A recent jury verdict from Northern California provided a measure of justice for a man severely injured while he was working at a California Department of Transportation road work site when a driver struck him. The jury award exceeded $56.5 million, according to a Sacramento Bee report. The outcome of the case provides a clear illustration of the benefit of pursuing all of those potentially responsible for your damages. In this case, while the driver was negligent, it was CalTrans, rather than the driver, who was 100% to blame for the man’s injuries.
A man injured in a rear-end accident won his case and a $1 million verdict in Los Angeles County recently, according to a juryverdictalert.com report. Even though the accident was a low-speed one, the injured driver still recovered more than $960,000 in pain and suffering damages because he had a preexisting condition that made his pain and suffering much worse. The outcome of this case demonstrates that having a preexisting condition that makes you especially susceptible to harm doesn’t prevent you from recovering the full amount of your damages.
There are many causes of accidents. In California, as in other locations, one of the most common catalysts in terms of causing accidents that lead to injuries or death is a speeding driver. In a recent case from Los Angeles County reported by propertycasualty360.com, a gardener, who was struck by the driver traveling behind him, recovered $5 million for his brain, hip, and diaphragm injuries. The rear driver was partly at fault for traveling somewhere between 11 and 23 mph in excess of the posted speed limit when he crashed into the gardener’s vehicle.
One of the very difficult positions in which an uninsured person can find herself is to be injured in a vehicle accident due to the negligence of another person. Although the injured person may expect to receive compensation for the harm she suffered, she lacks the up-front money to pay her medical providers. In some cases, an injured person can find relief by contracting with medical providers to receive services in exchange for a lien on the injured person’s future lawsuit damages award. In the case of one uninsured Northern California woman who worked out such an agreement, the mere fact that her doctors sold that lien to a financial company at a discount did not mean that the woman was entitled to receive only a reduced amount of damages, the Third District Court of Appeal decided, upholding a $430,000 lower court judgment in favor of the injured woman.
The accident at the foundation of the case was one in which a vehicle driven by C.M. crashed into a vehicle driven by A.U. A.U. suffered serious back injuries in the crash, including a herniated lumbar disc. That disc problem required surgery to correct. A.U., who was not covered by insurance, racked up medical bills in excess of $260,000. Unable to pay such a massive sum out-of-pocket, the injured woman struck a deal with her medical providers. In exchange for providing care to the woman, the providers agreed to accept as payment a lien on any damages award A.U. might win in a civil lawsuit. Some time later, the medical providers sold the lien to a financial services company (MF), for a discounted amount.
A California Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a nonrelative resident exclusion provision in an insurance policy should be upheld or struck as contrary to public policy. In the case, the driver and his college roommate, a passenger in the vehicle, were involved in a motor vehicle collision. The roommate brought a personal injury claim against the driver and the other motorist as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident. The driver’s insurance company filed a complaint for declaratory relief, alleging that the roommate was defined as an “insured” under the policy and did not have a duty to indemnify the driver for the amount awarded to the roommate. The superior court found in favor of the insurer, and the parties appealed.
After reviewing the entirety of the record, the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the insurance policy provision excluding the roommate from coverage was an overbroad expansion of a statutorily permitted exclusion for relative residents, and it was also contrary to public policy.
California law allows insurers to exclude claims for bodily injuries brought by an insured, with one of its goals to prevent fraud against insurance companies. In the case, the driver’s insurance policy defined insured to include residents who inhabit the same dwelling as the named insured. The policy thus excluded the driver’s roommate from coverage. In analyzing the law with respect to the insurance policy at issue, the Court of Appeal interpreted the relevant California statutory provisions together, holding that while they do provide authority for an insurer to exclude an insured, that person must have an insurable interest to be excluded.
In a pivotal opinion reversing both the trial and appellate courts’ decisions, a California Supreme Court holding alleviates the burden on plaintiffs bringing a wrongful death action against the government based on an alleged dangerous condition of public property. The issue before the court in this case was whether the Government Claims Act requires a plaintiff to establish that a dangerous condition not only caused a decedent’s fatal injury but also the third-party conduct that brought about the accident. The court held that it did not.
