California Accident Attorneys Blog

Published on: May 6, 2014

Can A Delivery Truck Driver Be Liable for Negligent Parking

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.

Published on: April 28, 2014

Epidemic of Hit and Run Accidents in Los Angeles and How to Protect Yourself

by Steven M. Sweat

hit and run, accidents, los angeles, Los Angeles personal injury attorney

Hit and Run Accidents in Los Angeles

The level of hit and run accidents in Los Angeles has now reached epidemic proportions according to various reports.( http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/10/hit-and-run-crashes-los-angeles/3452699/ ).

The statistics are frightening:

Published on: April 8, 2014

Why “Tort Reform” Is Not Supported By Either Liberal or Conservative Values

by Steven M. Sweat

As an American, I am proud of our country’s heritage which embraces a broad spectrum of ideals including what are traditionally known as “liberal” or “progressive” values as well as “conservative” values. I think both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were great leaders in their own right who probably embody these two traditions the best. While it is apparent from the last few elections that Americans seem to be embracing many centrist views as well, there are many who, at least in part, have a stronger ideological lean towards what they believe to be “liberal” or “conservative” values. In my opinion, no matter where you come down on the political spectrum, the notions promoted by “tort reformers” are not supported when you truly understand what this “reform” movement is all about.

What is “Tort Reform”?

Our American system of jurisprudence developed from Anglo-Saxon law over hundreds of years. As I’ve blogged about before (see here) , our founding fathers fully supported the right of the individual to redress through the civil justice system by enacting the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to a trial by jury in civil cases. From colonial days until now, this system has continued to develop to allow individuals and classes of persons who have been harmed by wrongdoing or negligence (i.e. “torts”) to seek monetary compensation through a civil jury trial. What “tort reform” aims to do is to issue, by government decree, that individuals and classes of people should not be able to bring civil actions in certain instances and/or should be limited in the amount they are able to recover by a predetermined structure as opposed to the judgment rendered by a jury of their peers. It comes in many forms but, includes proposals to limit class action lawsuits, to shorten the statute of limitations (time deadline) for filing personal injury claims, and to put a cap on the amount of damages for out of pocket losses like medical bills and lost wages and/or general damages for the pain and emotional distress caused by a catastrophic injury or death caused by the wrongdoing of another individual or business. The vast majority of “tort reform” advocates are large corporations that have disseminated false information that there is a “tort crisis” in America and that “run away juries” must be kept “in check”. In fact, civil lawsuits related to personal injury claims and average jury verdicts have been declining for almost three decades and now constitute a mere 4-5 % of the total number of civil claims being filed in the U.S. (the vast majority of which are business to business disputes and not injury or death claims).

Published on: March 5, 2014

California Highway Patrol Reminds Us – Drowsy Driving Causes Auto Accidents!

by Steven M. Sweat

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:

Sleep deprivation of drivers resulted in 3,700 accidents in the Golden State
Sleepy drivers caused 2,200 people to be injured

Published on: February 20, 2014

California Homeowner Liability for Injuries at Social Gatherings

by Steven M. Sweat

The California Supreme Court is set to decide a case which may expand the liability of California homeowners for social gatherings where alcohol is served and people sustain injuries or are killed. The case was filed on behalf of a party-goer who was killed at a social event hosted by the homeowner’s teenage children and has been litigated and appealed from the trial court level all the way to the Cal. Sup. Ct. (See Los Angeles Times story here).

Legal Background of Social Host Liability and Immunity Laws in California

Prior to the early to mid 1970’s, California case law had several opinions which held party hosts liable for serving alcohol if this resulted in injury or death to any of the attendees to the party. (E.g. Coulter v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.3d 144 – California Supreme Court held that a non-commercial supplier of alcohol [apartment complex owner and manager] could be held liable for injuries caused by drunken participants to third parties harmed by the intoxicated person). The California Legislature decided that it wanted to limit such legal exposure for social hosts and amended California Civil Code 1714 to read as follows:

Published on: February 15, 2014

California Personal Injury Laws | Famous Cases | Rowland v. Christian

by Steven M. Sweat

This is another in my continuing series of blogs about California personal injury cases that set precedents and established law across the U.S. Today, I discuss the seminal California Supreme Court premises liability case of Rowland v. Christian 69 Cal.2d 108 .

