A car crash resulting in multiple teen deaths in Orange County, CA was reported by the Los Angeles Times to involve the following all too common factors in traffic collisions involving younger persons as follows:
Paul Walker dies in fatal car wreck in Los Angeles County California.
The Paul Walker car crash near Los Angeles last year has prompted a lawsuit against Porsche of North America. The lawsuit alleges various causes of action including negligence and strict products liability. (For full copy of complaint via PDF, click here). The legal action is brought by one of the survivors of Paul Rodas (the driver at the wheel at the time of the crash who was a professional race car driver). The suit also alleges false advertising claims and related violations of the California Business and Professions Code.
Can a delivery truck driver be liable for negligent parking under the laws of the State of California? This was the question presented recently to the California Supreme Court in the matter of Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Company 179, Cal.App.4th 1.
Facts of the Case: A semi truck operator employed by Ralph’s Grocery Company pulled off the freeway in San Bernardino California to eat his lunch. He parked his vehicle in a dirt area alongside the interstate highway. He testified that he routinely parked in that spot to eat his lunch. At the request of the California Highway Patrol, CalTrans had previously placed an “Emergency Parking Only” sign near the area as it had become a spot where truckers were pulling off and stopping for non-emergency reasons. Plaintiff was traveling at a high rate of speed and inexplicably lost control of his vehicle and slammed into the rear of the tractor trailer and was instantly killed. There was no indication that the driver was intoxicated prior to the crash and the best speculation was that he may have fallen asleep at the wheel or had some medical condition that caused him to swerve off the road and collide with the semi truck.
Result of the Jury Trial: The jury found that the plaintiff was 90 percent at fault for the accident but, found that the Ralph’s truck driver and (vicariously) Ralph’s Grocer Company was 10 percent at fault for parking the truck in an emergency stopping area without exigent circumstances warranting such a stop. The defendant, Ralph’s, brought a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (so-called “JNOV”). The trial judge granted the motion and nullified the jury verdict for wrongful death in favor of plaintiff’s surviving heirs.
California Highway Patrol has appropriately chosen this week (designated Sleep Awareness Week by the National Sleep Foundation) to remind Californians about the dangers of drowsy driving. For the latest year where statistics are available (2011), CHP estimates the following:
Paul Walker dies in fatal car wreck in Los Angeles County California.
The findings of the Los Angeles County California Deputy Coroner (see story here) have been released regarding the death of Fast and Furious star, Paul Walker. They are gruesome and telling of a car crash clearly caused by one, primary factor: excessive speed. The pertinent portions of the report state findings as follows:
The Insurance Journal reported recently that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in conjunction with the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety ( a conglomerate of 15 automakers including all U.S. Manufacturers ) has extended an agreement to continue supporting research into an auto detection system for drunk drivers. (See Article here). The system dubbed “Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety” (“DADDS”) is hoped to be able to automatically detect when a driver has reached the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle which is .08 blood alcohol content (“BAC”) and disable the vehicle without being affected by any other passengers in the vehicle who may also be legally intoxicated. Apparently, the technology is years away from being able to be deployed but, the research to date seems somewhat promising.
According to statistics maintained and provided by the California Department of Motor Vehicles, the Golden State averages approximately 175,000 – 200,000 arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in any given year which result in approximately 140,000 to 150,000 DUI convictions. Fatalities resulting from consumption of alcohol or drugs by motor vehicle operators ranges between about 1,400 and 1,600 per year. Injury causing collisions where alcohol or drugs were involved ranges between about 30,000 to 35,000 persons per annum.
As a personal injury lawyer, I have seen my fair share of car accident injuries related to lack of seat belt use. I had a case recently where a vehicle went off winding road in the hills of Los Angeles and one passenger as killed and another occupant seriously injured due to not wearing their seat belts. Safety restraints are vital to reducing these types of tragic cases.
