Motor Vehicle Accidents

Published on: October 6, 2013

Bicycle Riders Will Get A Three Foot Buffer From Passing Motorists Under New California Law

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.

Published on: August 30, 2013

Employer Held Liable For Employee Getting Drunk At A Company Party And Causing A Fatal Car Accident

by Steven M. Sweat

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.”

Published on: August 8, 2013

“Stop on Red” Week Is A Grave Reminder of How Many Auto Accidents Are Caused by Running Red Lights

by Steven M. Sweat

August 4-10, 2013 has been designated by numerous public safety organizations as “Stop on Red” week to raise awareness of auto accidents caused by people running red lights. It is estimated by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) that running red lights is the number one cause of traffic collisions in urban areas like San Diego, Los Angeles or the San Francisco Bay Area every year. In fact, the statistics are startling:

You are more likely to be injured or killed by a person running a red light than any other accident scenario
Running red lights cause more crashes in urban areas in the U.S. than anything else.

Published on: August 3, 2013

Should causing a car accident from texting and driving warrant punitive damages under California law?

by Steven M. Sweat

Why are so many car accidents caused by texting and driving and does California law prohibit the practice?

The statistics are startling. It is estimated by various studies conducted and/or examined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that there are over a thousand people every day injured and 8-10 killed every day in the United States by drivers distracted by cell phone use. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 80 percent of accidents and 65 percent of near crashes are the result of some type of distraction which takes the drivers eyes off the road, their mind off of driving and / or their hands off the steering wheel. The problem is particularly acute with teenage and young adult drivers which were already a vulnerable segment of society with estimates of one third of all deaths occurring between age 15-20 coming from motor vehicle accidents. However, it is not limited to young persons in that various surveys estimate that between 35 and 50 percent of adults have admitted to using their mobile device while operating a car.

For these reasons, 41 states, The District Of Colombia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have all passed laws which prohibit drivers from using a cell phone to send emails or text messages while operating a motor vehicle. California passed such legislation in 2008 and 2009. California Vehicle Code §23123, prohibits all drivers from using a wireless telephone unless they phone is equipped with a hands-free feature such as bluetooth except in emergency situations. California Vehicle Code §23124 prohibits all persons under the age of 18 from using a wireless device even if it it equipped with a hands-free feature except for emergency purposes. These provisions provide for penalties including fines for violations.