San Francisco Injury Attorney Blog

Lawsuit Filed Against Hospital For Exorbitant ER Bill

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:15:28 -0800

A woman has filed a lawsuit challenging a hospital's $20,211 emergency room bill, incurred after she was involved in an accident caused by a driver going the wrong way. According to an article in The Galveston County Daily News, the woman claims the large bill is unreasonable for the 4 hours of examination and diagnostic tests she received. Our San Francisco personal injury attorneys know it is not uncommon to see exorbitant emergency bills in accident cases, including auto collisions, falls, and similar situations.

The 23-year old woman was injured last spring in a three-car collision that involved a wrong-way driver. The police report stated that an SUV tried to avoid the wrong-way driver but was sideswiped by the driver's pickup. The wrong-way driver then struck another truck head on. The woman was a passenger in the truck that was hit head on. The police noted that the wrong-way driver could have fallen asleep at the wheel.

The injured woman had hired a injury attorney to file a claim against the wrong-way driver who caused the accident, and that suit settled for $30,000. Although the young woman received minimal treatment at the hospital, her bill totaled over $20,000. The lawsuit claims that the hospital initially charged a much lower amount but later increased its bill fivefold and made a claim against her insurance settlement. The woman's bill, which was originally $4,850, suddenly rose to $20,211. The hospital then made a claim on the woman's accident settlement for the entire bill.

Unfortunately, bad billing behavior like this happens more than you might think. The Bay Area accident lawyers at Callaway & Wolf have seen a lot of excessive emergency room bills in California automobile accident cases. Usually the hospitals have deals in place with all health insurers to accept much less, and they accept even lower reimbursement from Medi-Cal or Medicare. Also, if no insurance is involved, most hospitals will negotiate with an individual patient and offer a steep discount. However, sometimes if a health care facility knows that someone was in an accident, they try to collect a substantially larger amount--what the hospital calls the "gross amount." Other times, health insurance carriers will try to avoid paying accident-related bills altogether. On many occasions we have had clients say they were told that their health insurance does not cover bills resulting from an auto accident that was someone else's fault, which is false.

Hospitals and insurance companies may try to bully California accident victims over medical bills, because they know victims frequently feel overwhelmed by high medical costs and may be in pain and anxious to settle. Our San Francisco injury lawyers have a strong reputation with the major injury carriers, which allows us to settle a majority of cases quickly and favorably.

There is a two-year statute of limitations in a California automobile accident lawsuit. This time period runs from the date of the accident, so the case must be settled or filed in court before the two-year limit is up. Valuable time can be wasted attempting to negotiate with an insurance company because they typically try to settle for the lowest amount possible and may not even offer you enough money to cover your medical bills and lost wages--even if you were not at fault. Having an experienced personal injury attorney on your side can greatly increase your chances of obtaining a fair settlement. More importantly, it can provide you with peace of mind while you focus on what is most important--healing and getting better.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Family Settles $5M Lawsuit in Fatal Car Crash With LAPD

Car accident results in $43m verdict against Ford

San Francisco Muni Accident Attorney Discusses Accident-Prone N-Judah Line

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:17:10 -0800

Frequent collisions on the N-Judah have made it Muni's most accident-prone line, according to articles in the San Francisco Examiner and The Huffington Post. The N-Judah, which travels from Ocean Beach to the Caltrain station on Fourth and King Streets, was involved in a whopping 84 collisions between 2008 and 2011, averaging out to about 1 every 13 days. The M-Ocean View line was also involved in 58 accidents during that period. In contrast, the safest line was the K-Ingleside with only about 26 accidents during the same time period--still an unacceptably high number in my opinion.

For some Muni passengers, constant accidents or derailments are just a way of life, reports the San Francisco Examiner, but Bay Area accident lawyers know that such interruptions in service can have serious consequences for our city's residents. Unsafe public transit is a significant danger for pedestrians, passengers, and other vehicles. I have handled numerous Muni cases, including those involving buses, cable cars, and LRVs/streetcars. In some of our cases, two Muni vehicles collided. On the LRVs, there is continuous video, which can be preserved and makes for powerful evidence of trauma. (See our post regarding the installation of cameras aboard Muni vehicles, which has helped reduce Muni's accident rate, here.)

According to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), the N-Judah carries more passengers and requires more service than any other line, which is apparently one reason it has been involved in so many collisions. The agency also noted that the number of Muni accidents has dropped for the past three years.

But a San Francisco transit activist cites problems such as the N-Judah's route through dense neighborhoods as one of the reasons for the line's frequent accidents. Issues such as double-parked cars or careless drivers are hazards on narrow and crowded streets. While these problems are realities of commuting in a city, our San Francisco Muni injury attorneys know that Muni drivers must be held to a high standard because so many citizens place enormous trust in them on a daily basis.

While the N-Judah may not become the safest Muni line anytime soon, there are some solutions that the SFMTA could employ in the meantime. For one thing, it is imperative that Muni drivers receive continued training on traveling through San Francisco's busy streets so that as many accidents as possible can be avoided.

In a California personal injury case, victims are entitled to be compensated for the value of medical and other care, for pain, suffering, and mental suffering, for damage to your car and any other property, and for lost wages. Typically, California has a two-year statute of limitations for accident cases. However, it is important to remember that accidents with a public transit vehicle have a shorter statute of limitations because they involve a governmental entity. Claims against a public entity must be filed with the appropriate agency within 6 months of the date of harm.

Our Muni accident lawyers are very experienced with cases involving San Francisco Muni buses and streetcars. We have represented passengers riding Muni vehicles, pedestrians struck by Muni vehicles, and drivers whose cars were hit by Muni vehicles.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Muni Accident Rate Down Due To Cameras Aboard Vehicles

Family Settles $5M Lawsuit in Fatal Car Crash With LAPD

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:35:56 -0800

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that a settlement was reached in a case involving a horrific 2009 car crash between the LAPD and a young woman. The woman, who died a few days later, was 25-year-old Devin Petelski. Petelski was driving home from her job as a counselor for troubled children. She suffered traumatic chest and head injuries. Following the accident her family filed a California wrongful death lawsuit against the city police, claiming that the patrol cop was driving at excessive speeds and failed to turn on the car's emergency lights and siren.

Despite the settlement, each side has provided drastically different accounts of the accident. The police officers involved were responding to the scene of a burglary in process. They claim that Petelski came flying out from a side street, causing them to slam into the driver's side of her BMW sedan. Both officers suffered minor injuries after swerving onto the sidewalk and hitting a tree. The first officer who arrived on the scene performed CPR on the young woman and stated he detected the smell of alcohol on Petelski's breath, a claim that was resoundingly dismissed when blood tests were done at the hospital shortly after the crash.

When a car or other type of accident causes a death in California, San Francisco accident lawyers know that many types of evidence can affect the outcome of a case. For example, eyewitness testimony can be extremely important in persuading a jury. In Petelski's case, witnesses provided varying accounts, with some saying the police were driving as fast as 80 mph. The officers claimed they were going approximately 50 mph.

Accident reconstruction can also serve as powerful evidence in a wrongful death case. According to the LAPD's Specialized Collision Investigation Detail, the officers were traveling at approximately 49 mph at the moment the brakes were applied. Members of the Detail measured the length and direction of the skid marks left by the tires, weighed the two cars, and determined where the cars ultimately ended up after the accident. However, when an independent expert completed tests on the police car's powertrain control module (a device similar to a black box on an airplane) they concluded that the police car slowed nearly to a stop and then rapidly accelerated less than 20 seconds before colliding with Petelski. After this evidence came to light, the LAPD and Petelski's parents reached a settlement.

As a San Francisco personal injury attorney, I have handled many accident cases involving public entities over the years. Public entities could include BART, Muni, or school buses. Such accidents have specific claims-filing requirements that are different from the general two-year filing requirements for standard personal injury cases, including wrongful death cases. Typically, if you become involved in an accident with a government entity, your claim must be filed with that entity within six months. Talking with a lawyer before that six-month period ends is crucial in cases where a public entity may be a defendant. Otherwise, your legal claims could be time-barred, which means that you may not be able to recover any form of financial compensation to cover medical expenses, lost wages, or other injuries.

Sadly, Petelski's death probably could have been prevented. When accidents happen, Bay Area accident lawyers know it can be reassuring to have a dedicated advocate on your side. The lawyers at Callaway & Wolf will give your case the professional, personalized attention you deserve.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Muni Accident Rate Down Due To Cameras Aboard Vehicles

Bike accident lawyer: Will speed limits on the Golden Gate Bridge reduce bike accidents?

San Francisco Mechanic's Death Prompts Cal-OSHA Investigation

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:01:08 -0800

A mechanic working on a bus at a maintenance yard in the Bayview district suffered fatal injuries the morning of December 15, 2011, when the bus rolled over him. Fifty-eight year-old Walter Pietilla was working under the bus' hood when it apparently rolled off the support ramp and pinned him underneath, crushing him to death. The reason for the accident remains unknown. The bus and maintenance yard are owned by San Francisco-based Cal Experience LLC, which provides "party bus" services.

Cal-OSHA, California's workplace safety agency, is investigating the incident to try to determine what caused the bus to roll off of its support ramp. It will review the company's safety procedures and will interview employees and managers regarding how safety procedures are carried out and how employees are trained. Cal-OSHA has stated that Cal Experience has no prior history of workplace violations. If Cal-OSHA finds that the company is in violation of state workplace safety rules, the company could face fines ranging from the hundreds to thousands of dollars. The results of this investigation will help determine the legal rights and obligations of both Cal Experience and the worker's estate.

News reports do not indicate if Pietilla was an employee of Cal Experience, if he was employed by a company contracted to Cal Experience, or if he worked in some capacity as an independent contractor. Employees who suffer injuries on the job must ordinarily pursue damages through the workers' compensation system. This allows for employees to claim damages for injuries sustained while performing work duties, but it often limits damages and involves a great deal of administrative work.

Work sites may involve a variety of companies contracted to one another, and it is not always apparent which workers are employed by which company. A claim under the theory of third-party liability may be possible when a worker suffers an injury caused by someone who is not the worker's direct employer, such as a subcontractor, or when the worker is an independent contractor.

An owner or manager of property often has liability to people injured by dangerous conditions on their property, under the legal theory of premises liability. This could include liability for failure to repair a defect or damage on the premises, or failure to reasonably provide for the safety of people working on the premises. A worker injured on the job, in the absence of a workers' compensation claim or a claim under third-party liability, might have a claim under a premises liability theory against the person or business that has control over the premises themselves.

Kaiser Malpractice Injury: Nursing Negligence Causes Death

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:01:06 -0800

Kaiser Malpractice Injury: Nursing Negligence Causes Death

The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that a patient at Kaiser hospital in Oakland died due to a nurse's error in administering intravenous medication. Although the Chronicle's initial story about this malpractice incident did not describe the error, later news reports said that the nurse, a temp brought in during the nurses' strike, gave a large dose of a drug that had not even been prescribed for the patient.

Many medical malpractice cases, even ones involving deaths, are due to the conduct of non-doctors. The very broad law-Civil Code Section 3333.2--which limits recoveries in California medical malpractice cases, though, applies to the entire range of health care providers, including nurses. Nursing negligence cases often involve hospital falls, but medication administration errors are often caused by nurses.

In cases of nursing care negligence, the California Department of Public Health will investigate, if it receives a complaint. Although the DPH frequently finds no regulatory violations, a finding of a violation by the DPH is a very powerful piece of evidence supporting a malpractice claim. The DPH has the ability to interview all the staff involved in the injury before formal discovery that is part of a lawsuit begins, and this can have the effect of gathering much helpful evidence for a legal case.

In the death case reported recently, the nurse was working for Kaiser Permanente. Cases involving Kaiser members are often covered by Kaiser's arbitration agreement, forcing members to arbitrate their cases privately, rather than take them to court. Having a Kaiser case heard in an arbitration, rather than in court, can be preferable in some cases, particularly those which are located in counties which are known to be hostile to medical malpractice plaintiffs.

Here is a medical malpractice case overview I put together on how malpractice cases are handled by attorneys.

Muni Accident Rate Down Due To Cameras Aboard Vehicles

Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:50:55 -0800

A story in the San Francisco Examiner reports that San Francisco Muni accidents are down 50% with the installation of DriveCam surveillance systems in all of the Muni buses, according to a Muni study. The cameras are activated by sudden changes in velocity, such a sharp braking or steering. Each unit has two cameras: one showing the view ahead, and one trained on the driver. Apparently, just knowing that there will be an audio and video record has caused drivers to maintain a higher standard. For drivers who are captured on video driving badly, Muni uses refined training, and discipline.

The DriveCam system costs about $500 per vehicle-quite a bargain for a system that Muni believes caused accidents to drop from 964 in 2009 to 483 in 2010. Of coarse, the cost per vehicle should provide many years of DriveCam coverage. Now Muni is looking at using the cameras to reduce Muni streetcar accidents too, which I hope they will do soon.

No doubt, some of the Muni drivers must dislike the cameras, and feel that they are intrusive. In most jobs, though, there is at least some direct supervision and observation. Given the enormous public trust that goes to public transit drivers, I would be surprised to see drivers or their representatives taking issues with the DriveCams.

As personal injury lawyer, I have had many cases involving Muni over the years. The many protections afforded Muni drivers makes it very difficult to remove poor or mediocre drivers, unless they cause multiple injury accidents. Muni's work rules allow drivers to work considerable overtime hours, and permit drivers to commute in from long distances, so that they start a shift already haven driven one to two hours. As such, a system that increases safety and personal responsibility for Muni's drivers is welcome. As a Muni rider, I really like the idea that there is an additional level of oversight, and that it has had such a dramatic positive impact on driver safety.

Another New Scan Helps Disclose TBI: Traumatic Brain Injury

Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:43:36 -0800

A new MRI scanning technique, called diffusion tensor imaging, or DTI, can disclose abnormalities in patients with traumatic brain injury, whose injuries could not be seen on any diagnostic imaging, according to a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and reported by the National Library of Medicine.

As an attorney handling traumatic brain injury cases, I see this as having great potential for helping people with TBI and MTBI convince judges and juries that their injuries are real. For most MTBI cases now, we have to rely on neuropsychological testing, and witnesses who notice mental impairments in MTBI victims. The defense usually relies heavily on the lack of evidence of injury in any diagnostic images, such as traditional MRIs, claiming that the victim if fabricating or exaggerating symptoms following a head injury. These symptoms commonly include impaired short-term memory, inability to concentrate or multi-task, disorientation, and generally slowed thinking.

Although some 80+% of people who suffer a concussion-or MTBI-have only temporary cognitive impairment, memory loss, and other symptoms, some have long-lasting or permanent problems. Ironically, brain abnormalities are seen in autopsy for MTBI sufferers. This is of course no help for clients seeking recoveries in MTBI cases. Oftentimes, the person with the MTBI is a intelligent, high-functioning person, who can appear normal, or even above average, despite the impairment. Having an objective imaging test to show the effects of MTBI would increase the chances of getting appropriate compensation for people with these injuries.

New Testing For Traumatic Brain Injury

Mon, 23 May 2011 17:59:18 -0800

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that the U.S. army is using a new imaging test to look for objective signs of TBI traumatic brain injury. The testing, called SPECT, or single-photon emission computerized tomography, shows the level of blood flow throughout the brain. Many traumatic brain injuries result from blast injuries for soldiers, but most commonly are caused by injury accidents for civilians. In TBI injury cases, the injury can result from a blow or jolt to the head, which in turn causes a concussion-the brain hits the interior of the skull. A major frustration for personal injury lawyers has been getting an objective diagnosis of TBI injuries. CT and MRI scans typically do not show MTBI, or mild traumatic brain injury, even though an MTBI can have life-changing effects, including impaired memory and cognitive function.

