Waymo already offers self-driving vehicles in places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Miami, Orlando, and Atlanta. It has also announced plans to expand to San Diego, Las Vegas, and Detroit this year and is “eyeing Portland as it rapidly expands to more states,” according to the OregonLive report.

House Bill 4085, as written, would limit how cities, including Portland, could regulate entities like Waymo. The current version of the bill prevents municipalities from banning self-driving cars. It also bans the imposition of taxes or fees that do not also apply to other ride providers like Uber or Lyft, OregonLive has reported.

Students and teachers at two schools in Clackamas County got an unexpected day off earlier this month for reasons wholly unrelated to the weather. Earlier this month, an explosion at a commercial building blew the roof off and triggered “Level 3” evacuation orders from county authorities.

According to KATU TV, the company that occupied the building at 301 South Redwood Street was in the business of “heat treating metal parts under high pressure.” The incident occurred when one of the facility’s two tanks exploded. According to the company’s website, the Canby facility “launched with two of the company’s largest [Hot Isostatic Pressing] vessels at the time (each 46 inches in diameter) capable of processing large castings” for the aerospace and defense industries.

KGW reported that, according to firefighters, “the explosion came from a 15-foot tall pressure tank and sent up a geyser of debris, dropping massive chunks hundreds of feet away.” Thankfully, no one died or suffered severe injuries as a result of this explosion. Regrettably, that is not always the case. Last October, an explosion at a high explosives facility in Tennessee killed 16. In August, an explosion at a Pennsylvania steel plant killed two and injured 10.

Seeking Recovery After a Workplace Accident

In Oregon, some workers injured on the job may be limited to workers’ compensation benefits as their sole source of recovery. For many, however, the options are potentially greater, and workers’ compensation is just one part of the total answer. If a worker suffered injuries and the potential liability for that accident extends beyond the employer, the worker may seek compensation through an “industrial accident” action.

Explosion accidents provide a useful illustration of how this can work. Say, for example, a pressurized vessel at a manufacturing facility explodes, seriously injuring a worker who was nearby. If an investigation ultimately reveals that the tank had a latent manufacturing defect that caused the blast and that the vessel was manufactured by a third party, the injured worker could have a viable industrial accident claim against the tank manufacturer. Similarly, say a device exploded because it was installed incorrectly. If the employer brought in a third-party entity to perform the installation, the injured employee could have a cause of action against the third-party installer.

There are several things you need to know about Oregon industrial accident cases. For one thing, as the above examples demonstrate, accurately assessing who was liable for your injuries is critical, making the right kind of investigation a must. You will need to have evidence that convincingly ties the third party that you sued to the accident and to the injuries you suffered.

Additionally, industrial accident cases are typically complex and nuanced matters. They require legal advocacy from someone who has extensive first-hand experience handling these cases. The skilled Oregon industrial accident attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC have this experience, having taken on small and large entities alike. Our successes include representation of victims who were injured or killed in explosions at Fortune 500 companies located in Corvallis and in Boardman. To learn more about how you can put our experience to work for you, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

According to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, drunk driving is a problem that is getting worse in Oregon. In 2014, Oregon had 166 fatalities involving an alcohol-impaired driver. By 2023, that number was up to 327.

Recent events further bear this out. A few days ago, KPTV reported on a Portland family who awoke just after 2:00 a.m. to the sound of a loud crash. That sound was the front end of an SUV slamming through the exterior wall of the home’s living room. The vehicle missed an occupied bedroom (belonging to the couple’s 13-year-old son) by just a few feet, according to the report.

The driver behind the wheel was drunk. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Last October, a motorcyclist in Hood River was less fortunate. The driver of a southbound Subaru Impreza, while attempting to pass a Toyota Corolla in a no-passing zone, slammed head-on into a northbound motorcycle. The motorcyclist died at the scene. The Oregon State Police arrested the driver of the Subaru for “manslaughter, DUII, reckless driving, and reckless endangering,” according to a KOIN report.

How Do Dram Shop Lawsuits Work?

ORS Section 471.565 outlines the process for a victim to pursue a dram shop case. The law requires that the victim prove that the establishment “served or provided alcoholic beverages to the patron or guest while the patron or guest was visibly intoxicated.” For example, if a guest at a bar has remained there drinking for many hours. As time passed, the guest became more and more intoxicated. Eventually, he was visibly drunk, yet the bartender continued to serve him additional rounds. If that guest later drove drunk and caused an injury or death, the bar might have liability in this scenario.

Additionally, the victim must not have “substantially” contributed to the intoxication of the impaired driver. As an example, say two companions (“A” and “B”) went out drinking at a bar. The pair continued drinking even after A had become visibly intoxicated, with B paying for each new round of alcohol. At the evening’s end, A drove the pair home and crashed, injuring B. It is possible that, in this circumstance, B might not have a viable dram shop claim against the bar because B “substantially contributed” to A’s intoxication.