In this case, the decedents were in a fatal car accident, in which a collision by another car forced their vehicle over the curb and onto the grassy center median of the boulevard, where the car hit one of several large magnolia trees in the median. Although they were all wearing seat belts, the driver and passengers died from their injuries. A jury subsequently convicted the other driver of vehicular manslaughter.
The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against the City of Los Angeles, alleging that the particular road constituted a dangerous condition because the magnolia trees on the median were too close to the roadway, posing an unreasonable risk of harm to drivers who lose control of their cars, and in this case causing the decedents’ fatal injuries. In support of their case, the plaintiffs submitted affidavits from several experts who stated that the proximity of the trees in the median to the roadway was a foreseeable danger to the public. In addition, the plaintiffs presented evidence of 142 accidents on the boulevard between 1998 and 2009, as well as publications discussing roadside safety. The city moved for summary judgment, arguing that the public property did not cause the accident, and the other driver did. The motion was granted by the trial court and upheld by the court of appeals.
Although every serious car wreck has the potential to claim lives, some are especially tragic. Unfortunately, these wrecks can sometimes be prevented and represent another loss of life that should have been avoided. In San Francisco, CA, there are many reasons why an auto accident takes place, such as a distracted driver or someone who is intoxicated while behind the wheel. In order to try and save more lives, the upsetting news stories that appear from time to time should remind everyone of the importance of safe, responsible driving.
While they were heading to a theme park in Southern California on Mother’s Day, a family of five lost their lives after an out-of-control delivery van struck the car they were riding in. Although an investigation is ongoing, many believe speed is a significant concern on the street that the wreck occurred on.
The driver of the delivery van, who was reportedly going to pick up Mother’s Day flowers, survived the crash. He claims to have only diverted his attention momentarily, before the delivery van he was driving flipped onto the family’s vehicle. The incident happened in Hesperia shortly before 7 a.m.
When someone has been involved in a car accident and wants to take legal action to receive compensation for their medical expenses and pain and suffering, there are many factors that could impact the case. For example, if a police investigation reveals that someone was texting while driving or if a driver was intoxicated, these details can have a significant impact on the outcome. In San Francisco, CA, people continue to pass away and suffer from serious injuries because of an auto accident. Even with media attention and driver awareness, these wrecks continue to claim lives, which should remind people of the importance of driving safely.
According to law enforcement officials, a 20-year-old woman was under the influence of alcohol when she caused a head-on collision at 10:30 a.m. on Highway 12 in Santa Rosa. She suffered minor injuries in the wreck, while three people in the other car were hospitalized for their injuries.
A 77-year-old grandmother was driving with her 26-year-old daughter and 4-year-old granddaughter in the vehicle that was struck by the drunk driver. Authorities shut the roads down for over two hours as they investigated the incident.
When a car accident takes place, there are a number of factors that must be taken into consideration. For example, if alcohol was involved or someone was texting and driving, these details could play a significant role in legal proceedings. Sometimes, the details of a crash are not known until an accident investigation is complete. In San Francisco, CA, people continue to suffer serious injuries and lose their life due to an auto accident, which should remind everyone who gets behind the wheel of just how important it is to drive safely.
After a man lost control of his Mercedes-Benz in La Jolla, the vehicle struck another car before hitting a light pole. Although he survived the accident, a 91-year-old passenger who was riding with him passed away because of the incident.
The drivers of both vehicles were hospitalized with non-fatal injuries. The accident took place just after 1 p.m. at the intersection of Soledad Mountain Road and La Jolla Scenic Drive. It is not known why the driver was unable to control his vehicle, according to San Diego authorities.
When a car collision occurs, it can be difficult for those involved to recover. Whether they suffer from a serious injury, have difficulty paying medical expenses or don’t have insurance, there are many issues that car accident victims have to deal with. In San Francisco, congested traffic can increase the likelihood of an auto accident, which makes it even more crucial for people to pay attention and remember the risks every time they get behind the wheel.
After a car t-boned another vehicle, law enforcement officials are investigating the fatal wreck that claimed a man’s life and left three others injured. They are treating the incident as a homicide and are trying to determine whether or not the driver responsible for causing the accident was intoxicated.
The crash took place at roughly 2:30 a.m. in downtown Los Angeles, at the intersection of Flower Street and Pico Boulevard. After the two vehicles collided, they ended up on the Metro Blue Line, causing it to close for hours.