San Francisco Personal Injury Lawyer

Left Turn by PG&E Truck in Mission District Causes Severe Injuries to Bicyclist

Claude Wyle — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:01:16 GMT

Bike to Work Day should have been a great day for all San Francisco Bay Area cyclists, however it was a very bad day for one 27-year-old cyclist who was struck by a PG&E truck as the truck driver tried to make a left turn from South Van Ness onto 13th Street in San Francisco's Mission District on Wednesday, May 9th.

The cyclist remains in critical condition at San Francisco General with a severe head injury.

The injured cyclist remains in critical condition at San Francisco General with a severe head injury. Please know that the failure to give a bicycle rider the right of way when you are making a left turn is a violation of the law and that makes this PG&E driver liable for the harm caused this cyclist. When someone violates a law and causes injuries, this is called negligence per se.

Left turns in front of bicycles are the most common cause of bicycle accidents in San Francisco. Many drivers just don’t see bicyclists before they make their left turns, or they just aren’t looking for them. While all drivers are required to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic when they are attempting to make a left turn, very many drivers fail to observe bicyclists and motorcyclists. Many bicycle riders fear getting struck from behind yet left turn cases far outnumber the cases where the cyclist is struck from behind.

We know that head injuries can cause serious permanent disability or death. Traumatic brain injury (even mild cases) can permanently effect the brain causing lasting impairment that can go unidentified.

Mild traumatic brain injury can occur from:

any period of loss of consciousness
any loss of memory for events immediately before or after the accident
any alteration in mental state at the time of the accident (eg, feeling dazed, disoriented, or confused)
focal neurological deficit(s) that may or may not be transient; but where the severity of the injury does not exceed the following:
post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) not greater than 24 hours
after 30 minutes, an initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 13-15
loss of consciousness of approximately 30 minutes or less.

As a San Francisco Bicycle Injury Attorney, specializing in head trauma cases, I am greatly concerned for this injured bicyclist. I sincerely hope he recovers completely and soon. Also, I look forward to hearing more information on the investigation and am eager to see PG&E held accountable.

About the author: Claude Wyle is an aggressive advocate for San Francisco Bay Area head trauma survivors. Claude has decades of experience representing those harmed by the wrongful conduct of others, and, as a San Francisco brain injury lawyer, has fought to protect the rights of head injury survivors throughout his legal career.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Is Distracted Walking Contributing to More Pedestrian Injuries?

Claude Wyle — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:03:00 GMT

Every day we learn more about the dangers of distracted driving, which is no joke. People are being killed each and every day because of distracted driving and we need to do something serious to curtail this epidemic of injury caused by drivers who are distracted by their cellphones, texting, makeup, breakfast or anything that takes their attention off the road.

The news online and on TV is having great fun with stories relating people distracted while texting. To explore inside the mind of a person who is obsessively texting, is to learn just how focused a person can become (and dependent) upon their personal electronic devices. Reaching out to connect with another person in this addicting manner can be dangerous though, as all of a person's senses seem to be turned off while the texting conversation continues.

A similar phenomena holds true with distraction that occurs while wearing headphones, shutting out the world while listening to music, news or a phone conversation.

There are striking, growing statistics pointing to the danger of distracted walking while wearing headphones:

Researchers recently found 116 instances of pedestrians either dying or being injured because they were wearing headphones. 81 of these accidents were ultimately fatal to the pedestrian involved.

The dangers escalates when the distracted pedestrian is wearing headphones walking on city streets, alongside moving traffic. While a woman who is completely engrossed in a text message (traveling around the internet via YouTube) falls into a mall fountain may have only suffered from a bruised ego, many other distracted pedestrians are not so lucky.

Being struck by a car, truck, train, bicycle or somehow walking into trouble while a pedestrian is wearing headphones or texting is not a fairytale. The danger is real. When a pedestrian is under the influence of obsessive texting, or while they are tuning out the sounds of the world, that pedestrian has lost their ability to perceive and react to danger.

New Jersey has taken a stand against distracted walking. Research has shown that people who are texting while walking are more likely to jaywalk, so texting while walking is now an offense in NJ, carrying an $85 fine. In the last month and a half, 117 tickets have been issued.