Another point to note about dram shop cases is that the law imposes an elevated burden of proof on plaintiffs. In most civil lawsuits, the law demands that the plaintiff prove the necessary elements of their case by “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires only that the plaintiff show that their case is more likely true than not (or more than 50% probable). In dram shop cases, however, the victim must prove the establishment’s liability “by clear and convincing evidence.” Clear and convincing evidence is an intermediate level proof (above a preponderance but below “beyond a reasonable doubt,”) that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, means “highly probable.”

Dram shop cases are often complicated and challenging matters to win. If you believe you have a case against an establishment that served alcohol to a drunk driver, you owe it to yourself to get the advice of an experienced legal professional. The knowledgeable Oregon drunk driving accident attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC have significant firsthand experience pursuing dram shop cases, so we can provide you with reliable advice about your rights and options. To learn more, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

As noted above, the problem in East Multnomah County is worsening. In 2013-2020, east Multnomah County logged 396 serious or fatal crashes, averaging 49.5 per year. In 2021, there were 75. In 2022, that number was 116.

The committee’s plan would target improvements in locations like Gresham, Troutdale, Fairview, and Wood Village. The committee behind the report identified 10 traffic corridors, which it labeled “priority safety corridors,” and targeted specific proposed steps for those areas. These 10 included important thoroughfares like Stark Street, Halsey Street, Burnside Street, 181st Avenue, 182nd Avenue, and 223rd Avenue.

Other safety proposals, however, were systemwide rather than targeted toward specific corridors. These included steps such as reducing speed limits, installing “speed feedback signs and dynamic displays,” speed safety camera enforcement, and “constructed medians and lane narrowing.”

Some systemwide changes were proposed with pedestrian safety in mind. These included: “enhanced pedestrian crossings, curb extensions to shorten crossing distances, pedestrian scale lighting,” and raised crosswalks. For the benefit of bicyclists, the report proposed: “separated or protected bike lanes, bicycle conflict striping at intersections and driveways, floating bus stops to reduce bus-bike conflicts,” and “roadway surface improvements and ADA-compliant ramps.”

Noting the limited nature of transportation funding, the committee suggested prioritizing “quick-build approaches,” which are “low-cost, rapidly deployable roadway treatments that can reduce vehicle speeds and separate vehicles from people walking and biking.” For arterial and collector roads, the committee proposed steps such as painted curb extensions “to narrow intersections and slow turning movements,” modular medians “to reduce crossing distances and calm traffic,” chicanes “to slow vehicle travel speeds along straight corridors,” high-visibility crosswalks, and floating bus stops, among others.

Portland has begun its own set of steps to reduce serious and fatal traffic accidents. The city initially committed to eliminating serious or fatal crashes in 2016 and published a plan to reduce them in the fall of 2023. In 2024, the city logged 58 total traffic deaths, which was down 11 (16%) from 2023. 2023’s 69 fatalities were an all-time high, however, and 2024’s 58 were still higher than Portland’s pre-pandemic numbers.

All drivers can help reduce fatal and serious auto accidents. This includes steps such as obeying all posted speed limits, being mindful of crosswalks (including unmarked crosswalks), keeping a keen eye out for bicyclists and pedestrians, obeying traffic signals, and exercising caution when executing turns.

For now, though, serious and fatal accidents remain a fact of life in our area. Those harmed by such an accident likely have endured extensive injuries — injuries that demand accountability from all those whose negligence caused the crash. This can include a variety of steps, including insurance claims and civil litigation. As you navigate these processes, count on the knowledgeable Oregon auto accident attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC to be the reliable and effective advocate you need to obtain a just outcome. To learn more about our services, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

In the Aurora accident, according to the Oregon State Police, a 39-year-old Portland man driving a Dodge van rear-ended a Hyundai SUV driven by a 36-year-old Aurora man. The OSP’s report stated that the impact between the van and SUV pushed the southbound SUV into the northbound lane of Highway 551. A northbound Toyota van, driven by a 55-year-old from Happy Valley, crashed into the passenger side of the SUV.

A 38-year-old woman who was a passenger in the SUV died as a result of her injuries. Several others were injured and taken to a nearby hospital.

An incident like this one might seem simple and straightforward. The police report, as detailed in KATU’s report, potentially illustrates a crash in which the driver of one vehicle (the Dodge van) was solely responsible for the collision. That may be true, or it may not. Even seemingly straightforward crash scenarios may, upon full investigation, reveal more complex facts.

