Articles Posted in Auto Accidents

If your opponent in your auto accident case asked the court to take “judicial notice” of a document, would you know what that meant? Would you know how to respond? Even many very intelligent and educated people would probably answer “no” to those questions. However, these kinds of evidentiary decisions can make or break an injured person’s personal injury lawsuit. That’s why it is so important to have the representation of a skilled California car accident attorney in your case.A dispute over “judicial notice” was at the center of one woman’s recent auto accident case. The accident, in which Marie suffered injuries, happened on May 20, 2014. Whenever you are injured in an auto accident, there is the possibility that there may be multiple people and entities that are liable for the harm you suffered. The facts of your case likely will permit you to sue the driver. If the owner is someone other than the driver, this may represent a second possible defendant. If the driver was “on the job” when the crash occurred, you may also have a claim for liability against the employer.

Regardless of the number of people or entities you are suing, it is important to act with all due speed. If you file your lawsuit after the deadline (the “statute of limitations”) has expired, you are not entitled to any compensation, no matter how strong your proof is. So what do you do if you are reaching the end of the statute of limitations period, and you don’t know the identities of some people who could be liable?

In Marie’s case, she sued on May 12, 2016. She sued Evelyn, who was the driver who hit her. She also sued Eduardo and “Does 1 to 100,” who allegedly were the owners of the vehicle and who negligently entrusted the auto to Evelyn prior to the crash. (The law permits you to sue “John Doe,” ‘Jane Doe,” or “Does 1 to X” if you have identified a potentially liable party but do not know that party’s name.)

If you’ve been hurt in an accident in California in which another driver was making a left-hand turn, whether the accident took place in an intersection or elsewhere, the facts of your case may place you in a very strong position to recover compensation for your injuries. Making a left-hand turn is a potentially dangerous maneuver, so the law places a substantial onus on the left-turning driver to wait until she is sure it is safe before making that turn. Regardless of the precise details, if you’ve been hurt in an auto accident in Northern California, you should be sure to retain a skilled California car accident attorney to handle your case.A case from Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. BC615394) was an example of a successful left-turn injury lawsuit. The accident was a two-vehicle collision. C.H. was traveling across El Segundo Boulevard when she attempted a left turn. V.H., a maintenance supervisor for the City of Los Angeles, was headed straight in the opposite direction. The two vehicles crashed, and V.H. was hurt.

In California, if you were hit by a left-turning driver, and your traffic signal was green, the odds of success for you can be quite high. The only ways that the left-turning driver can establish that you were actually the one at fault for the accident are to show that you were speeding, that some sort of sudden emergency caused her to slow or stop her turn (which prevented her from clearing the intersection in time), or that your light was actually red, rather than green.

Thus, if you have proof that the other driver was turning left, that you weren’t speeding, and that you didn’t run a red light, you have a strong case with regard to responsibility. Just because you have a strong case when it comes to fault does not mean that you are “home free” with regard to achieving a successful result. There are still other litigation tools that the left-turning driver can use to try to avoid being held liable.

Health insurance is an everyday part of life for many of us. The Affordable Care Act was passed and signed into law due to the federal government’s recognition of just how interwoven health insurance is with health care in this country. One of those aspects in which health insurance interweaves with health care is the idea of an insurer’s “network” and a treatment carrying different prices, depending on whether the provider was “in network” or “out of network.” Thus, what if you are significantly injured in an auto accident? You likely will require a substantial amount of medical care, but, if you sue and receive compensation for your injuries, you won’t be responsible for paying the bills you rack up. Are you still responsible for limiting yourself to providers within your network? If you’ve been injured in an auto accident and find yourself in need of answers to these and other questions, contact a knowledgeable California truck accident attorney to discuss your options.