In TBI personal injury cases, we are often up against defense arguments that if the injury does not show up on a CT scan or MRI, it simply does not exist. Although neuropsychologist testing can show the effects of an MTBI, the lack of imaging scans showing just what is wrong with the brain make it much more challenging to prove an MTBI injury case. Lawyers spend a great deal of time bringing in family members and other witnesses to prove that the person who has suffered the traumatic brain injury really is impaired, even though there is no test that clearly shows it. Ironically, MTBI effects are often seen on autopsy in cases where they could not be seen with any scans.

If this new technology used in the SPECT scans is able to disclose actual evidence of brain pathology in people who have traumatic brain injuries, it will significantly improve injury plaintiffs and claimants in proving their cases.

Bike accident lawyer: Will speed limits on the Golden Gate Bridge reduce bike accidents?

Mon, 16 May 2011 18:15:15 -0800

Recently the Golden Gate Bridge District considered, and tabled, a proposal to set a 10 MPH speed limit for bicycles on the bridge. This became the subject of an episode of the Forum radio show on KQED, which posted listener comments online. In the Bay Area, bikes are normally subject to the same speed limits as cars. Would a lower limit on the crowded sidewalks of the Golden Gate bridge help prevent bike accidents and injuries? Probably so. Setting the limit at 10 MPH would be very unpopular, though, which may be why the measure was tabled, rather than brought to a vote.

As a cyclist, I would not want to be limited to 10 MPH for a span of nearly a mile. I think that there is an inherent unfairness in having a tight speed limit on bikes, most of which do not even have speedometers.

In my experience handling bicycle injury cases, people seem to perceive that bicycles are going faster than they really are, and most riders don't have a clear sense of how fast they are going. Of course, slowing people down, in cars, on bikes, or any other form of transport, is likely to reduce injury accidents. I think that this additional safety, though, should be weighed against the feasability problems, and the individual freedom in letting people choose, within reasonable limits, how fast they want to go.

Oakland Accident Attorney: Alameda Jury Pools Do Not Reflect The Ethnic Balance of the Population

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:27:04 -0800

In any personal injury case, the composition of the jury is extremely important. Even if the case can be settled, that settlement will be largely based on what the lawyers think a jury might decide, if the case went to trial. For Oakland injury accident cases, any jury trial will likely be in Alameda County Superior Court. A recent ACLU study showed that while African Americans represent 18% of the population in Alameda County, they represent only about 8% of the jurors. Thus, jury pools for Alameda County accident cases have less than half the amount of African Americans than they should. Hispanics also were underrepresented in jury pools, by a factor of 4%. Asian Americans were actually overrepresented in Alameda juries. What's the cause of these disparities? The ACLU study blamed outdated jury pool software, and Alameda County's poor follow up on jurors who fail to appear.

Here's why this matters to me: for African American or Hispanic clients, the reason is obvious-having other members of the same ethnic community on the jury is likely to help overcome any prejudice that others may have. But even for plaintiffs in injury cases who are not African American or Hispanic, this is a negative trend. Typically, jurors of various ethnicities tend to be more favorable in cases that involve placing a value on human suffering. This is one of the reasons that trial lawyers prefer to have injury cases case come to trial in an urban area, rather than a suburban or rural area.

Trial lawyers are not allowed to reject jurors based upon race or ethnicity. There have been numerous cases with successful appeals based upon findings that a lawyer struck a juror due to his or her race or ethnicity. But if the jury pool has not been managed properly, so that it reflects the diversity of the community, members of some groups are unfairly restricted before we even get a chance to select a jury. For these reasons, it is in the best interests of anyone with an injury case in court to have an ethnically diverse jury pool.

San Francisco Medical Malpractice Lawyer's Thoughts on Obama's State of the Union Address

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:41:53 -0800

I was enjoying President Obama's superb speechmaking ability during the State of the Union address, until he endorsed medical malpractice reform, to "reign in frivolous lawsuits." I was crestfallen to hear Obama endorse what he must know is a fraud. Why do I say this part of the Republican health care reform proposal is a fraud? Two reasons: a strong consensus of experts agree that the costs of handling and paying medical malpractice claims amounts to less than 1% of our health care costs, and all the proposed "reforms" involve simply capping what a victim can collect, not sifting frivolous claims out of the system. Ironically, these recovery caps affect only the meritorious, non-frivolous cases, where a claimant has been deemed entitled to compensation. In the past, California required a "certificate of merit" from a doctor before a malpractice claim could be filed in court. This type of measure might limit meritless claims.

