Articles Posted in Car Accidents

In a recent California Court of Appeal case, the court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a case involving a fatal car accident. The plaintiffs, Miriam Navarette and her three children, sued defendant Hayley Meyer, alleging a violation of Vehicle Code Section 2170 (willfully interfering with the driver of a vehicle, affecting the driver’s control of the vehicle) and civil conspiracy. Allegedly, as a passenger in a vehicle, Meyer told the driver to speed over a road that Meyer knew would cause the car to become airborne, resulting in the death of Navarette’s husband. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Meyer. They found that there was no evidence suggesting Meyer’s act of telling the driver to drive faster affected his control over the vehicle, and no triable issues of material fact existed as to either cause of action.

In this case, Meyer’s friend drove Meyer and another passenger to a nearby drugstore, with Meyer in the front passenger seat. Meyer told the drive to turn onto a shortcut, which happened to be a residential street with a 25 mile-per-hour speed limit. Earlier that day, Meyer had been on this particular street and knew it had dips that would cause the car to become airborne, if the car traveled at a high rate of speed.

While the driver turned onto the road, Meyer told him the dips were fun and he should speed over them. Meyer told him to “go faster,” and the driver accelerated, such that he caught air from the dips and lost control of the car. The car veered sharply to the right, colliding with Navarette’s parked vehicle while her husband was attempting to put a child into a car seat. Navarette’s husband was killed by the impact. Meyer admitted it was her idea to drive fast on this road.

Continue reading ›

In a recent California Court of Appeals decision, Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corp., 234 Cal. App. 4th 1423 (2015), an employee of the Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation reportedly crashed his vehicle into the plaintiff’s truck, which was stopped at a red light.

The plaintiff suffered serious injuries as a result of the car accident and sued the defendant’s employer. At trial, the jury found the defendant, as an agent of his employer, negligent, and it awarded the plaintiff $1,271,594.74 in damages, which included $126,594.74 in economic damages, and $1,145,000 in noneconomic damages. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial and granted the plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest and also awarded costs.

While not discussed in the case opinion explicitly, when an individual is involved in a car accident in the course of their employment, they can often be held accountable on behalf of their employer by the doctrine of respondeat superior. Respondeat superior means that the employer answers for the employee, in the legal sense of the term.

Continue reading ›

The California Court of Appeals ruled in a recent personal injury case stemming from a school bus accident. The case, Gaita v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., Cal. Ct. App. (2015), followed a school bus rear-ending another vehicle on the freeway.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against a bus driver who rear-ended her and the school district for which he worked. At trial, the plaintiff purportedly waived her claim for past medical expenses because of the difficulty in differentiating between the medical expenses that were a direct result of the accident underlying the action and those that were a result of an accident she was involved in two years prior. However, the plaintiff did present expert testimony at trial, claiming that this accident caused a permanent, traumatic brain injury, which would result in estimated millions of dollars in future medical treatment. The plaintiff further sought tens of millions of dollars for past and future pain and suffering. The defendants stipulated that the driver was negligent in causing the accident, but they argued that the plaintiff did not suffer a traumatic brain injury and that her injuries were a result of the prior accident.

Continue reading ›

Continue reading ›

In a recent California Court of Appeals case, Vollaro v. Lispi, 224 Cal. App. 4th 93 (2014), the court had before it an appeal stemming from a car accident in which Lispi rear-ended the car in which Vollaro was a passenger. The driver and owner of the car that was struck were not parties to the action.

At the time of the accident, Lispi stopped and asked whether anyone was injured, which they were not at the time, and exchanged the relevant information. She saw that the vehicle had rear bumper and trunk damage, but her car was not damaged.

Shortly thereafter, Vollaro sued Lispi for alleged personal injuries. She alleged that Lispi was driving in a negligent, careless, and reckless fashion, and therefore she caused Vollaro to suffer physical and emotional injuries and lost wages.

Continue reading ›

In a recent California Court of Appeals case, Cardiel v. Marquez, Cal. Ct. App. (2014), the court had before it a car accident case that was being challenged for a failure to move forward. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for a rear-end collision, including both the driver of the car and the owner of the car, a corporation, as parties to the action.

The court had before it a situation in which the plaintiffs filed a complaint but did not actually serve it on the defendant within the relevant two-year period. Furthermore, the case was not brought to trial within three years, as required by the California rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, based on the plaintiffs’ failure to be diligent, and argued that the defendant had been prejudiced by it. The plaintiffs opposed the motion on the grounds of excusable neglect. The plaintiffs’ attorney claimed that, unbeknownst to him, his legal secretary had been embezzling from him, hiding case files and documents, failing to calendar dates, and lying regarding the status of cases.

Continue reading ›

There was quite a stir at the Los Angeles International Airport this past Sunday, when the driver of a Porsche accidentally accelerated, presumably rather than braking, and struck a nine-year-old girl before crashing into a nearby terminal.

According to a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Fire Department, the girl was taken to the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in critical condition following the accident. She reportedly suffered major head trauma and remains in critical condition.

The car reportedly crashed into Terminal 7. Three people in total were taken to the hospital.

Continue reading ›

The famous California search engine and innovation company, Google, admitted in a statement earlier this month that the self-driving cars that it has invented have been involved in 11 minor car accidents since the company began working with the technology six years ago.

The company stated it had notified the state of California that the self-driving cars were involved in three accidents since September, when the reporting of such accidents became a legal requirement in exchange for the permits necessary to test the vehicles on public roads within the state. Official state reports allegedly have the total at four incidents.

Continue reading ›

In a recent California Court of Appeals case, Maiello v. LA Digital Post, Cal. Ct. App. (2015), the court heard the appeal from the granting of summary judgment stemming from a car accident case.

On the day of the alleged incident, the plaintiff was involved in a car accident with an employee of the LA Digital Post. The employee was reportedly on her way back to work following a doctor’s appointment, which she had attended during her lunch break. The plaintiff had filed a negligence claim against LA Digital, under the legal theory of respondeat superior, under which employers can be held liable for the negligent acts of their employees. The trial court granted LA Digital’s motion for summary judgment, denying liability for the employee’s accident.

In order for respondeat superior liability to attach, there must be “a nexus between the employee’s tort and the employment to ensure that liability is properly placed upon the employer.” Here, the plaintiff tried to argue that because the employee would make deposits and trips to the bank on the employer’s behalf, the car accident implicated the use of the car, which was used in the course of her employment for the employer’s benefit. Thus, since the vehicle required for employment was the one involved in the accident, the employer should be held liable for damages.

Continue reading ›