What Are the Statistics on Serious Injuries and Fatalities Related to Lack of Seat Belt Use
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that use of personal safety restraints in vehicles it the number one most important thing any person can do to reduce the risk of serious bodily harm or death related to a car crash. In fact, in a study conducted in between 1994 and 2007, there was a direct correlation between auto collisions resulting in fatalities and lack of use of restraints. Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control has examined numerous sources and determined that the increased seat belt use since 1975 (when many states began to make seat belt use mandatory) has decreased the number of passenger and driver deaths in automobile crashes by hundreds of thousands of people. It is for this reason that all but one state (New Hampshire) now have seat belt laws on the books which require passenger and driver restraints for both front and rear seat occupants. The bottom line is that, based upon all reputable studies to date, restrained drivers and passengers sustain much fewer fatal incidents and catastrophic injuries than non-restrained persons.
The recent fatal teen crash in Burbank, California that made national news has too many of the common characteristics of car accidents involving teenagers across the U.S., which cause serious injury and death every year. (See story on candlelight vigil related to this incident from the Los Angeles Times). Every year teenagers are eager to get their restricted or unrestricted driving permits but, need to heed warning from fatal incidents like this one.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, drivers under the age of 18 are involved in traffic collisions more often than any other demographic. In fact, according to the California Department of Motor Vehicles statistics, drivers between the age of 16 and 19 are involved in traffic collisions more than any other age group. These statistics seem to center around several common characteristic causes, which include but are necessarily limited to the following:
Bicycle riders will get a three foot buffer from passing motorists under a new California law that was passed by Governor Jerry Brown last month. Bicycle riding advocates in the Golden State have been pushing for this legislation for several years now. The last attempt was vetoed by Brown due to his concerns of ambiguity in the language of the statute. It was re-drafted and re-submitted and passed on this go round. Here is the final version of the bill that was passed (AB 1371 – Three Feet for Safety Act). The prior version of the statute (California Vehicle Code 21750) already required drivers to pass bicycles, “to the left” and “at a safe distance” that “did not interfere with the safe operation of the bike”, however, no specific distance was specified as “safe”. The revised code now states as follows:
“(c) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator.”
Subsection (d), however, provides a caveat that, if the automobile driver cannot provide three feet, they are still allowed to pass the bike but, they should, “slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent, and may pass only when doing so would not endanger the safety of the operator of the bicycle, taking into account the size and speed of the motor vehicle and bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, visibility, and surface and width of the highway.” This allows for the possibility of less than three feet but, only if speed is reduced and the passing maneuver is done in a way that is safe for the biker.
The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District recently ruled that an employer may be held legally liable for an employee getting drunk at a company party and causing a fatal car accident. The case is entitled, Purton v. Marriott International Inc. (for a PDF of the full court opinion, click here).
Facts of the Case: Michael Landri was employed as a bartender for the Marriott Del Mar Hotel in San Diego, CA. The hotel was having its annual holiday party and Michael decided to “get the party started early” by consuming a couple of shots of Jack Daniels and some beer at home before leaving to go to the affair being held at the hotel. At the event, he continued to consume alcohol, including hard liquor, being served by one of the hotel managers who was acting as a bartender for the event. He apparently brought a flask with him to the party and the hotel manager filled the flask for him “to go.” After the party, another hotel employee drove a group of workers to Landri’s house. Landri stayed about 20 minutes without consuming any more alcohol and then attempted to drive a co-worker home. Landri drove reportedly at speeds upwards of 100 mph, rear ended a car and killed the other driver. His blood alcohol content was measured at 0.16 and he was convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter and sentenced to 6 years in prison. The family of the slain victim sued both him and his employer, Marriott Hotels. The trial court granted a Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case on the basis that even the facts as viewed most favorable to the victim’s family would not be sufficient to hold the hotel liable for wrongful death.
Legal Issues: The main legal issue in this case stems from the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior (a Latin phrase which literally translates, “let the master answer”) or vicarious liability. This is the legal theory by which an employer (or “principal”) can be held responsible for the acts, errors or omissions of their employee (or “agent”). Under California law, vicarious liability requires (at its most fundamental level) the proof of two elements as follows: (1) that the wrongdoer was an employee, agent, or acting on behalf of the employer/principal; and (2) at the time of the wrongful act, error or omission, the employee/agent was acting within the “course and scope” of the employment or agency relationship. (See: California Civil Jury Instruction 3701 based upon California Civil Code 2295, et.seq. and related statutes and cases. A related issue was was whether the employer is responsible when the wrongful acts alleged (in this case consumption of alcohol followed by driving) occur some on “company time” and some on the employee’s “own time.”
California Accident Attorneys Blog