Many Variables and the Need for a Thorough Investigation

For example, take a hypothetical set-up like this one, where Vehicle A hits and pushes Vehicle B into an oncoming lane of traffic, where Vehicle C strikes it. There are actually multiple possible outcomes of a scenario like this. In one potential outcome, Vehicle A wrongfully slammed into Vehicle B; the driver of Vehicle C could do nothing to avoid Vehicle B, and the driver of Vehicle A is 100% responsible for the harm caused by the crash.

That is not the only option, however. Say, for example, that a thorough investigation revealed that the driver of Vehicle C was speeding, driving while distracted, driving while drowsy, or driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol. This information could indicate that the driver of Vehicle C was negligent and bears some liability for the harm the occupants of Vehicle B sustained.

This example illustrates why having skilled legal counsel is critical in your serious or fatal auto accident case. An experienced attorney can help ensure you receive the benefit of a diligent, thorough investigation. This investigation will extend well beyond the police accident report. Your legal team will ensure you have the benefit of all available eyewitness statements, forensic crash scene evidence, photos, videos, blood-alcohol test results, and more.

By doing so, you may uncover additional information that bolsters your case against the driver who rear-ended you, such as proof that they were speeding or intoxicated. This thorough investigation may also serve another vital goal: identifying additional liable parties. Identifying all negligent parties is particularly important in catastrophic or fatal accidents because these scenarios often involve the most significant harm (and therefore the highest amount of damages). Finding all the liable parties can be crucial to ensuring that you can hold everyone accountable, as well as all the essential compensation you need.

It is not enough to acknowledge that you need to conduct a thorough investigation of your multi-vehicle crash; you must know how to conduct that investigation. That is where knowledgeable legal counsel is essential, allowing you to pinpoint all liable parties and theories of liability while avoiding pitfalls that can delay or derail your recovery. You can count on the experienced Oregon auto accident attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC to provide you with the diligent and skillful counsel you need to achieve these goals. To learn more about our services, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

A terrible crash in Deschutes County is a reminder that a stopped truck can be just as dangerous as a moving one if it is in the roadway and other drivers are not adequately warned.

R.K., a trucker from Fresno, Cal., jackknifed his rig on U.S. Highway 20 about 50 miles east of Bend on the night of Dec. 1, 2025. The semi-truck’s cab faced eastbound, but the trailer faced south, positioned perpendicular across both the east- and westbound lanes. A young couple was driving westbound on Highway 20 shortly after the trucker jackknifed his rig. Police suspect that, because of “a lack of active emergency warning equipment,” the couple did not see the rig and slammed their Subaru SUV into the trailer, killing both of them.

Police arrested the trucker for criminally negligent homicide and reckless endangerment.

In a truck crash, there are several areas to focus on. One is the crash scene. Evidence such as images of skid marks or debris patterns, police accident reports, and eyewitness statements can be crucial to establishing how the crash occurred and how negligence by the trucker or the trucking company caused your harm.

Another is the trucker. While the trucker himself may have few assets and therefore be unable to contribute materially to a civil judgment, an investigation of the trucker’s driving history may reveal necessary evidence. For example, how long had the trucker been driving? Did the trucker have a “clean” driving record, or did they have a history of accidents or unsafe driving (such as driving while impaired)? While these factors may bolster a negligence case against the trucker, they may also establish that the trucking company that employed the trucker was negligent.

If the trucker’s driving history contained “red flags” before starting with the company, then the trucking company could be liable for negligent hiring. Alternatively, if the trucker had a relatively clean record when they started but racked up incidents during their time with the company (but the company kept them on anyway,) the trucking company could be liable under a theory of “negligent retention,” meaning the company knew (or should have known) it needed to fire the trucker but negligently kept using them anyway.

Additionally, examining the training the trucker received may be a beneficial avenue of inquiry. If an investigation revealed that the trucking company failed to provide the trucker with the training they needed, that could constitute another basis for holding the company responsible, namely “negligent training.”

Truck Maintenance and Repair

There is also the truck itself. Trucking companies have a legal duty to ensure that all the trucks in their fleet are fit for the road. Investigating a truck’s maintenance history may yield essential clues related to possible negligence. For example, did the company perform routine maintenance, such as changing oil, filters, belts, and hoses? Were the truck’s tires rotated regularly? Were the truck’s fluids checked periodically? Improper maintenance or repair could provide an additional basis for holding the trucking company liable (or a third party if the trucking company outsourced the maintenance and repair of its fleet to an outside entity).

As noted above, all of these things require experience—experience in securing the information you need and in reviewing it to identify the ways the trucker, the trucking company, or others were negligent. If you have experienced a severe injury — or lost a loved one — as a result of a trucking accident, consult the knowledgeable Oregon truck accident attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC. Our team possesses extensive firsthand experience handling truck cases, so we know how to help you obtain justice. To learn more, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

One such workplace type is one that uses vessels whose contents are under pressure. On Nov. 12, 2025, friends, family, and coworkers marked the one-year anniversary of the massive tank explosion that killed two workers at a manufacturing facility that produced cosmetic and food colorings.