A study on pedestrian injuries conducted at the University of Maryland found a striking correlation between pedestrian accidents and headphone use. The study revealed the following:

Pedestrian distraction is creating more hazards on the roads
Vast majority of pedestrians are killed by cars
Pedestrians are most vulnerable

Researchers combed through databases at the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, news articles and archived Google news stories between 2004 and 2011, looking for insight into pedestrian accidents. What they found was that many accidents are attributed to the fact that the pedestrian wearing headphones did not even hear the car horn or even a train horn.

These findings are especially important in San Francisco, where there is a high number of pedestrian traffic frequent tourist venues such as Union Square, AT&T Park and the Metreon. Combine that with the high number of red-light violations by motorists, and it is no wonder that we have so many San Francisco pedestrian injuries.

As a San Francisco Pedestrian Accident Attorney, I regret to report that the number of pedestrian accidents tripled during the 7 year period studied.

It goes without saying that pedestrians are more vulnerable than motorists, truck or bus drivers or even bicyclists. They must be vigilant every time they step onto the city streets. The vast majority of pedestrian accidents, in my view, are still caused by a drivers not paying adequate attention, desite San Francisco's efforts to protect pedestrians from injuries and fatalities. Even a relatively low-speed pedestrian accident can result in serious injury or death.

Please walk safely, keep your eyes on your surroundings and turn down the earphones!

About the author: Claude Wyle is an aggressive advocate for San Francisco pedestrians. Claude has decades of experience representing those harmed by the wrongful conduct of others, and, as a San Francisco Pedestrian Accident Attorney, has fought to protect the rights of injured individuals throughout his legal career.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

San Francisco Pedestrian Dies in Laurel Heights After Being Struck By a Pickup Truck

Claude Wyle — Wed, 09 May 2012 13:35:05 GMT

If a pedestrian is struck while walking outside of a crosswalk, is the pedestrian automatically wrong? The answer is no. Is San Francisco the worst city for pedestrians? The answer may well be yes, if we look at the rash of recent pedestrian deaths here in San Francisco.

Unfortunately, I must once again report the death of another San Francisco pedestrian, this time a 25-year-old woman named Suzanne Monaco. Our sincerest condolences go out to her family and loved ones.

According to the San Francisco Police Department, on Sunday evening May 6th, Suzanne Monaco was struck and killed by a pickup truck traveling south on Masonic at around 5:20 p.m. while she was reportedly walking outside the crosswalk at Masonic and Euclid in this Laurel Heights neighborhood.

So, most people reading that story might conclude that if she was outside the crosswalk, that Ms. Monaco was automatically negligent and at fault. This is not necessarily true.

While I was not there and cannot say here whether this San Francisco pedestrian was behaving in a negligent manner, I can say that crossing mid block is not always illegal and pedestrians outside the crosswalk are often foreseeable to drivers on the road. Might this San Francisco pedestrian death have been avoidable if the pickup driver had maintained a better lookout? Might there be many pedestrians crossing mid block in Laurel Heights? Should this driver have seen her? Did this driver have the opportunity to stop in time, if he had been looking? Or was the pickup driver on a cell phone, checking texts or doing something else distracting? I am not casting accusations. I am only raising possibilities in the hope that Ms. Monaco will not be automatically judged too harshly and her death not be viewed as something automatically her fault.

As a San Francisco Pedestrian Accident Attorney, I see so many cases where the party who has been injured or killed has been automatically blamed, because of one factor seized upon by the police or the press. Then that party is judged by the public as at fault and a tragic and preventable death is dismissed. The truth is that many factors contribute to causing injury and sometimes death and often fault is shared between the parties involved.

My view is and has always been that if it is predictable, it's preventable.

So, who was at fault in this incident? Although the police closed the intersection for several hours to investigate, and the male driver remained on the scene, no arrest has been made. Does this mean the driver is not negligent? That conclusion is not for me to make here in this blog.

I personally do not think that a pedestrian is automatically completely at fault just because they may have been struck outside the crosswalk. Might she have been outside the crosswalk because she was trying to step away from the oncoming truck? Might she have been thrown out of the crosswalk by the impact with the truck? I would like to see a thorough investigation of this pedestrian fatality, and hope that the SFPD undertakes to give Ms. Monaco’s family the courtesy of a complete investigation into this tragic death.

I plan to include an article on Jaywalking and unmarked crosswalks in our site soon.

