The bus, carrying 34 French tourists and their guide, overturned on a Highway 101 overpass in Soledad.

Five people, including the bus driver, were killed and several passengers were injured.

The driver has been identified as John Egnew, 69, of Riverside County, according to the Monterey County coroner. He died of head and neck injuries after he was thrown from the bus.

The names of the four tourists killed have not been released pending family notification.

Twenty-four people were reported hospitalized, of which two appear to have serious injuries. As of Thursday, 20 were still in the hospital.

The crash came a week after the National Transportation Safety Board called on the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to take steps to ensure that bus passengers are protected from collisions by installing seat belts, strengthening bus roofs and installing recorders to monitor driver fatigue. A spokesman for the agency declined comment.

Safety advocates say, over the past decade federal safety regulators have failed to execute many recommendations.

California Highway Patrol accident investigators have not determined the cause of the crash and are still investigating, including road conditions, the drivers history and the speed and condition of the bus that crashed.

In January 2007, Orion Pacific, the company that owns the bus, was given a “satisfactory” rating and underwent 14 vehicle inspections and six driver inspections with no crashes or violations in the past two years, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Commission.

The tour bus left San Francisco Tuesday on a sightseeing trip that began April 19 in Los Angeles.

Update – The AP reports, in 2005, the driver of the tour bus struck and seriously injured a woman in a Nevada crosswalk.

Egnew admitted not seeing the woman before he struck her with a bus as she and her husband crossed the street, according to a Las Vegas police report provided to the AP.

Egnew pleaded no contest in April 2006 to one misdemeanor count of starting improperly from a stopped position. #

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Two Sentenced in Auto Fatality Crash That Killed Berkeley Students

Claude Wyle — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:48:24 GMT

More than four years after three UC Berkeley graduate students were killed in a high-speed crash, the two Oakland men responsible were sentenced last Friday.

Eric Barnes, 28, and Stanley Jacks Jr., 25, were convicted last month of three counts of vehicular manslaughter. The July 16, 2005, crash killed Giulia Adesso, 26, Benjamin Boussert, 27, and Jason Choy, 29, all graduate students in the College of Chemistry at UC Berkeley. Barnes and Jacks were sentenced to eight years and eight months in prison, the maximum sentence.

There was a delay in sentencing because the California Highway Patrol was had been unsure of how the accident happened. Researchers at UC Berkeley's Safe Transportation Research and Education Center ultimately used sensors embedded in Interstate 80, where the auto fatality occurred, to establish that Jacks and Barnes were racing and that both cars were traveling at more than 100 miles per hour.

Barnes's and Jacks's reckless driving caused a nearby big rig to lose control, collide into the center divider and then catch on fire, Morgan said. From there, the truck traveled into the opposite lanes of traffic and collided with the car carrying the trio of students.

I have mixed feelings about this sentencing. While harsh in some senses, I, like the sentencing judge, am moved by the severity of the accident and the horrible way in which these young people died. I also hope that this sentence makes other young “racers” stop and think, if not about ruining the lives of others, about ruining their own lives with such reckless conduct.

My heart goes out to the families of the victims. Once again, I hope that the families got good legal advice. Even though families find comfort when offending criminals have been sentenced, nothing will bring their loved ones back. The only thing that will help the families in any tangible sense is a civil lawsuit. Even if the responsible parties have little or no insurance, as is often the case, there could be other insurance, including your own uninsured motorists’ coverage, which may help offset some of the financial consequences. If you are in an accident with an underinsured or uninsured driver, please see a wrongful death attorney.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Medicare’s Harsh Collection Practices Hurt Elderly Personal Injury Survivors?

Claude Wyle — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:19:11 GMT

At a time when many are questioning the very future of Medicare—financial support for the program is under attack, coverage is shrinking, the number of beneficiaries is climbing dramatically—Medicare has started to fight back. Unfortunately, the elderly are getting caught in the crossfire.

Eighty-one year-old Mollie Coury knows just that. Her legs were crushed during an accident on California’s 210 freeway, east of Pasadena. Doctors thought she'd never walk again, but she regained her mobility and put the accident behind her. Thirteen years later, in the fall of 2008, Medicare sent Mollie a bill for $66,000 for medical expenses related to the accident. If she didn't pay within 60 days, Medicare would seize her Social Security checks until the money was repaid.

How did this happen? After the accident, Coury had received about $20,000 from her daughter's insurance policy. This settlement subjected her to a law called “Medicare Secondary Payer Act,” created to prevent Medicare from paying medical expenses that were the responsibility of private insurers or other parties. Essentially, if a Medicare recipient gets in a car crash or is injured by a defective pacemaker, the government picks up the hospital tab. But if that person receives a payment from a legal settlement, insurance policy, or jury award that covers accident-related medical bills, Medicare is entitled to its money back.

The problem, as described by Mother Jones columnist Stephanie Mencimer, is that "In recent years, Congress has pushed Medicare to aggressively pursue debts from injured elderly people who have won compensation through lawsuits or liability insurance." For people "on the receiving end of the collections process-mostly elderly car accident victims...it can be a traumatic ordeal." After "forcing” personal injury lawyers to serve as Medicare's debt collectors failed to produce the desired results, Congress passed new debt-collection measures as part of the 2007 SCHIP reauthorization.

Starting next year, insurance companies must report any settlements or judgments involving Medicare beneficiaries to CMS. If a Medicare beneficiary fails to reimburse the agency for health care costs it paid, the agency can punish the insurance company with double damages. But the prospect of harsher penalties is already leading to insurance company overkill that, combined with Medicare's bureaucracy, has kept some elderly folks from receiving money that's rightfully owed them.

If you are a Medicare recipient and you win compensation in a lawsuit, be very careful that the Medicare costs are taken into consideration when finalizing the settlement. If your personal injury attorneys are not familiar with the debt-collection measures you could wind up with a bill rather than a check.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle