Month: February 2017

A commercial vehicle accident often involves a large truck, including vehicles such as semi-trucks and delivery vans. When big, heavy vehicles collide at high speeds with smaller vehicles such as sedans or even motorcycles, the results can be devastating. Individuals who are injured in commercial vehicle accidents or families who have lost loved ones in such incidents have a right to seek compensation for their losses.

Every case is different, but it is possible to receive substantial recovery for losses. Financial recovery can help families pay medical bills, cover living expenses while someone is unable to work due to injury or move forward with life after a period of grief.

One example of a recovery for a California accident victim involved a $650,000 payout. The accident involved a collision with a newspaper truck. The victim involved suffered mild brain injury. In another case, a 40-year-old who was riding a bike was hit by a truck. That case resulted in recover of $400,000.

Recovery can range from a few thousand to millions of dollars. In a case involving a large truck hitting the back of a smaller truck, a 28-year-old man recovered $1 million. That case involved settlements from a variety of defendants after plaintiffs illustrated the man’s traumatic brain injury.

Not every case will have the same results, so it’s important to seek understanding about all options before filing a personal injury case. Professional assistance can help plaintiffs figure out who to name as defendants in a case as well as navigate the legal system and settlement discussions for an increased change of success.

2014 has been a record-breaking year for auto recalls related to alleged vehicle defects. Among the most recent vehicles being recalled en masse are those containing air bags manufactured by Japanese auto parts manufacturer Takata. These are the air bags with components that can allegedly explode, sending shrapnel into the vehicle and potentially injuring or killing vehicle occupants.

So far, the rupturing air bags have been linked to at least five deaths and injuries in the dozens. And like other recall stories this year, this one keeps getting worse as new details emerge. According to news sources, the use of ammonium nitrate in air bag propellant may have played a central role in the dangerous ruptures. And documents reveal that Takata was concerned about the explosion dangers of this compound as early as 1995. Nonetheless, the company began using ammonium nitrate in its propellant starting in 2001.

In the 1990s, manufacturers of air bags began looking for a compound to replace a widely used one called sodium azide. It was being phased out because it could create toxic fumes. Finding the right propellant was difficult because it had to be able to inflate an airbag in microseconds, it had to be non-toxic and it had to remain stable for the life of the automobile.

Ammonium nitrate apparently meets the first two criteria, but Takata and others have long known that the compound is vulnerable to changes in temperature and high levels of moisture. Considering that Takata air bags find their way into cars sold all over the U.S. and the world, considerations like temperature and moisture stability are difficult ones to overlook. Other major manufacturers of air bags say that they do not use ammonium nitrate in their propellants.

It is unclear exactly how Takata plans to solve a problem affecting tens of millions of vehicles, particularly because it continues to assert that ammonium nitrate-based propellant is safe and stable. What is clear, however, is that this defect is a hazard of epic proportions and will continue to endanger the safety of countless car owners.

Source: The New York Times, “Airbag Compound Has Vexed Takata for Years,” Hiroko Tabuchi, Dec. 9, 2014

For most of us who live in and around Silicon Valley, technology seems to be the solution to most of life’s problems. Regardless of your problem, there’s probably a gadget, a widget or an app to help you out.

Of course, technology can sometimes be the problem, as it is in distracted driving. In spite of California’s stringent distracted driving laws and aggressive public awareness campaigns, too many car accidents continue to occur because drivers can’t seem to put down their phones.

Thankfully, there may be a technological solution to this problem as well. A number of companies and auto manufacturers are working on products that teach teenagers the dangers of distracted driving using virtual reality.

As just one example, Toyota’s TeenDrive365 simulator has teens strap on an “Oculus Rift” device over their eyes. While sitting in a real but stationary vehicle, the simulator gives them the experience of trying to drive a car while mitigating common distractions like text messages, conversations with passengers, traffic noises and the car stereo.

A Toyota spokesperson explained that “Oculus Rift provides a virtual reality driving experience that mirrors real life behind the wheel, giving us a powerful, one-of-a-kind way to show parents and teens how everyday distractions can affect their ability to drive safely.” It should be noted that when distractions become overwhelming, users often end up in a virtual crash.

Many similar devices by other companies seem to be in development or are already in use. Hopefully, these devices will become more widely available in the near future. All of us – not just teenagers – could probably use a strong reminder about the consequences of distracted driving.

Source: PC Magazine, “Test Your Teen’s Driving Skills With Toyota, Oculus VR Simulator,” Chloe Albanesius, Jan. 15, 2015

One of the primary purposes of personal injury litigation is to give plaintiffs an opportunity to obtain compensation for injuries they suffer as a result of the negligence of another party. Building a strong personal injury case, therefore, depends on being able to demonstrate that the other party acted negligently and on connecting that negligence to the plaintiff’s damages.

But what about personal injury cases where the plaintiff was at least partially at fault for his or her own injuries? What impact would that have on his or her damages? Different states have different approaches to this issue, but in California the solution is known as “pure comparative fault.”

Pure comparative fault refers to the legal principle that an injured party may have his or her damages reduced in proportion to his or her own contribution to the injuries, but there is ultimately no bar placed on that recovery. In other words, no matter how much a plaintiff is found to have contributed to his or her own injuries, he or she may still recover some damages from defendants in proportion to their collective contribution to those injuries.

One thing to keep in mind about California law, though, is that defendants may only be held liable for their own proportionate responsibility for non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering. The same is not true for economic damages, though: defendants may be held jointly liable for medical bills, lost wages and other economic losses.

Sorting out liability and damages in cases involving multiple defendants is not always an easy task, and it is important for crash victims to work with an experienced attorney to ensure they receive the best advocacy in their case. Our firm is committed to helping protect the rights and interests of accident victims and achieving a just recovery in their case.

Most psychologists and sociologists would tell you that there is often a disconnect between what people say they want and what they actually want. The same is true with self-reported behavior. People are far more likely to report behaving in a way that they consider to be “good” than replying with an honest answer that might make them feel judged.

For this reason, anonymous surveys may be the best way to get an honest answer most of the time. Yet even in such scenarios, respondents often give answers about personal behaviors that are incongruous with their stated beliefs. A recent AAA survey about distracted driving is a good example.

According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, most survey respondents believe that distracted driving is dangerous and that people should pay attention behind the wheel. There were similar views on speeding and driving drowsy.

Yet about one-third of drivers surveyed admitted that they regularly drive distracted or take other dangerous risks despite knowing and believing that their behaviors are “unacceptable.” Some drivers even admitted to taking such risks despite having a loved one who was killed or seriously injured in a car accident.

It could be that many drivers feel that they are somehow the exception to the rule when it comes to driving behaviors that they would find unacceptable for others. Commenting on the survey results, one AAA representative noted: “When it comes to red-light running, most people absolutely find that unacceptable, yet more than a third admit to doing it once in the past 30 days.”

With distracted driving, teenagers are not the only culprits. Many of us can rationalize our behavior by saying that we are “good drivers” and can “handle it.” But at the end of the day, safe driving must be a choice each of us makes whenever we get behind the wheel.

Source: WLRN, “AAA Survey: We Don’t Like Distracted Driving, But We Do It Anyway,” Gina Jordan, Feb. 12, 2015