America Walks is a non-profit organization with 501(c)3 status dedicated to promoting walkable communities. In its mission as an advocate for the victims of traffic accidents, FindMyAccident has partnered with America Walks to protect pedestrians in California and across the United States.

If you would like an official copy of the police report, request a copy with this form.

About the author: Claude Wyle is an aggressive advocate for San Francisco and Bay Area pedestrians. Claude has decades of experience representing those harmed by the wrongful conduct of others, and, as a San Francisco personal injury attorney, has fought to protect the rights of injured adults and children throughout his legal career.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

San Francisco Bicycle Pedestrian Fatality Likely to Cause Criminal Prosecution

Claude Wyle — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:54:56 GMT

Like most Bay Area Bicyclists, I have been following the story of Chris Bucchere closely to see what the San Francisco District Attorney's office is going to do. I must admit that I have been conflicted about this story, as I often represent both bicyclists and pedestrians here in San Francisco.

As a bicycle accident attorney, I most often take the bicyclist's side of a controversy, since San Francisco bicyclists, in my experience, are usually blamed for accidents, rather than motorists. As a San Francisco pedestrian attorney I am generally on the side of pedestrians if they are involved in an accident with a car or truck or even a motorcycle.

I believe that the devil is in the details in this case, and that without seeing the videos and hearing from the witnesses, we as San Francisco citizens should not rush to judgment.

In California, bicyclists have the same rights on the road as motor vehicle operators, and they have the same duties to obey the vehicle code. Bicycles though do not have the same ability to be able to traverse wide, sometimes dangerous intersections. Bicycle braking ability varies widely, as does bicycle speed.

From what I read in the press, Mr. Bucchere may have acted negligently in his operation of his bicycle as he approached this intersection. And the death of this pedestrian certainly is tragic. So, a civil suit is certainly in order.

The big question I have at this time is whether Mr. Bucchere's conduct was indeed criminal? If he was indeed going 35mph in a 25mph zone, was this reckless riding or just negligence? And was it criminal negligence or was it just negligence?

A man died, so the result is horrible. But in criminal law, don't we look foremost at the conduct that gave rise to the result? If a car driver drove down that hill and was going 35mph, would the DA's office be considering prosecution? If a car driver entered the intersection on a yellow light, as it appears this bicyclist did, would the DA be considering prosecution?

Sadly, I have cases where I see this type of negligent conduct against car and truck drivers virtually every day, and the District Attorney rarely even considers prosecution for a crime, even when someone dies as a result of the bad conduct of the driver.

We all see drivers running red lights each and every day. So, should this bicyclist be prosecuted for a crime or should he just be held civilly liable for his conduct? Or should more motor vehicle drivers all be held criminally liable for their bad driving?

I am concerned that this particular bicycle rider, who may have been rude and/or careless, will be held to a higher standard than other vehicle operators in this City. I know that there has been another bicycle pedestrian fatality recently, but is this a good enough reason to prosecute this particular bicyclist for a felony?

I do not condone dangerous driving or bicycling. I am not saying that this man should not be held accountable. I am just saying that car and truck drivers seem to get away with worse conduct here in San Francisco.

I do not have access to all of the facts in this case, so I cannot make the call for the DA's office. I know that I will anger many bicycle haters and even some bicyclists with my questions. I would just like to see this bicyclist treated the same as the DA would treat a motorist--no better and no worse.

I just don't want to see a witch hunt for bicyclists here in San Francisco when there are already so many conflicts between bicyclists and motorists and the anger level is already so high.

About the author: Claude Wyle is an aggressive advocate for San Francisco Bay Area bicyclists and pedestrians. Claude has decades of experience representing those harmed by the wrongful conduct of others, and, as a San Francisco pedestrian and bicycle accident attorney, has fought to protect the rights of injured cyclists and pedestrians throughout his legal career. Claude is also an avid cyclist himself and member of the Marin County Bicycle Coalition, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and is a sponsor of Safe Routes to School. He is also a member and lecturer of EDD, a group dedicated to End Distracted Driving.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

San Mateo PG&E Equipment Failure Causes Electrocution Death of Man Trying to Protect Family

Claude Wyle — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:20:21 GMT

Five days ago, in San Mateo, more PG&E equipment failed and a high power line fell from between two poles and into a residential neighborhood. At the time, 55-year-old Enrique Tello was watching television with his family, and heard the explosions outside. With Tello’s daughter being nine months pregnant, he was extra protective and immediately went out to investigate. Shortly after Tello stepped in front of his home, he was electrocuted by current flowing from the fallen PG&E line. Tello never recovered from his serious electrical injuries and died that evening.

