Another passenger in the car suffered serious injuries. 18-year-old Joseph Nicol, was on life support at the Sesert Regional Medical Center in Palm Springs. Nicol suffered severe head trauma including bleeding of the brain, broken ribs, a broken back and collapsed lungs.

While the cause of the crash is still unknown, CHP reports that Emer’s car drifted to the right of the road and then went off a steep embankment and then flipping. This area of the 74 does not have a guardrail to prevent cars from going off the embankment. There are many rocks in the area which the CHP believe caused the car to flip and cause substantial damage.

The term “Guardrail” cases is commonly used to refer to a case where a government entity such as Cal-Trans, or the county or city should have placed a protective system to prevent this very type of accident. In this particular area of the 74, there are many sharp turns and hazards that have caused numerous accidents just this year alone. Specifically, there have been 23 accidents in the past 11-months near this accident site.

In California, the statute of limitations to bring a claim against a government entity is 6-months from the date of the accident. Make sure to speak with a lawyer immediately to protect your rights.

Economic damages relate to out-of-pocket costs, expenses on which you can put a certain monetary figure. The two major types of economic damages are medical expenses and lost wages. For example, medical expenses include the costs of paramedics; ambulance transportation to the hospital; emergency room treatment; time and treatment in a hospital, including all hospital room fees, nurses, doctors’ visits, and medications; follow-up care with the doctor; rehabilitation and physical therapy costs; psychological counseling costs; costs of medical devices; wheelchair costs; prosthesis; the cost of a special bed or equipment to get you in and out of bed; and future medical expenses that will be reasonably necessary for the rest of your life that were caused by the accident.

Another element of economic damages involves lost wages. This includes not only the time you were off work because of your injury, but future damages for wages you would have earned had you not been injured; retraining for a new job if you can’t return to your old job; loss of earning capacity if you are unable to return to work at all or are able to return to work but only at a lower-paying job. When a person suffers an injury that affects his or her ability to work in the future, a lump sum of money is recoverable to compensate him or her. This lump sum is “discounted” to an amount that, if invested wisely, would compensate the injured person for the damages he or she would have made but for the injury. For example, if a person would have made $1 million over the remainder of his or her working life, the person is awarded a lump sum of money (such as $600,000) that, when invested properly, will yield $1 million over his or her working life had he or she not been injured.

Non-economic damages refers to damages that are not easily calculable such as medical expenses and lost wages. The major type of non-economic damage is pain and suffering, which varies greatly between individuals and types and severity of injury. Other non-economic damages include inconvenience, physical impairment, and disfigurement. Non-economic damages also include such things as comfort, society, affection, intimacy, ability to engage in sexual relations, play catch with your children, and other intangible activities that we hardly give a thought to until we are injured. In many cases, non-economic damages for pain and suffering constitute the bulk of the award.

In certain instances, an injured victim is entitled to recover only economic damages and not non-economic damages. Foremost among these situations is when the victim gets into an automobile accident that was not his or her fault, but he or she was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). In such a case, the driver is barred from recovering non-economic damages and is limited to recovering only economic damages, even though he or she was in no way responsible for the accident..

Another situation in which a person is prohibited from getting non-economic damages is when he or she was the owner of a vehicle involved in the accident, but could not establish his or her financial responsibility (proof of insurance) as required by California law. In California, a person driving his or her own car must prove that he or she has an automobile insurance policy in effect that provides at a minimum $15,000 coverage per person injured in the accident, to a total of $30,000 of the accident (regardless of how many people are injured or killed in the accident), and property damage insurance with a minimum coverage limit of $5,000. This is typically known as the standard “15/30/5” policy.

If you are injured in a motor vehicle accident and do not have at least this minimum policy, you are prevented from recovering from the guilty party monetary damages for your pain and suffering and other non-economic damages. There is one important exception to this rule: If you were driving your own car but did not have insurance, you may still recover damages for non-economic losses if the person who caused the accident was convicted of driving his or her car while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The third situation in which you are banned from recovering compensation for your non-economic losses are when you were the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident and you cannot establish you have at least the minimum insurance coverage as required by California’s financial responsibility laws. As you can see from the above, it is absolutely critical that you obtain minimum insurance coverage if you will be driving your own or someone else’s vehicle on California roads.