Back in mid-November 2024, investigators from the Chemical Safety Board swiftly pinpointed the cause of the explosion. A container — cooking vessel number 6 — blew up.

Like many industrial accidents, “Cooking Vessel Number 6” did not simply explode without warning. As an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms noted when asked about possible red flags, “there was some indication that there had been some maintenance issues with that particular vessel.”

The explosion was the result of a confluence of factors. For one thing, according to a local chemical engineering professor, a vent that should have opened did not open properly. That lack of proper venting caused the vessel to overheat (30 degrees above its limit) and to become over-pressurized (three times its maximum allowable pressure), triggering the explosion.

The tank had a “rupture disc,” an emergency failsafe that activates when a container becomes overheated and over-pressurized, but it failed to alleviate the problem. “The rupture disc did kick in, but either it didn’t open completely or the pressure and temperature was just so high that the temperature just kept on building,” according to the professor.

Legal Options in the Aftermath of a Workplace Accident

This explosion happened in Kentucky, but chemical and processing plant workers in Oregon face similar workplace risks every day. When accidents like this occur, workers (or their surviving loved ones) need skilled legal counsel. Oregon law does not allow injured workers to sue their employers for the harm they suffer in an industrial accident — they are limited to obtaining workers’ compensation benefits.

That does not mean they cannot sue at all, however. Civil actions are an integral part of the process in many workplace accident situations. Oregon law allows injured workers to seek civil justice against third parties whose negligence contributed to the underlying accident. In an explosion scenario, the device that exploded may have been designed or manufactured defectively, which could allow for an industrial accident claim against the designer or manufacturer of the device that failed… or perhaps the manufacturer a part within the device.

Take, for example, an accident like the Kentucky explosion. A scenario similar to that one would require investigating the vessel, the vent, and the rupture disc. Discovering design defects or manufacturing defects in any of those might open the door to an industrial accident case.

Additional bases for a viable industrial accident case focus on issues related to installation, maintenance, or repair. If the employer outsourced installation, maintenance, or repair tasks to third parties and an investigation revealed negligence that contributed to the accident, then that lays the foundation of a winning industrial accident action. For example, in the Kentucky case, the employer used a third-party contractor to install the cooking vessel that exploded. As with design defect or manufacturing defect issues, a proper (and in-depth) investigation is key.

If you suffered a serious injury on the job or you have lost a loved one as a result of a workplace accident, you need a legal advocate with the correct set of skills. Industrial accident cases can be exceptionally intricate and complicated. The Oregon industrial accident attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC have the first-hand experience you need to provide effective advocacy in these matters. To learn more about our services, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

According to the Oregon State Police, the driver in the Southern Oregon wreck was a 17-year-old who was driving along Oregon 140 in Jackson County. The driver failed to navigate a curve and lost control of his pickup truck. The truck crashed through the guardrail and then rolled into a nearby creek. The driver and an 18-year-old passenger died at the scene. The state police reported that neither person was wearing a seatbelt, and they think “impairment and speed” were factors in the crash.

Two other 17-year-old passengers suffered critical injuries.

Teenage impaired driving is a significant problem in the United States. According to the federal government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), roughly a quarter of all teen vehicle crashes “involve an underage drinking driver.” Additionally, “almost a third of young drivers killed in fatal crashes involved underage drinking,” according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you or a loved one has been seriously harmed in an accident where the driver was underage and impaired, you have a legal option for holding the responsible parties accountable for their actions. Those responsible for the crash may include more than just the underage, impaired driver. If someone served alcohol to an underage person and that underage person subsequently gets into a wreck, the law may allow that person’s passengers (and the occupants of any other vehicles involved in the crash) to hold the party who served that alcohol responsible.

Dram Shop and Social Host Liability

In scenarios where a bar or some other commercial vendor of alcohol served the underage party, Oregon’s dram shop law is involved. If the underage driver was served alcohol by a private party, that situation implicates Oregon’s social host liability law. These laws enable individuals who have been injured to pursue civil lawsuits and obtain the necessary compensation. In cases that involve drunk drivers of legal age, an injured person must prove that the business or social host served the person even though they were “visibly intoxicated.”

By contrast, when an injured person is harmed by an underage driver, the law does not require evidence that the person was visibly impaired. Instead, the law requires an injured person to demonstrate that the provider of alcohol did not engage in reasonable steps to ensure the purchaser/recipient was 21 or older. Specifically, Oregon requires proof that “a reasonable person would have determined that identification should have been requested or that the identification exhibited was altered or did not accurately describe the person to whom the alcoholic liquor was sold or served.” If the seller did not request identification, accepted an obviously fake ID, or accepted an ID that clearly belonged to someone else, then the injured person may have a strong case against the seller.

