Articles Posted in Car Accident

Published on:

car crashAs a San Diego car accident lawyer, it is not uncommon to come across cases that contain what are sometimes known as “hybrid” legal claims. In the case, the plaintiff was injured in a car accident, which is a straightforward personal injury case as far as the types of claims he likely pursued.

However, the person reportedly responsible for causing the accident was driving in the course of his employment, implicating his employer as the responsible party, subject to the legal principle of respondeat superior (L:atin for “let the master answer,” i.e., be held liable for the actions of its agents). Additionally, the plaintiff who was injured in the car accident had already suffered an injury during the course of his employment, for which he was receiving workers’ compensation benefits.

Therefore, the plaintiff sued the driver who was allegedly responsible for the accident and his employer. After the plaintiff reached a settlement with the defendants, the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation administrator intervened in the case, attempting to recover for its alleged financial damages that occurred as a result of the accident. However, following the settlement, the county defendant moved for summary judgment against the workers’ compensation administrator, hereinafter known as GB (an abbreviation of the company’s name), arguing that it did not establish that it was entitled to reimbursement for payment as a result of the accident. The trial court granted the motion, and GB appealed, arguing there were triable issues of fact with regard to whether the car accident caused any part of the plaintiff’s permanent disability.

Continue reading

Published on:

San Diego personal injury lawyers often receive calls to represent individuals injured as a result of car accidents. crosswalkDriving is a large part of Southern California culture.

The California Court of Appeals recently reached a decision in a Los Angeles car accident case, Ramos v. Pong, Cal. Ct. App. (2017), which is instructive on the matter of cases in which a pedestrian is hit and injured by a driver who then flees the scene.

The case arose out of an incident in which the defendant driver hit a pedestrian crossing the street. The defendant conceded negligence by way of a pre-trial stipulation, thus making the sole issue at trial that of damages. The defendant had offered a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 in excess of $20,000. At trial, however, the jury awarded the plaintiff damages of $16,800. The plaintiff appealed, challenging in particular the trial court’s ruling to exclude evidence regarding the defendant’s failure to stop.

Published on:

bike wheelA California Appeals court recently entered a somewhat routine decision in a car accident case, but the ultimate holding may take some Californians by surprise. In the case, a bicyclist was involved in an accident with a car, which apparently caused injuries (the appellate decision did not discuss the actual claims in the case).

On the day of the accident, the plaintiff was involved in a car accident when his bicycle collided with the vehicle being driven by the defendant. The plaintiff stated that he could not remember what happened on the day of the collision. He could not recall what he saw or what color the light was just before the accident happened. However, the driver of the vehicle and two witnesses at the scene stated that the plaintiff’s bicycle entered the intersection on a red light, and the car had a green light when the driver entered the intersection. Thus, when the plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the car’s driver and its two owners, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendants.

Regarding the evidence in the case, one of the witnesses stated that he had entered the crosswalk before noticing a bicyclist approaching very quickly and then entering the intersection, resulting in the accident. On the basis of this witness’ account, as well as the driver’s statement and the other witness’ statement, the police officer who responded to the accident stated his opinion that the bicyclist was responsible for the accident, and the trial court adopted that conclusion.

Continue reading

Published on:

XrayIn a decision filed just last month, a California Appeals court entered their decision regarding a personal injury case.

The case arose out of a car accident whereby the plaintiff was purportedly rear-ended by the defendant. According to testimony, the accident occurred when the defendant’s foot accidentally slipped off the brake temporarily, while he attempted to reach an item that had fallen to the floor. After pulling over to assess the damage to their vehicles, both drivers ascertained negligible damage to their vehicles, no emergency services or tow vehicles were called, and the plaintiff did not exhibit any signs of injury. After exchanging insurance information, the two individuals drove off in their own vehicles.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant answered, admitting liability for the collision and property damage, which had been paid, but denying that the accident had caused the plaintiff to suffer any damages. The issues of damages and causation went to a jury, and the ultimate verdict was in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, claiming that the testimony of the defendant’s designated medical expert was improper.

Continue reading

Published on:

A California Appeals Court recently reached a decision in a car accident case clarifying the extent to which a defendant can require a plaintiff to submit to a particular kind of examination during the course of a personal injury lawsuit. The case involved a lower court’s decision to allow the defendant to have the plaintiff undergo a vocational rehabilitation examination during the course of evidence gathering, called discovery, so that the defendants’ expert could reach an opinion as to whether and to which extent the plaintiff could pursue gainful employment.car accident

The underlying incident occurred in November 2012 when the plaintiff was delivering packages at a university in his capacity as an employee of On Trac. As he was delivering packages from his parked truck, the car owned by one of the co-defendants, which was parked by the other co-defendant, an employee of the university (later added as an additional defendant), purportedly rolled down a hill and struck the plaintiff. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained multiple fractures to his right femur and pelvis, requiring surgery. At the time of the decision, he had not returned to work since the accident.