Traditional “Common Law” Categories of People Coming Onto Land And The Duty of the Landlord to Those Entrants

American Tort Law has always required landowners or lessees to protect people coming onto their property to some degree or another. If a person is injured while on the property of another, the law has required that the injured person be compensated for medical bills, pain and suffering, lost income and other damages if it can be shown that the property owner was negligent. American jurisdictions, however, have sought to balance the interests of landowners with the rights of persons injured upon their property. Traditionally, under the so-called “common law” that developed in the U.S. from the original English law, all states put persons coming onto property who sustained injury into one of three categories: Licensees, Invitees and Trespassers. Invitees were persons invited onto the property to “do business” and there with the owner’s consent such as patrons of retail establishments. Licensees were persons on the property with the permission of the landowner but, for their own purpose such as a repairman or even a social guest and, trespassers were people who had entered the property with no express or implied permission. The law required a property owner to safeguard the well being of invitees by making the property safe for their use. Therefore, landowners were charged with the highest duty of protection for invitees. With regard to licensees, landowners or occupiers were required to only protect and warn regarding known dangerous conditions on the property. Trespassers were afforded the least protection and the landowner was only rarely liable for “intentional, willful or wanton” conduct on his or her part which caused injury to the person there without permission.

Published on: February 5, 2014

Origins of Personal Injury Laws in the U.S. Including California

by Steven M. Sweat

“No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it.” Theodore Roosevelt

As a personal injury attorney who represents people who have suffered catastrophic injuries or death of themselves or a family member, I am constantly asked many, common questions at the onset of representation. Some of these come in the form of apprehension on the part of hurting or grieving people to enter the legal process of filing a personal injury or wrongful death claim. Oftentimes, I hear that people’s personal moral or religious beliefs conflict with suing people or filing claims. While I do not wish to invalidate such beliefs, I think that much of this thinking is based upon a misunderstanding of the fundamental purpose of our civil justice system in America and the principles upon which it is based.

Legal Origin of Tort Law in the United States Including CA

Published on: January 8, 2014

Elevator Accidents Resulting in Fatalities Are More Frequent Than You Think

by Steven M. Sweat

I recently read an article in the “Fair Warning” blog regarding the startling number of fatalities related to elevator accidents in the U.S. (See Story Here). The blog chronicled a tragic story of a three year old boy who was crushed when he opened the “swing door” and was trapped by the elevator car coming down upon him from the second floor of his family home. The incident resulted in permanent brain damage, spinal damage from being pinned inside the elevator compartment for almost 10 minutes before his family could pry him loose. The boy is now left a quadriplegic who is unable to speak or move and will remain so for the rest of his life.

How Frequent Are Elevator Accidents Resulting in Serious Injury and Death in California and Elsewhere in the U.S.?

According to the statistics quoted in the Fair Warning article, as verified by Associated Press news accounts of such incidents, there have been at least nine accounts of fatalities involving children related to swing door elevators installed in commercial and residential structures in the U.S. within the last 7 or 8 years and there have been 34 reported incidents of children maimed or killed in these apparatus since 1995 in Southern New York and New Jersey alone (based upon Otis elevator statistics produced in discovery in an incident in that area in 2001). Other consumer advocacy groups have estimated that approximately 27 people every year are killed while riding on an elevator due to some type of malfunction or mishap. (See Los Angeles Times Blog – citing Consumerwatch.com). While statistics are hard to come by, the information available seems to indicate that elevator mishaps are more than just a trivial problem and result in maiming and death to many individuals every year in California and throughout the U.S. Large urban areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco have higher number of incidents simply due to having more multi-story buildings with lifts carrying passengers than other, more rural areas of the country. However, these incidents are not limited to skyscrapers. In fact, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recently issued a statement indicating that they are conducting an active study into the increase in home elevator incidents, many of which involve children. (See CPSC Statement Here). This high number of child home elevator incidents seems to stem from the fact that you have a gap between the outer “swing” door and the inner door with no infrared sensor like most elevators have in commercial structures.

Published on: January 3, 2014

Paul Walker Crash Findings Show Speed Kills

by Steven M. Sweat

paul walker death, california speeding laws, california auto accidents, los angeles car wrecks

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 vehicle in which Walker was a passenger (a Porsche Carrera GT) was estimated to be traveling “in excess of 100 miles per hour” at the time of the crash.

Published on: January 2, 2014

Would Auto Detection Systems Prevent DUI Accidents in California and the U.S.

by Steven M. Sweat

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.

How big of a problem are drunk driving accidents in California

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.