It concerns me to learn that PG&E, immediately after their failed equipment caused Mr. Tello's electrocution death, began passing along inaccurate and misleading information about this San Mateo Electrocution. It is clear that PG&E would rather have the public focus on the conduct of Mr. Tello, starting rumors that Tello was trying to pick up the live wire, rather than allow the focus to stay on PG&E’s failures. In just a few months, the San Bruno pipeline explosion trials will be starting and PG&E does not need any more bad press. Bad press this year may create higher jury verdicts for the San Bruno pipeline explosion cases. The earliest media stories about this incident all seem to quote a PG&E representative, Mr. Guidi.

As I look at the information available to date, it would seem that PG&E initially stated (and later recanted) that the line was knocked down by a mylar balloon. How and why would a power line carrying 12,000 volts, which could conceivably burn down an entire neighborhood, be vulnerable to a balloon? At first it was thought that a transformer blew at the pole, however there seem to be no transformers at either pole where the downed line was connected. Interestingly, this same wire is rumored to have failed and fallen in the late 1980s.

From the photographs the wire was hot enough to melt the sidewalk into glass. How would Tello have been able to pick that up? Why would he have tried to pick up the hot wire? PG&E adopted the story that Mr. Tello had been driving his truck and that the wire had somehow blocked his way, and so he tried to move it. From the news video, it is abundantly clear that the white truck is parked along the curb right in front of Tello’s home, and is not in the traffic lane. Further, Tello’s family are very clear that Tello was inside watching television when the power line fell in front of the house.

Why would PG&E have its representative lecture the public on television about the dangers of trying to move a fallen power line when they really don’t have any credible evidence that Tello was trying to move the wire? In a Daily Post article, PG&E admitted yesterday that a person would not have to pick up a live wire, but that they could suffer electrical injuries just walking in the area. While it will be very interesting to learn exactly how the current struck Mr. Tello and where, shouldn’t the focus of our community be on how such a deadly and dangerous power line was allowed to fall onto a residential street, and what PG&E should have done to prevent this needless death?

I believe that we, as responsible citizens, should demand thorough investigation into how and why this deadly power line fell into a residential San Mateo neighborhood and how PG&E again endangered an entire neighborhood. I contest PG&E's shifting of the public's focus from their own failure onto Mr. Tello. This blaming the victim is pure calculated deflection.

I would like answers. Please comment if you would like answers also.

About the author: Claude Wyle is an aggressive advocate dedicated to keeping San Francisco Bay Area individuals safe from defective and dangerous equipment and products. Claude has decades of experience representing those harmed by the wrongful conduct of others, and, as a Bay Area personal injury lawyer, has fought to protect the rights of the injured throughout his legal career.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Arm & Hammer Spinbrush Power Toothbrush Choking Hazard Alert

Claude Wyle — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:37:13 GMT

The FDA recently issued a warning to all consumers and dental care professionals on February 16, 2012 regarding the Arm & Hammer Spinbrush electric toothbrush choking hazard. This potential hazard is particularly dangerous for children.

As an avocate for chidren's safety, I alert you to a potential danger from this popular electric toothbrush.

The reports indicated that, while turned on, the brush head has either “popped off” or broken off in the user’s mouth or near the face, causing cuts to the mouth and gums, chipped or broken teeth, swallowing and choking on the broken pieces, and injuries to the face and eyes. When the unexpected release of any part of the powered toothbrush occurs, there is a potential for serious injury. This risk is higher for unattended children or adults who may need assistance while using this device.

As a San Franciso Product Liability Attorney, I recommend that parents be watchful for damage or loose brush bristles prior to using this toothbrush, and if noticed, remove the toothbrush from your child so that it does not get used. It is important to make sure the headpiece is connected properly to the handle of the brush--testing outside of the mouth first. Furthermore, instruct your child not to bite down on the brush head while brushing, and please supervise your children while using this potentially dangerous product.

To make the above easier, the company began adding “color-wear” bristles in December of 2011 to help give users a reminder of when to change the brush head.

Prompt reporting of adverse events can help the FDA identify and better understand risks associated with medical devices and other potentially dangerous products. If you suspect a problem with a Spinbrush, we encourage you to file a voluntary report through FDA's MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

The toothbrush was sold as the Crest Spinbrush until 2009.