If the driver of the public vehicle is negligent, the public entity that employs him or her can be held liable for all of the resulting damages, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering of the victims. The public entity employer may be held financially responsible for the accident even though the driver himself or herself cannot be held liable because of a law granting him or her immunity from liability.

However, section 17004 of the Vehicle Code states that a public employee is not liable for civil damages (is “immune” from liability) on account of injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or when in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law. Section 17004 also relieves the public employee of liability when he or she causes an accident when responding to a fire alarm or other emergency call, but can be held liable for negligent operation of the public vehicle when returning from the fire alarm or other emergency call.

Note, however, that while section 17004 grants immunity only to the public employee that was driving the emergency vehicle, that grant of immunity does not extend to his or her public employer. Thus, a public entity can be held liable for accidents caused by the negligence of its employees when responding to a fire alarm or an emergency call in the line of duty.

Vehicle Code section 21055 relieves drivers of authorized emergency vehicles from a number of traffic laws when the vehicle is responding to an emergency call, while engaged in rescue operations, or while being used in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law. The immunity of section 21055 applies only if the driver of the emergency vehicle sounds a siren “as may be reasonably necessary” and the vehicle displays a lighted red light visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrians. However, section 21055 does not permit drivers of emergency vehicles to drive with impunity from the moment they activate their vehicle’s sirens and flashing lights. The driver must still observe that degree of care imposed by the common law to immunize his or her public entity employer from liability under Vehicle Code section 17001.

When the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle responding to an emergency call activates the vehicle’s siren and flashing red lights, his or her conduct is measured by the standard of care that applies to a reasonable person under similar circumstances, including the emergency. However, if the public employee does not activate the vehicle’s siren and lights, the driver’s conduct is governed by the standard of care that applies to a reasonable person under similar circumstances, but excludes consideration of the emergency circumstances.

Suppose you are injured or a loved one killed when hit by a vehicle that a law enforcement vehicle is pursuing at a high rate of speed. Can you sue the law enforcement agency for your injuries or the death of a loved one? That depends on whether the law enforcement agency has adopted and promulgated a written policy on vehicle pursuits that includes the information set forth in Vehicle Code section 17004.7(c), and whether the policy requires regular and periodic training of its officers on a least an annual basis as required by Vehicle Code section 17004.7. If the public entity has in fact implemented a proper vehicle pursuit policy, then the peace officers and their public entity employer generally are not liable for the injuries, death, or damage that may result from pursuing a fleeing vehicle.

All law enforcement agencies are subject to this law, including local police departments, county sheriffs, state police, and the California Highway Patrol. If the public entity has a written policy on vehicular pursuits that meets the criteria of Vehicle Code section 17004.7, the public entity is immune from suit (that is, it is free from liability) regardless of whether it was the fleeing suspect’s car that caused the injury, death, or damage, or it was a peace officer’s vehicle that was involved in the accident.
Vehicle Code section 17004.7(b)(2) requires that all peace officers of the public agency certify in writing that they have received, read, and understand the pursuit policy. However, the failure of an individual officer to sign a certification cannot be used to impose liability on an independent officer or the public entity that employs him or her.

A fire engine responding to an emergency call with its lights and sirens on generally cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from accidents with other vehicles or pedestrians. However, the fire engine can be held liable for injuries and deaths resulting from its negligent operation while returning to the fire station following the emergency.

Because an emergency vehicle is usually owned by a public entity, if you have been injured by an emergency vehicle, you must file a claim with the appropriate public agency within 6 months of the accident or you will forever lose your right to sue the public entity and/or its employees. The law involving injuries or death arising from collisions with emergency vehicles can be complex, and it is therefore critical that you contact a personal injury law firm with experience handling such claims.