Numerous recent studies have shown that there is an alarming number of medical errors in the U.S., many of which cause death or serious injuries. An alternative way to cut the costs of payments to medical malpractice victims is to take measures designed to reduce medical errors. It would be of much greater benefit to us all to cut the costs by reducing the malpractice itself. Of course, it is much easier to simply cap the health care providers' responsibility for their mistakes than it is to increase monitoring and training to address the root cause of the problem. Whether or not we take any measures to reduce malpractice, further limits on compensation for victims will not have any meaningful impact on the costs of health care, and it will serve primarily as a cost-saving tool for insurance companies.

Some point out that making physicians liable for damage claims when they commit malpractice causes them to practice "defensive medicine," ordering unnecessary tests, etc., in order to forfend against any claims. No one, though, is proposing that we eliminate altogether our system for compensating medical malpractice victims. Limits on liability, then, will not prevent doctors from being concerned about liability, and taking steps to insulate themselves against future claims.

Our doctors' concern about liability can actually benefit us as patients: who wants to see a doctor who is totally immune from any responsibility for his or her mistakes?

I am sad to see Obama coming down from the pedestal where I had placed him. I know that politicians often have to make compromises, as Obama did on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but he continues to speak out against those cuts, even in the recent State of the Union speech. I can only imagine that Obama knows from polling that many of us have been led to believe that medical malpractice tort reform would be an effective way to address the cost problem, and that he is tapping into that sentiment, even though he knows it is based upon a myth.

Avoiding San Francisco Bike Accidents: Bikes and Stop Signs

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:01:04 -0800

Although California law is the same in for cars and bikes at stop signs, most cyclists I see don't stop, and many don't even slow down if they can see that the way is clear. As an attorney, I'll take the fifth about my own biking practices. Clearly it is the exceptional bike rider who is willing to fully stop at every stop sign here in San Francisco, where we seem to have more of them than just about anyplace else in California. Even very careful riders, who want to do everything the can to avoid an injury bike accident, can find it hard to convince themselves to stop when it is obvious that there is no cross traffic.

Among the states, Idaho seems to stand alone in having a law to deal with this problem. Idaho's "Stop as Yield" law provides that cyclists do not need to come to a complete stop at stop signs. They must yield the right-of-way to vehicles in or already at the intersection, and then proceed with caution through the intersection. This law has been on the books since 1982. In 2006, Idaho added another law for cyclists, allowing them to proceed through an intersection against a red light, after coming to a complete stop, and waiting until the way is clear. Although these rules seem to be working in Idaho, it remains to be seen whether they would work in a congested city such as San Francisco. Proponents argue that changing the law would simply acknowledge what's already happening. Others are against the Idaho approach, arguing that kids aren't able to handle yielding at stop signs, and are better off with a bright-line rule. According to a post on the S.F. Streetsblog, an Idaho-style law has been discussed in Sacramento, but was considered too difficult to pass the legislature.

San Francisco Bicycle Accident Avoidance: Shine A Light

Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:17:05 -0800

We have encountered several bicycle injury cases where we could have gotten a great result for our client, if only he or she had been using a light on their bicycle. Of course, it is possible that those clients would never have needed to call an attorney if they'd had a light, which would have been even better. But in many of the cases, I think the accident was going to happen with or without a bike light, and the cyclist's lack of a light just gave the driver of the car who caused the accident a free pass for an injury claim.

