Articles Posted in Car Accidents

|

When you are injured in an auto accident, one of the most important things you’ll have to decide is if you have a case for damages and, if so, who is liable for the injuries you suffered. While the other driver is an obvious candidate, the facts of your case may indicate that there are others who are liable to you for the harm you suffered. Experienced California car accident attorneys can help you as you make each of these very important decisions.

One case that presented facts that allowed for an action against an arguably unlikely defendant was the lawsuit that arose from a Sept. 4, 2011 crash in the Los Angeles suburb of Glendale. Joanne was driving through Glendale late one Sunday when there was a power outage. As she passed through the intersection of Glendale Avenue and Broadway, another vehicle slammed into Joanne’s car. The broadside impact sent Joanne’s vehicle into a pole. Everyone in Joanne’s car was hurt, but she suffered the most severe injuries.

In intersection accidents, there may be a variety of individuals or entities you can potentially sue for the harm you suffered in the crash. This group could include, obviously, the other driver. Also, though, you may be able to sue the governmental entity responsible for the roadway(s) involved if the intersection was designed or maintained in an unsafe fashion. Several injured drivers or passengers have successfully litigated or settled cases recently in which they alleged that an intersection was unsafe either in its design or in its maintenance.

Continue reading ›

|

Alcohol and automobiles shouldn’t mix. When they do, bad things, including serious injuries, can happen. When those things do happen, sometimes vehicle accidents and injuries are involved. In those circumstances, it is important to have capable California car accident attorneys on your side to represent your interests and make sure you get everything the law says you deserve in your drunk driving accident case. In one such case (Case No. BC548489, Cal. Super. Ct. March 22, 2017), one man injured in a drunk driving case recently received $12 million from a Los Angeles County jury.

Lance was an employee of a property management company. On St. Patrick’s Day, he took out one of his clients (a board member of a homeowners association that his management firm represented) for drinks. After drinking, the men got back into a car, with Lance driving. While traveling down the Ventura Freeway, Lance struck another vehicle. The resulting crash caused serious injuries to the HOA board member. In fact, doctors nearly had to amputate the passenger’s right arm, which ultimately required 30 surgeries to treat, according to the passenger.

The passenger sued for his injuries. He didn’t just sue Lance, though; he also sued the management company for which Lance worked. In any injury case, it is important to identify all of the plausible avenues for obtaining recovery for your damages and advancing all of them in your litigation in order to give yourself a strong chance of success.

Continue reading ›

|

Whenever you are taking on an insurance company in a personal injury case, you can expect that the insurer will defend itself with as many counter-arguments as possible. The defense may argue that your injuries weren’t results of your accident. The insurance company may argue that the treatment you received wasn’t really medically necessary. Regardless of the arguments advanced by the insurance company, you’ll need strong California car accident attorneys on your side to utilize the facts and the law related to your case to ensure that you get what you deserve.

One recent instance in which this occurred was a case arising out of a March 2011 Orange County car crash. Carmen suffered serious injuries in the collision. The crash was a result of another driver running a red light and slamming into her vehicle.

Although Carmen originally had no spinal tenderness or range-of-motion limitations, she eventually sought care from a chiropractor. She later saw an osteopath, who performed an MRI and diagnosed multiple disc protrusions in the lumbar and cervical spine. Eventually, Carmen underwent several epidural steroid injections to treat her back problems. These injections were extremely expensive, and the sum total of Carmen’s medical expenses quickly rose into the tens of thousands of dollars.

Continue reading ›

|

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.

Continue reading ›

|

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.

Continue reading ›

|

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.

Continue reading ›

|

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.

Continue reading ›

|

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.

Continue reading ›

|

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.

Continue reading ›

|

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.

Continue reading ›