A dram shop claim provides multiple ways for an injured passenger to obtain more complete relief as compared to suing only the underage driver. For one thing, a business that sells alcohol likely has many more assets than a teenager. Additionally, the business is likely to have significantly more insurance coverage. (Oregon law requires all licensed commercial vendors of alcohol to hold at least $300,000 of liquor liability insurance.)

A drunk driver is a dangerous driver. That danger only escalates when the impaired driver is also underage. For knowledgeable answers and diligent advocacy, consult the experienced Oregon drunk driving accident attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC. We have first-hand experience with dram shop and social host liability matters, so we can knowledgeably and effectively aid you with your injuries stemming from an underage drunk driving crash. To learn more about our services, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

In the last two months, the CPSC has issued numerous recalls for various “baby lounger” products. Many of these products are sold on sites like Amazon and Shein and originate in China. The loungers have design issues that make for “an unsafe sleeping environment for infants,” which creates a risk of serious injury or even death.

One of the most recent recalls involves the “Belivium Baby Lounger,” a Chinese-made product sold on Amazon for between $25 and $50. In its recall notice, which the CPSC issued roughly two weeks ago, the agency cited numerous shortcomings that made the products unsafe for use. These flaws relate back to the CPSC’s mandatory standards for infant sleep products, which the agency has published in the Code of Federal Regulations.

In the case of the Belivium Baby Lounger, the product’s sides “are shorter than the minimum side height limit” needed to keep a baby secure. This creates the possibility that the lounger could fail to secure a baby who tries to roll over. Additionally, the lounger has a sleeping pad whose “thickness exceeds the maximum limit,” thereby creating a risk of suffocation in the thick, pillowy pad. Furthermore, “the enclosed openings at the foot of the loungers are wider than allowed, posing fall and entrapment hazards.”

Other Problematic Products

The Belivium Baby Lounger is not the only one with these kinds of shortcomings. During the first half of October, the CPSC issued a recall for a baby lounger sold on Shein by YGJT. Similar to the Belivium Baby Lounger, the lounger by YGJT had sides whose height was below the CPSC minimum, which raises the risk that the product may not keep an infant secure if the baby rolls. It also had openings at the foot that were too large, similar to the Belivium product.

Last month, the CPSC identified another baby lounger on Amazon with problems. The LXDHSTRA Baby Lounger, like the Belivium product, was made with sides that were too low, a sleeping pad that was too thick, and openings at the foot that were too wide. In addition to those flaws, the LXDHSTRA Baby Lounger was sold with crib bumpers, which were banned by the Safe Sleep for Babies Act of 2021. That act identified padded crib bumpers as posing a serious potential to obstruct a baby’s breathing, leading to suffocation.

When it comes to safe sleep, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that caregivers:

• Place infants on their backs for sleep in their own sleep space with no other people.
• Use a crib, bassinet, or portable play yard with a firm, flat mattress and a fitted sheet. Avoid sleep on a couch or armchair or in a seating device, like a swing or car safety seat (except while riding in the car).
• Keep loose blankets, pillows, stuffed toys, bumpers, and other soft items out of the sleep space.

Too often, children are hurt or killed because a corporation decided to put an unsafe product on the market. Whether a caregiver is purchasing a car seat, a swing, a crib, a play yard, or any product for their child, they are doing so with the belief that the item they have purchased is safe for its intended use. When a product is not safe and an injury results, those responsible should be held accountable through a product liability lawsuit or other civil action. The skilled Oregon child injury attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC have handled a wide array of child injury and product liability cases, so we possess the knowledge and experience to help you pursue justice. To learn more about our services, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

On TV, cases often turn on some sudden in-court revelation. In real life, the seeds of success (or failure) can be sown long before trial during the pre-trial investigation process.

Take, for example, an incident that occurred last month about 20 miles south of Portland. On the afternoon of September 26, a multi-vehicle crash closed the northbound lanes of Interstate 5. The collision claimed a total of seven vehicles. At the time that FOX 12 reported on the accident, the Oregon State Police disclosed that some of the vehicles’ occupants were injured, but did not say how many or how severe their injuries were.

Contrast a seven-vehicle incident like this with a two-vehicle crash. In a basic two-vehicle collision, determining fault can sometimes be relatively straightforward. If Vehicle A stopped safely at a red traffic light and Vehicle B crashed into the rear of A, then the driver of B very possibly has significant (if not total) liability to the driver of A for any injuries the crash caused.