A recent case involving an injured passenger named Dave explored this scenario and provided some helpful guidance for people injured in California vehicle accidents. Dave was injured in a Ventura County auto accident caused by Jose, who was, at the time of the accident, an employee of an organics company. The RV driven by Dave’s wife developed a flat tire on a freeway, and the semi truck driven by Jose slammed into the rear of the RV, causing serious injuries to Dave’s face, teeth, neck, and lower back. He ultimately underwent a three-level spinal fusion surgery to address his back problems. Dave had insurance, and his insurer had a “network” of preferred providers. Dave, however, decided to seek care from providers who were outside his plan.

Eventually, Dave sued the organics company for Jose’s negligent driving. In his case, Dave sought a substantial award of medical expense damages. At trial, the injured man had documented proof of the medical bills he had amassed. At the trial’s end, the jury ruled in favor of Dave and awarded him $3.6 million in damages, including $269,000 in past medical expenses. With regard to medical expense damages, the jury awarded Dave the full billed amount that he established in his case.

People who are injured in auto accidents come in all shapes and sizes, varieties, and walks of life. Some are young, some old. Some are the “picture of health” before their accidents, while others have pre-existing conditions. If you are someone who has a pre-existing health problem, and you find yourself injured in a crash for which someone else was at fault, it is very important to act decisively and quickly. One thing you should do is retain an experienced California car accident lawyer. Just because you have pre-existing health problems doesn’t mean you cannot recover damages. In fact, depending on the facts of your case, the damages award you receive may include an amount to cover the extent to which your accident worsened your pre-existing condition.

One example of this was an action decided in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC557692) recently, which involved a scenario that is likely one of every parent’s nightmares. The child who would become the plaintiff in the case was sitting in the back seat of a vehicle, directly behind the driver’s seat. The driver was fully stopped at an intersection controlled by a stop sign. The defendant slammed into the stopped vehicle at a high rate of speed. The crash inflicted multiple fractures upon the child and also a traumatic brain injury, according to the plaintiff’s case.

The driver who rear-ended the vehicle with the child admitted liability and was determined to be 100% at fault. Medical professionals determined that the girl was a “4” on the coma scale (which translates to “severe traumatic brain injury”) at the scene of the accident and later assessed her as a “12” (which translates to “moderate traumatic brain injury”) at the hospital.

In some cases, a plaintiff might receive an offer of settlement in their auto accident case. In other cases, a plaintiff might receive a judgment and a damages award in their favor. However, sometimes, a plaintiff may be entitled to receive a jury verdict award and enforce the terms of a settlement. One recent Bay Area case was an example of how this worked.

The litigation in this instance arose from an August 2009 rear-end crash in Alameda County. Two men in the lead car sued for the injuries they suffered. Since the men were on the job when the accident occurred, a third-party vendor of their employer paid a portion of their expenses, leaving each man and the vendor pursuing claims against the rear driver.

Continue reading ›

A Northern California mother, injured in a fiery crash when a street sweeper made a U-turn and hit her SUV, fought for nearly two years to obtain compensation for the harm she suffered. In the end, despite the defense’s attempts to paint the mother as partly at fault and its extremely low settlement offers, the jury found for the plaintiff and returned a damages award of $8.3 million for her past and future harm, according to the Napa Valley Register and juryverdictalert.com.

Continue reading ›

Sometimes, legal concepts and rules are, in theory, based upon straightforward notions. For example, the law says that an injured person should be allowed to recover the “reasonable value” of the medical services she received as a result of her accident. This sounds like a direct and common-sense method, right? Unfortunately, these theoretically straightforward concepts can become highly complex in reality, especially given the ultra-complicated and byzantine system of medical billing and payment in this country. The Third District Court of Appeal tried to bring some clarity to this murky issue in a recent ruling, declaring that an injured plaintiff can use the full amount of a medical provider’s charges to establish “the reasonable value of the services” received.

Continue reading ›

A man injured in a Southern California auto accident received approval from the Second District Court of Appeal to resume pursuing his negligence case against the driver who injured him. The appeals court overturned a dismissal of the injured man’s case on statute of limitations grounds, ruling that, since the paramedic who allegedly caused the accident was not in the act of providing services to a patient, the injured man had two years, rather than one, to file his lawsuit.

Continue reading ›