California Vehicle Code Section 21201 requires that any bicycle being operated during a time of "darkness" shall be equipped with a white light on the front of the bicycle, that is visible for 300 feet. Most bike lights meet this standard, even those that are very small, such as a Knog. This same section of the law requires reflectors on the pedals, and on the rear of the bike. "Darkness" is defined by Vehicle Code Section 280 as that time beginning one half hour after sunset. In my experience, this is long after the great majority of people driving cars have turned on their lights. But Section 280 has a second part, defining the time of "darkness," (when lights must be used), to also include "any other time when visibility is not sufficient to render clearly discernible any person or vehicle on the highway at a distance of 1,000 feet." Thus a cyclist can be deemed in violation of the light requirement even before 30 minutes after sundown, if an officer thinks that other factors-trees overhead, fog, etc.-reduce the available light and impair visibility.

I have not heard of the police in San Francisco, Oakland, or any other major cities in the Bay Area ticketing bike riders for lack of a light, but we are so vulnerable when we bike at night, that as a cyclist in San Francisco, I think we should do everything we can to stay visible. The biking pros take it a step further, with additional flashing lights, reflectorized shoes or coats, etc. As a personal injury attorney, I hate to see a client injured in a bike accident lose a case due to the lack of a light.

Car accident results in $43m verdict against Ford

Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:43:33 -0800

Ford Motor Corporation was in the Illinois Supreme Court this month trying to overturn a jury verdict of $43 million dollars in a case where a car accident resulted in the death of one man, and severe burns to his wife, according to news reports. The case was previously appealed from the trial court's verdict, which the appellate court justices unanimously upheld, in a 72-page opinion.

In the accident, a Lincoln Town car was hit from behind, causing a wrench in the trunk to fly into the gas tank, rupturing it and causing an explosion. This might seem like an unlikely occurrence, such that Ford might not be held liable. But the plaintiffs were able to show that Ford was aware of many, many prior similar instances of gas tank rupture, and had done nothing to prevent further explosions.

This case is an excellent example of the legal concept of foreseeability. In order to hold a person or company liable for damages caused by a product, the law requires that the damage which resulted to be something that was reasonably foreseeable. While a wrench flying into a gas tank might not have been considered foreseeable when this model originated, it certainly becomes foreseeable when the company can be shown to know that car accidents with explosions of this type have been occurring for years. Here, Ford had even warned police departments about this hazard, which was also present in the Ford Crown Victorias in police service. Additionally, there was evidence that Ford had known going back to the 1960's that the "behind the axle" location of the tank in these vehicles made it more vulnerable to rupture, and that the location could have been changed for about $10 per vehicle. It was this same fuel tank location that cost Ford millions in verdicts for Ford Pinto gas tank ruptures.

This verdict included $15 million in punitive damages. Challenges to punitive awards have had increasing success in the courts in recent years, on the basis that punitive damages should bear some reasonable relationship to the actual damages. Often a factor of ten to one is applied, and appellate courts hold that the plaintiffs should not receive more than ten times their "actual" damages in punitive damages. This argument won't work here, where the punitives were less than the actual damages, which were largely based upon extensive additional medical expenses. Coming up from a unanimous ruling from the court of appeal, I doubt Ford will have much luck in the Illinois supreme court in this case.

Airplane Accidents Avoided: Intoxicated Pilots Removed From Cockpits

Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:38:42 -0800

There were two stories in the news recently about pilots who had been drinking, and were removed from their planes before takoff. The most recent such story of an airplane accident avoided involved a Delta Airlines flight from London to Boston, where the pilot was flagged after telling the tower that he was headed to New York. In that case, the pilot was severely intoxicated.

Another recent news report of an intoxicated pilot involved yet another Delta flight, this one from Amsterdam to New York.

As an air passenger, I hope that pilots will have absolutely no alcohol in their systems. It may be surprising to learn that the U.S. has a blood alcohol limit for airline pilots, rather than a rule of zero tolerance. The FAA limit for a pilot's blood alcohol content (BAC) is .04-exactly half the California limit for driving a motor vehicle. There is sentiment for taking this limit down to zero. This debate was the subject of a piece in USA today following the incident with the pilot on the Amsterdam-New York flight.

Fortunately, airplane accidents involving intoxicated pilots are seemingly rare, but count me in among those who would favor zero tolerance for pilots who have been drinking recently enough to have measurable alcohol in their systems.