The Many Permutations of Multi-Vehicle Collisions

Multi-vehicle crashes can be much less straightforward. Assume that three, not two vehicles, are involved in a rear-end crash at a red light and that the driver of Vehicle 1 (the front vehicle) is seriously hurt. In this scenario, the driver of Vehicle 1 needs to know many details to pursue a civil lawsuit effectively. For example, if the driver of Vehicle 2 stopped properly but the driver of Vehicle 3, who was driving while texting, did not see the stopped traffic and slammed into Vehicle 2, pushing it into Vehicle 1, the driver of Vehicle 3 may bear 100% liability for all the harm caused.

On the other hand, what if Driver 2 was distracted and crashed into Vehicle 1, and Driver 3, who was going too fast, could not stop and slammed into the rear of Vehicle 2, which hit Vehicle 1 again. In that hypothetical example, both Drivers 2 and 3 could potentially be liable for the harm caused to Driver 1.

Note that those are only a couple of examples involving just three vehicles. The more vehicles, the more possibilities in terms of liability, as each scenario could be anything from a single vehicle crashing into numerous stopped cars — drowsy or distracted truckers are often involved in these scenarios — to a possibility of multiple drivers bearing some culpability for forms of negligence like following too closely or failing to keep their vehicle under control. (Bad weather chain-reaction crashes are a typical example of this.)

Injury victims understand that success is not just about dollars… it is fundamentally about identifying wrongdoers and holding them accountable. To do that, you need to develop a clear and complete picture of the accident. You need to amass a wide array of evidence, including crash scene photographs, video footage, eyewitness testimony, police reports, and more.

Executing the Process

To get everything you need for an accurate assessment, you have to know how to go about the process. You have to understand how to investigate the crash scene and how to acquire copies of the documentary, photo, video, or testimonial evidence that will shed light on your case. This can involve a variety of legal tools, ranging from Depositions to Sets of Interrogatories to Requests for Production of Documents to Requests for Admissions and more.

These discovery tools are the keys to completing the “picture” of your accident, and your experienced injury accident lawyer has extensive knowledge about how to use them and how to go about all the other necessary evidence collection steps your case needs.

Given how important achieving a fair and appropriate outcome is, you owe it to yourself to avoid unnecessary risks and ensure you have done everything necessary to arrive at that successful endpoint. That includes having skilled legal counsel on your side. The experienced Oregon auto accident attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC have handled a full spectrum of severe auto accident cases, so we are fully equipped to help you pursue justice. To learn more about our services, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

Counties like Multnomah and Washington typically rank at the top in terms of the most crashes and deaths each year, based on raw numbers. That does not necessarily tell the whole story, however, as they are also among Oregon’s most populous counties. Recently, Stacker delved into this data and ranked Oregon’s counties not simply by tallying the number of deaths, but by assigning a fatality rate based on dividing the number of deaths by the county’s total population.

The county at the top of the list was Harney County. Harney is a large, sparsely populated county in southeast Oregon. Although it logged only six deaths, that number, given the county’s low population (less than 7,500), was enough to make its fatality rate (80.5 per 100,000 people) nearly double that of the #2 county, Malheur.

In neighboring Malheur County, one highway alone, U.S. 20, accounted for more than 1/3 of the deaths there. Of all 14 roadway deaths, five occurred on that highway. The third county was Baker, with a fatality rate of 41.4 per 100,000 people. That means that counties 1-3 are all located in far eastern Oregon.

On the geographic flip side, northwest Oregon was the home of counties 4 and 5. Tillamook had a fatality rate of 40.1 per 100,000 people. Columbia County had a rate of 35.2 per 100,000 people. More than half (11) of Columbia County’s 19 deaths occurred on U.S. 30.

The data showed that, in most instances, the roads with the highest number of deaths were U.S. highways, including U.S. 101 in Coos County (12 fatalities), U.S. 30 in Columbia County (11 fatalities), and U.S. 97 in Deschutes County (10 fatalities).

Multnomah County logged a total of 90 deaths, giving it a fatality rate of 11.3 per 100,000 people and ranking it 20th out of Oregon’s 36 counties. The deadliest Multnomah County road was Southeast Stark Street in Portland, which logged nine deaths.

Even as the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the Oregon Department of Transportation conduct periodic safety audits and safety studies, particularly along especially deadly roads like U.S. 97, problems persist. These may include narrow shoulders, old, outdated guardrails (or no guardrails at all), and alignments that create short sight distances.

Be advised that, as we recently discussed, taking on the government in civil court is a highly technical, complex, and challenging endeavor. It is not, however, necessarily impossible. Skilled legal counsel can provide you with essential advice and advocacy when and if pursuing governmental agencies becomes necessary.