In September 2013, the plaintiff filed suit against the owner of the car and the individual who had been driving the car that day. He later amended his complaint to add the university as a defendant. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages for wage loss and loss of earning capacity, among other claims.

Continue reading

Published on:

In a decision published at the end of last month, E.M. v. Lounge, Cal. Ct. App. (2017), a California appeals court clarified the reach of the liability of venues for serving alcohol to patrons who later become injured as a result of intoxication. The clarification, however, was not based solely upon the claim that the furnishing of the alcohol was responsible for the resultant accident. Instead, the claim was based on a respondeat superior theory of law. Respondeat superior is a legal concept whereby an employer can be held accountable for the negligent acts of its employee, if the conduct occurred within the scope of the employment.

liquor bottlesIn the case, a woman had reportedly consumed alcohol that was furnished by the defendant “Lounge.” She was then involved in a car accident and died. Her family brought the wrongful death lawsuit on her behalf. The initial complaint and second amended complaint pursued negligence theories, but the third amended complaint included a respondeat superior claim against the Lounge, asserting that the decedent was an employee at the Lounge and that it was during the course of her attendance as an employee that she had consumed excessive amounts of alcohol. The defendant moved for a demurrer, claiming that the argument should not be allowed, since the claimants should have known when they originally filed the lawsuit whether or not the decedent was an employee, and further disputing that she was at all.

Generally speaking, California law provides extensive protection against civil liability for injuries that occur due to a person who has consumed alcohol. State law explicitly states that “the furnishing of alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication, but rather the consumption of alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries.” (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (b).) Therefore, by law, the Lounge could not be held liable for serving the decedent alcohol because the serving of the alcohol was not the cause of the accident.

Continue reading

Published on:

Carlsbad Car Accident LawyerIf you’re like many Carlsbad-area residents, you love Thanksgiving. It’s a chance to enjoy some delicious food and some invaluable family time. It’s also a holiday that often calls for a lot of time on the road.

And this is where a great holiday can become a little dangerous. Our car accident lawyers have handled entirely too many cases that occurred over the Thanksgiving holiday. There’s a reason the police are often on high alert around Thanksgiving.

You don’t have to be a victim. You’re never fully in control on the road, but there are still a few things you can do around Thanksgiving to protect yourself while in your car:

Published on:

Car accident lawyer San Marcos | Carlsbad, Escondido, CA The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that nearly 11,000 tire-related accidents occur every year, causing almost 200 deaths, annually. Our car accident lawyer in San Marcos, Zev Rubinstein, can help you if a defective tire, or someone else’s negligence, has resulted in your injury.

When traveling in your vehicle, everything rests on your tires. When a tire fails, stability and control is lost, and devastating accidents often follow. Many tire failures are caused by manufacturing or design defects. Some of the world’s largest tire manufacturers have recalled defective products over the past decade, including Michelin, Goodyear, Bridgestone and Firestone.

The following issues can result from defective or failed tires:

Published on:

Car Emergency Kit | Accident lawyer Carlsbad | Oceanside, CAThe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that nearly six million auto accidents occur every year in the U.S. If you suddenly find yourself included in this staggering statistic and need an accident lawyer in Carlsbad, Oceanside or Escondido, Zev Rubinstein can help you fight for the justice and compensation you deserve.

The immediate moments following a car, motorcycle or truck accident are often the most crucial. California law requires you to stop, exchange information with other drivers and give reasonable assistance to anyone who is injured. If the accident is blocking traffic, you should clearly warn other drivers to avoid further collisions and injuries until police or other emergency vehicles arrive. To do this effectively, you need to be prepared.

No one plans on getting in an accident, but everyone can plan ahead in case one happens. A roadside emergency kit can be a vital, and possibly life-saving, tool when unexpected events occur on the road. You can usually purchase pre-packaged emergency kits for anywhere between $20 and $80, or you can build your own.

Published on:

During the month of May, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) partners with law enforcement agencies across the country to heighten awareness and enforcement of seat belt use. The Carlsbad Police Department, in cooperation with the California Office of Traffic Safety and other government organizations, is cracking down on people who fail to use their seat belts.

The “Click It or Ticket” campaign runs from May 19 through June 1, but Carlsbad car accident lawyer Zev Rubinstein knows seat belts can mean the difference between life and death year round. Over 20,000 people are killed in automotive accidents each year, and the NHTSA reports that nearly half were not wearing seatbelts at the time of the crash.

Wearing your seatbelt is your best line of defense in the event of an automotive accident. Additionally, if you are in an automotive accident due to the carelessness of another driver, wearing your seatbelt can be key to establishing your personal injury case with the help of a car accident attorney.