About the author: Claude Wyle is an aggressive product liability advocate dedicated to keeping San Francisco Bay Area consumers--especially children--safe from defective and dangerous products. Claude has decades of experience representing those harmed by the wrongful conduct of others, and, as a Bay Area defective products lawyer, has fought to protect the rights of injured consumers throughout his legal career.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

John Goodman of Florida Adopts His Girlfriend to Hide Assets in Wrongful Death Suit

Claude Wyle — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:43:00 GMT

As a Wrongful Death Attorney I am appalled to report that International Polo Club founder, John Goodman of Florida, is attempting to his shield assets to avoid accountability in a wrongful death law suit filed against him, where he is alleged to have killed a 23-year-old man while under the influence of alcohol. Goodman has made the unprecdented move of actually adopting his 42-year-old girlfriend of many years--as his daughter--so that he may legally direct her to move assets out of his family trust.

Goodman's case borders on "the surreal and take[s] the Court into a legal twilight zone," wrote Circuit Judge Glenn Kelley in an order granting attorneys for Lili and William Wilson the right to information concerning Goodman's adoption.

Goodman is being sued for wrongful death by the family of the deceased, Scott Patrick Wilson, from the February 12, 2010 crash where Goodman had twice the legal blood-alcohol allowed when he ran a stop sign, crashed into Wilson and killed him.

I am glad that he has been held accountable for this wrongdoing and support the charges of DUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of a crash, which leaves him facing up to 30 years in prison. I also want to see the Wilson family compensated civilly for the wrongful death of their loved one. Putting Goodman in jail feels like justice; however, the Wilson family has lost so much and Goodman should also be made financially accountable for what he has done. It is rare when the person who is liable for wrongful death actually has assets that are collectible. Trying to move assets when you have caused so much damage is despicable.

What would cause a person to do such a thing as publically adopt a girlfriend who is clearly not his daughter? Apparently, Goodman thought it was a prudent move since Judge Kelley had previously ruled that the trust set up for Goodman's two minor children could not be considered as part of Goodman's financial worth if a jury awarded damages to the deceased's family. The adoption papers indicate that Goodman's girlfriend is immediately entitled to at least a third of the trust's assets as his legal daughter since she is over the age of 35.

My condolences go out to the Wilson family for their loss, and I know that they have an excellent wrongful death attorney in Chris Searcey. Good luck with the case, Chris. Make Goodman accountable for what he has done.

About the author: Claude Wyle is an aggressive advocate for the families of Californians who have lost loved ones through wrongful death. Claude has decades of experience representing those harmed by the wrongful conduct of others, and, as a San Francisco wrongful death attorney, has fought to protect the rights of surviving families throughout his legal career.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

The Product Safety Police (CPSC) Seize Dangerous Toys at Port of Houston

Claude Wyle — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:33:00 GMT

Dolls, toy trucks, and even jewelry were among children's products seized at the Port of Houston that could be dangerous to children. Some toys included:

Clacker balls prone to sudden fragmentation and propulsion of parts that could injure children.
Toy cars, guns, trucks and helicopters with excessive lead in surface paint.
Bears, dolls and other stuffed animals with eyes and noses can be pulled off and pose a choking hazard.
Children's jewelry containing high levels of cadmium, which is toxic.

For product recalls and complaints, you can go to: http: /www.saferproducts.gov put together by the CPSC.

As a Product Liability Attorney, I believe that a part of my job is to notify consumers--and especially parents of children--when toys or products are potentially dangerous and therefore recalled. In this case, the unsafe toys have been seized before use by the public. I commend the CPSC at the Port of Houston authorities for the quick move to increase product safety for children.

The primary reason for the seizing of toys was largely because of choking hazards and lead paint. The 25,000 toys are among 117,000 foreign products like mattresses, electronic devices, lighters, bike helmets and all-terrain vehicles confiscated in Houston from 2010 through 2011.

"If the bear's nose and eyes can be easily pulled off, those small parts could choke children," said David McCabe, the compliance investigator at the port as he pulled parts from a toy bear to test them in a cylinder. "Anything that fits in the cylinder is too risky for children to play with."