While not all motor vehicle accidents will involve taking action against an arm of the government, almost all will include a driver (or drivers) who drove negligently. This means dealing with at-fault parties, their insurance companies, and their lawyers. This can be even more complicated if you live somewhere outside of Oregon. Given the frequency with which major crashes occur on highways located in Oregon’s tourist “hot spots” — such as the state’s coastal areas — this is a very real concern.

For sound advice and reliable, personalized advocacy, look to the knowledgeable Oregon motor vehicle accident attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC. We have handled a wide array of auto accidents and possess the in-depth knowledge and firsthand experience with Oregon’s courts necessary to assist you in obtaining justice for the harm you suffered. To learn more about how we can help, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

Many cases may involve a combination of private and public actors who were negligent. This was the case in a catastrophic crash from 2020.

The accident, which occurred in South Salem, left one teenage girl dead. Police reports and evidence from the crash site revealed that the driver of the girl’s vehicle was speeding and ran a stop sign in the moments before the two-vehicle collision occurred.

However, investigations also revealed something more. The intersection where the crash occurred, according to a lawsuit the girl’s father filed on her behalf, lacked proper speed-limit signage, street lights, and warning signs alerting drivers of the impending stop sign.

Evidence also showed that the girl’s death was one of three major crashes at the intersection in just three years. Additionally, neighbors allegedly notified the city about the intersection’s dangerous condition and “urged the city to take action before someone else was killed,” according to the Statesman-Journal.

The city opted to settle the father’s case against it rather than proceed, agreeing to pay the father $133,000.

A scenario where you (or your loved one) is seriously injured because of a negligent driver and unreasonably hazardous road conditions is one example where taking civil action against a governmental entity is necessary. Whether it is this type of scenario, a situation where the negligent individual was a government employee, or governmental liability arising through some other way, it is essential to recognize that taking civil action against a government is not as simple as pursuing justice when the defendants are all private individuals or entities.

Notice of Claim

When a governmental defendant is involved, you must follow the procedures laid out in the Oregon Tort Claims Act. This statute spells the unique rules you must follow to bring a case against an arm of the government.

The process starts with what is called the “Notice of Claim.” The law imposes strict time limits for filing this notice with the government. If you do not meet this deadline, your case could be lost before making it to trial. In situations involving a fatality or fatalities, the law gives you one year to provide notice of your claim. In claims that do not include deaths, the deadline is 180 days. Additionally, be aware that the total time you have to give notice may be longer if you were hurt and unable to give notice. In those scenarios, you may have as many as 90 additional days to provide notice of your claim.

In addition to laying out the deadlines for providing notice, ORS Section 30.275 also specifies what can qualify as a valid notice. One way to satisfy the notice requirement is “formal notice.” A formal notice must contain specific details to be acceptable, including:

• (a)A statement that a claim for damages is or will be asserted against the public body or an officer, employee, or agent of the public body;
• (b)A description of the time, place, and circumstances giving rise to the claim, so far as known to the claimant; and
• (c)The name of the claimant and the mailing address to which correspondence concerning the claim may be sent.”

You can also satisfy the notice requirement through “actual notice,” which is “any communication by which any individual to whom notice may be given… or any person responsible for administering tort claims on behalf of the public body acquires actual knowledge of the time, place and circumstances giving rise to the claim.”

Furthermore, commencing “an action on the claim” within the appropriate timeframe can qualify as notice.

As you can tell if you peruse Section 30.275, pursuing a case against an arm of the government is a matter that contains many technicalities, details, complexities, and potential pitfalls that can trip up an unsuspecting person who has proceeded without skilled legal counsel. Rather than taking that kind of massive risk, it is much wiser to retain a knowledgeable attorney. The experienced Oregon wrongful death attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC have handled many cases where the evidence pointed to liability by a public entity. To learn more about how we can help, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

A fatal case from Southwest Oregon illustrates the harm that an out-of-control dog can cause.

According to the Josephine County Sheriff’s Office, a four-year-old girl died after a dog attacked her on August 16. Available details about the attack were sparse, but KOBI reported that the incident occurred at a residence in Cave Junction, approximately 30 miles southwest of Grants Pass. KOBI also indicated that the dog involved was a mix of Cane Corso, Rottweiler, and Pit bull breeds. A GoFundMe for the child’s family stated that the dog belonged to a neighbor.

Even though many details regarding the specifics of this attack are missing, the attack and the child’s tragic death should remind everyone of the profound responsibility that goes with keeping a dog. Even if a dog is not a member of a notoriously dangerous breed, like Pit bulls, it can still pose a potential danger if its owner does not train, control, and handle the animal properly. The need for careful training and handling is that much higher when the dog belongs to a breed known for its aggression, such as Pit bulls and Cane Corsos.

A dog owner who fails to control their animals properly can face significant legal liability for the harm those dogs cause. You may have heard of the “one bite” rule, and that Oregon law follows it. Many people believe this purported rule states that an owner can only be liable if they had advance knowledge that the dog was dangerous, such as having bitten someone previously.