As always, this information is not intended to be legal advice or to be a substitute for an attorneys work.  Every case is different, please speak with an attorney about your particular case.

The California Highway Patrol has released statistics for this year’s Thanksgiving weekend.  These traffic incidents are preliminary and a final report will be released on Monday.

Statewide, in California, there were 15 traffic deaths between Wednesday at 6 p.m. and Friday at 6 a.m.  Last year, there were 12 deaths resulting from traffic accidents throughoug the state.

The CHP also reported a total of 5 traffic accident deaths throughout Los Angeles County.  Last year’s total traffic accident death toll was 4. 

The CHP arrested 513 people on suspicion of drunk driving throughout the state with 116 of them being in Los Angeles County.  Last year’s drunk driving arrests in Los Angeles County were 144.

CHP Spokesman said that the number of deaths had decreased from 61 in 2005.  The spokesman could not contribute to a direct cause for the decrease, however did speculate that perhaps California’s new cell phone laws or gas prices may have to do with more cautious drivers. 

One interesting increase was the number of drivers arrested for driving while under the influence.  In 2005, the number of arrests was 1,600; this year, 1,684.  On Sunday Morning, a fiery crash on the Santa Monica 10 freeway left four dead after their car hit a pillar on the highway causing the car to explode. 

Starting on July 1, 2008, two new laws go into effect which relate to the use of cell phones while driving.  The first one, Vehicle Code Section 23123 prohibits all drivers from using handheld wireless phones while driving, unless using a hand-free device (ear piece or Bluetooth speaker phone).  The second law, Vehicle Code Section 23124 prohibits all drivers under the age of 18 from using any handheld wireless device even if it is used with a hands-free component such as an ear piece or Bluetooth speaker phone.

The law allows for calls to be made in cases of emergencies when required to call the police, medical, fire department or other emergency services.  Dialing your phone (which in my opinion is just as distracting as talking) is still allowed. The other interesting thing about this law is that text messages (which in my opinion are even more distracting) are still allowed to be made so long as you are above the age of 18.

June 2 – 6:  Emergency Preparedness; June 9 – 13:  Distracted Driving; June 16 – 20:  Poison Prevention; June 23 – 27:  Slip and Fall Prevention. 

 UPDATE:  National Safety Month News Article

These arguments are made everyday by insurance companies, insurance adjusters and lawyers who work for insurance companies, who choose to treat every injured victim in California unfairly.  What prompted me to write this short segment was a study that AAA put out regarding the cost of accidents on Society. 

• State Farm, Allstate employ consultant’s strategy, CNN research finds
• Theme of strategy is “deny, delay, defend,” former employee says
• Companies convince juries that claims are fraudulent
• Insurers, institute deny treating claimants unfairly
 
How about the cost on society that is driven by insurance companies who fail to properly assist those in need of medical care?  Auto Repairs?  Past and Future Medical Bills?  How about the insurance companies’ inherent practice of bad faith and unfair dealings with injured clients? 

Is this news to anybody?  I didn’t think so. 

These trillion dollar corporations like All State, State Farm, Progressive, GEICO, AAA, Mercury, AIG, Nationwide, 21st Century and the many other auto insurance companies profit from our use of their service, and are more interested in the bottom line rather than the individuals they claim to serve. 

Regardless of the injuries you may have suffered in a car accident, motorcycle accident or any other type of accident, you will undoubtedly be faced with extreme difficulty in dealing with any of the insurance companies in this State. 

Today, especially in Los Angeles, an auto accident victim who has suffered injuries, has had their car damaged or totaled, has needed medical treatment of various degrees, will have an extremely difficult time getting even their medical bills paid for without hiring a lawyer and filing a lawsuit first.  Insurance companies recognize that they can “deny, defend and delay” every single car accident claim and force injured through the long and arduous process of litigation in hopes of deterring or diminishing the amount of their “profits” they will pay out.

I will continue to fight the good fight.