Nationwide, 19 investigators assigned to the busiest ports have confiscated, among other things, toy guns, cars, trucks, helicopters and dolls containing lead paint, lead content, phthalates and small parts deemed dangerous. Phthalates are chemicals used in plastics and other products.

Faced with a swell of concern and 45 million children's toys and products recalled about five years ago, Congress in 2008 boosted the budget of the CPSC and required it to set up a website where consumers can both register complaints and read reports posted by others.

I take it seriously when I learn of dangerous lead in children's toys, as lead-poisoning is known to cause brain damage, behavioral problems, early puberty in girls, and genital defects and reduced testoterone production in boys. In our view and under state and U.S. consumer protection laws, companies that manufacture, import and distribute products intended for children have a critical obligation to ensure the safety of those products. They ought to take extraordinary care with product design, testing and quality assurance—and yet hundreds of children's toys and other goods are judged unsafe and subjected to recall each year.

In 2010, there were 17 toy-related deaths and 181,500 injuries among children of 15 or younger, according a CPSC report. Eleven of the deaths were from asphyxiation or choking.

I wonder if China and Hong Kong will realize soon that the U.S. is going to enforce the high standards for child safety, and we won't allow defective toys into the country. Most seized products, in fact, come from China, although collaboration with the Chinese government has reduced the number of recalls, officials said. Good news is that CPSC established an office in Beijing last year to make it easier to communicate with Chinese officials about safety problems, like toxic metals in toys.

Oddly enough, I learned a few years ago that the Chinese regulations for lead paint and other safety concerns for children are actually stricter than our own. There is so much money to be made in manufacturing and distributing toys that often a safety fix of just a few pennies makes the manufacturer less competitive in a global market. And if they are making the toys for some other country with lower standards, then sometimes a few thousand of those less safe toys may end up in the shipment to the U.S. It is not cost effective to make a toy one way for one country and have to make it another way for the U.S. so we can end up with dangerous toys.

Currently, 45 percent of imported consumer products and 90 percent of toys sold in the United States come from China and Hong Kong.

Products from South America like jewelry also are stopped for containing lead or cadmium.

With the ongoing Panama Canal expansion project, the number of containers handled by the Port of Houston through the canal could grow by 15% in the next few years, according to the Houston Port Authority--importing more foreign shipments than any other U.S. port.

How does this inspection process work? Determining whether a foreign shipment should be destroyed is a stringent process. CPSC investigators first test the products with tools in the field and send product samples to laboratories in Maryland. The test labs are set up with devices that mimick a children's strength to try to pull the eyes and noses from the bear, for example.

If your child has been injured because a product you thought was safe failed or malfunctioned, the distributor of the dangerous toy should be made accountable. When a manufacturer fails to follow the safety rules for products and someone is needless endangered thereby, the manufacturer, the distributor and even the retailer are responsible for all of the harm that they cause. The best advice if you believe that your child or loved one has been injured by an unsafe product is to call a product safety attorney immediately.

About the author: Claude Wyle is an aggressive product safety advocate dedicated to keeping San Francisco Bay Area consumers--especially children--safer from defective and dangerous products. Claude has decades of experience representing those harmed by the wrongful conduct of others, and, as a Bay Area defective products lawyer, has fought to protect the rights of those with injuries from defective products throughout his legal career.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Burn and Fire Hazard Prompt Recall of HP and Minolta FAX Machines and Printers

Claude Wyle — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:44:00 GMT

Consumer products simply should not catch on fire. Consumers are supposed to be protected by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ensure that products are safe for use, and the CPSC is stretched thin trying to keep up.

As a San Francisco Product Liability Attorney I must report that on February 2nd, 2012, the CPSC announced the recall of some FAX machines and printers because they pose fire and burn hazards.

Products affected by the recall:

Hewlett-Packard fax machines overheating and catching fire. Model HP 1040 and HP 1050.
Konica Minolta printers which can shot circuit and overheat. Models Magicolor 4750DN, Magicolor 3730DN, Bizhub C35 and Bizhub C35P

About 928,000 of these machines were sold in the U.S. The CPSC recommends people stop using these products immediately and disconnect them from the outlet.

For more information about the HP recall, call 888-654-9296 or go to http://www.hp.com/go/faxrecall/US-en. For more on the printer recall go to www.kmbs.konicaminolta.us or call 800-825-5664.