The reality of Oregon law is more complex than that. Oregon law allows owners to be held liable for keeping a “potentially dangerous dog” that causes harm. The Oregon statutes define a potentially dangerous dog as one that:

• (a) Without provocation and while not on premises from which the keeper may lawfully exclude others, menaces a person;
• (b) Without provocation, inflicts physical injury on a person that is less severe than a serious physical injury; or
• (c) Without provocation and while not on premises from which the keeper may lawfully exclude others, inflicts physical injury on or kills a domestic animal.”

Animal Attacks and Strict Liability

Oregon law may allow an attack victim to hold the owner strictly liable (sometimes called liability “without fault”) if the owner had actual knowledge (or reasonably should have known) that the animal had a propensity for violent actions. This history does not have to include an attack. Even lesser behaviors, like a dog launching itself at people, may be sufficient to put the owner on notice and create strict liability. Additionally, a first-attack scenario may trigger a strict liability case if the dog belonged to a breed known to be aggressive or dangerous.

Neighboring Washington goes even further. That state’s statutes state that dog owners are strictly liable for all harm their animals cause, provided the victim did not provoke the dog and was in a place where they were allowed to be (i.e., not trespassing). That is true even if the dog had never displayed any tendencies toward violence before.

The experienced Oregon dog attack attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC have handled numerous domestic animal attack cases over the years. Owning a dog is a serious responsibility, and when someone gets hurt (or killed) because a dog owner did not meet those responsibilities, civil justice exists to help those who were injured. To learn more about your dog attack case and how we can assist you, call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.

Video footage the Beaverton Police Department released in May shows how quickly a disagreement on the road can go from a verbal dispute to a life-threatening crash when a road-rage driver uses his vehicle as a weapon.

In the video from Beaverton, two vehicles — one minivan and one motorcycle — travel side-by-side on westbound Highway 26 between Highway 217 and Cedar Hills Boulevard. The motorcyclist appeared to yell, point, or gesture toward the Kia van. The van driver’s response was shocking and inappropriate.

One of those recent bicycle accidents occurred in Southeast Portland. OregonLive reported that a vehicle driver and a bicyclist crashed near the intersection of SE 145th Avenue and SE Powell Boulevard at around 7:00 pm on July 13. The bicyclist died from his injuries on July 14.

According to the report, the vehicle driver, who was shoeless, had “bloodshot eyes and smelled like alcohol.” The driver also allegedly “appeared to be struggling to walk in a straight line or talk.”

On July 12, a hit-and-run driver crashed into a bicyclist in Washington County, flinging the bicyclist into a ditch, where she remained until passersby found her early the next morning. The collision, which occurred along NW Dairy Creek Road, left the bicyclist with “serious leg and facial injuries,” according to the local sheriff’s office.

In addition to these news stories, statistics illustrate the elevated risk bicyclists face. According to the IIHS, 1,155 bicyclists were killed in collisions with vehicles in 2023. That figure was the highest ever recorded. Data from the CDC shows that, although bicycle trips represent only 1% of all trips in this country, bicyclist deaths are roughly double that rate, or 2% of all crash fatalities.

In the recent Southeast Portland crash, police believe alcohol was a factor. That is disturbingly common. According to the CDC, roughly “one-third of crashes that result in a bicyclist’s death involve alcohol.”

Insurance Coverage and Your Bicycle Accident

As this information illustrates, bicycle accidents often inflict massive harm. Given that inevitable reality, it is vital to understand what options you have available for financial recovery.

One of those is an insurance claim (or claims). Even though you were not operating a motor vehicle when you got hurt in a bicycle-versus-vehicle crash, your auto insurance coverage may be a helpful place to turn. If you have auto insurance coverage, or even if you merely live with somebody else who has auto insurance, the policy’s Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage can help. That coverage can potentially pay tens of thousands of dollars — the legal minimum for PIP in Oregon is $15,000 — of your initial medical bills. If your injuries trigger an absence from work, PIP coverage can also help with income replacement benefits.

These local news reports should remind all bicyclists who have auto insurance of the importance of regularly reviewing their coverage and ensuring that they have enough protection. Given today’s costs as well as the prevalence of drivers on the road with only a state-minimum policy (or no insurance at all), having at least $100,000/$300,000 in underinsured/uninsured motorist protection should be a part of every bicyclist’s auto insurance coverage.

If you have questions about compensation for bicycle accidents — whether via insurance claims or civil action — we are here to provide you with honest, reliable, and straightforward answers. To find out more, reach out to the Oregon bicycle accident attorneys at Kaplan Law LLC. Call (503) 226-3844 today or contact us online to schedule your free consultation.