If you or someone you love has been burned or injured or killed in a fire started by one of the above products, I urge you to immediately contact a product liability lawyer to discuss your options. The government may assist in a recall; however, the government does nothing to directly help the persons harmed when a manufacturer of a dangerous product fails to follow the rules. The rule is that a product must be safe for its intended use. When a company makes or distributes or sells a defective product that is not safe for its intended use and someone is hurt or killed thereby, the company is responsible to pay for all of the harm that it has caused.

As product liability attorneys we make those companies accountable by representing consumers. I have been representing consumers for decades as an advocate for product safety and I would be happy to speak to you confidentially if you have questions about a dangerous or defective product. Please feel free to call me toll free at 877-702-7800 or on my direct line at 415-951-6235, or send me a confidential email at cwyle@ccwlawyers.com.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Mandatory Arbitration Forces U.S. Citizens to Give Up Their Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial

Claude Wyle — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:37:00 GMT

Over the last few decades, the most important cases pertaining to mandatory binding arbitration heard by the U.S. Supreme Court have been decided 5-4 — with the dissenting four dissenting strongly. And mandatory binding arbitration clauses have just been upheld by our highest Court, to the detriment of consumers nationwide.

Why does mandatory arbitration bring up such a divisiveness, even at the highest levels of law?

“Mandatory arbitration” sounds complex, but it’s straightforward enough: instead of being allowed to take a company that has harmed you to court (filing a lawsuit) so that your case can be decided by a jury of your peers, you are required to pursue your grievance in binding arbitration. That is right, you get no jury trial.

How could we citizens give up a fundamental Constitutional right like the right to jury trial? Well, I don’t believe that most consumers do this on purpose. The binding arbitration clauses are in the fine print of many of your contracts. Even the intake sheet you sign when you go to the doctor may have a provision for binding arbitration as opposed to a civil lawsuit.

It's straightforward because your debates take place in front of an arbitrator, instead of a judge and jury. This means that people are required to act individually, which prevents them from joining together in a class action--which can often be costly, and historically favor business interests over individuals.

As an attorney looking out for consumers, it concerns me that consumers’ claims are not being heard by juries. The reality is that there are millions of consumers in America with legitimate disputes against corporations, and these claims will not ever become a part of the public record if the aggrieved party has signed a mandatory binding arbitration contract.

But, the one thing most consumers with disputes don’t do is successfully navigate the unfamiliar--and often hostile and expensive--world of forced arbitration. As a federal district court noted in one recent case, while thousands of AT&T Mobility customers had expressed great unhappiness with the corporation’s behavior, only an “infinitesimal” number of its customers would or could in reality go through its arbitration system.

Very many American consumers have potentially valid claims, and many involve illegal acts by corporations. But, so many of those claims never see the light of the day. Justice Kennedy can say that many important civil cases are going to arbitration. But for consumer cases, Justice Kennedy is wrong. Nearly all of the cases are not going to court; they are just going away.

Why is mandatory arbitration bad for consumers?

You do not get to go to court--only to an arbitrator’s office or a facility designated for arbitrations. Jurors are unbiased; however, arbitrators deal with claims against the same parties or attorneys often enough to learn that the arbitrator will make a better living if they do not hit the corporation too hard.

So, while you may have just one claim against a corporation and will never see this arbitrator again, the corporation and its attorneys may have thousands of claims and their attorneys have great economic power over the careers of the arbitrators. And, if you have an arbitrator who makes errors of law, your right to appeal is extremely limited--almost non-existent.

Also, if you think arbitration will be less costly, think again. While civil lawsuits may not be cheap, our tax dollars pay for the judge and the jury fees are low. Arbitrators are paid thousands of dollars per day. What happens if you have a small claim not worthy of your acting alone because of the high cost of arbitration? If many consumers have small claims for the same wrongful conduct of the same corporation, those claims may be brought together in a class action. If there is no class action in arbitration, that many people with smaller claims just go away, and their wrongs are not redressed.

The civil justice system was designed to be better than this... Right now its level is the playing field between the mighty and the weaker. Mandatory arbitration keeps the power with the mighty and saves them money, even if they have done wrong.

About the author: Claude Wyle is an aggressive advocate for San Francisco Bay Area consumers. Claude has decades of experience representing those harmed by the wrongful conduct of others, and, as a San Francisco personal injury attorney, has fought to protect the rights of individuals dealing with arbitration throughout his legal career.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle