Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

Who Is Responsible When a California Rideshare Driver Causes a Car Accident?

February 5, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft have revolutionized the way we get from point A to point B, making it significantly easier for passengers to hail a ride. Indeed, by all accounts, passengers nationwide have adopted the new technology with open arms. By some estimates, rideshare drivers provided service to approximately 45 million passengers last year. What is more, that figure is expected to rise to over 70 million passengers by 2022.

It is not surprising, then, that the number of car accidents involving rideshare drivers has increased correspondingly. Making matters worse is the fact that rideshare companies do little to ensure that their drivers are “good drivers.” In most cases, all someone needs to qualify to be a rideshare driver is three years of driving experience, a clean driving record, and an insured vehicle.

While rideshare companies do not apply a rigorous selection criteria to their drivers, they do maintain significant insurance in the event of an accident. The two largest rideshare companies, Uber and Lyft, each maintain $1 million of insurance on behalf of their drivers. This insurance covers the driver from the moment they accept a passenger’s request for a ride until the passenger is dropped off. The policy will generally cover an injury to the driver or the passenger, as well as any third parties injured in an accident that was caused by the driver’s negligence.

How Do Courts Apportion Liability in California Personal Injury Cases Involving Multiple At-Fault Parties?

February 5, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

While some California accidents are caused solely by one party’s negligence, the more common scenario is one in which multiple parties share responsibility for an accident. For example, a California car accident may initially be caused by one motorist’s negligence in failing to follow the traffic laws. However, if another motorist who approaches the scene of the accident is not paying attention, they may cause a subsequent collision involving some of the same parties.

The result is a situation in which there may be multiple victims, as well as several motorists who are partially liable for a single accident. This may even include a determination that an accident victim is partially responsible for the accident that resulted in their injuries.

In such cases, California law does not prevent an injured party from filing a California personal injury lawsuit. However, California courts will use the method of “pure comparative fault” to determine which motorists can recover for their injuries and how much they are able to recover.

California Car Accidents Involving Auto-Pilot Technology

February 1, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

As auto-pilot technology advances and becomes more prevalent, drivers will begin to see more cars on the road using the technology. In fact, each year, more auto manufacturers are introducing models that have auto-pilot technology. While auto-pilot technology certainly has the potential to revolutionize the way we drive, it also presents certain obvious dangers to motorists and pedestrians.

The introduction of auto-pilot technology also is going to create legal issues in California personal injury cases that have not previously been handled by the courts. For example, who is liable when a motorist is involved in an accident and claims that he was using auto-pilot technology at the time? Lawmakers have attempted to enact some legislation to handle specific situations as they arise, but, as is often the case with developing technology, the courts will be tasked with handling many of these situations as they arise.

The governing principle of establishing liability in a California car accident case is whether or not a party was negligent. Thus, if a motorist engages a vehicle’s auto-pilot feature, falls asleep, and then is involved in an accident that could have otherwise been prevented, it seems likely that the motorist could be liable for the accident. However, suppose an attentive motorist engages auto-pilot and, despite his best efforts, is unable to disengage the feature or otherwise avoid the accident. The bottom line is that liability in California auto-pilot crashes will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

California Court Discusses Arbitration Agreements and When They Are Legally Enforceable

January 26, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, a California appellate court issued a written opinion in a case requiring the court to determine if a contract signed by an employee agreeing to arbitrate any claims against her employer was enforceable. While the case arose in the employment context, it is relevant to California accident victims in that it broadly discusses the enforceability of arbitration clauses, which come into play in many personal injury cases.

What Is Arbitration?

Arbitration is an alternative to the court system, whereby parties agree to submit the case to an arbitrator rather than file a case in the court system. There are pros and cons to arbitration, but it is generally believed that arbitration favors the party writing the contract – usually a corporation – over the individual asked to sign the contract.

The pros of arbitration are that an arbitrated claim will be resolved faster and will be less expensive than filing a case through the court system. However, arbitration presents a serious concern for personal injury victims.

Federal Appellate Court Discusses Validity of Accident-Release Waiver in California Ski Resort Injury Case

January 23, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

California is fortunate to have some of the most diverse and beautiful scenery in the country. Not only does the state’s landscape provide for excellent sight-seeing, it also gives the more adventurous the opportunity to engage in a wide range of recreational activities. From swimming and surfing to skiing and camping, Californians are known for getting out there and enjoying what their state has to offer.

Many times, when someone participates in a recreational activity, the owner of the land or the provider of the service will require the participant to sign a release-waiver prior to engaging in the activity. These waiver forms generally act to limit a participant’s ability to file a California personal injury lawsuit should anything go wrong when the participant is enjoying the activity.

A recent opinion issued by a federal appellate court discussed the validity of these waivers and the factors courts will consider when determining if they are enforceable.

Hit-and-Run Accidents in Southern California

January 19, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Of all of the types of California car accidents, hit-and-run accidents routinely generate the most questions among accident victims. To start, fleeing the scene after being involved in a car accident is against the law. Depending on certain circumstances, a hit-and-run accident can be graded either as a misdemeanor or as a felony. However, regardless of the grading, a criminal prosecution likely will not result in any victims of a hit-and-run accident being provided with compensation for their injuries.

To receive compensation for injuries sustained in a California hit-and-run accident, a motorist may file a claim with the hit-and-run driver’s insurance policy, if he was located by authorities. However, if the driver was not located, an injured motorist can file a claim with their own insurance policy under the underinsured/uninsured motorist clause. It is important for motorists to read their insurance policy closely because there are strict time limits imposed by the policy language that, if ignored, may result in the insurance company denying a claim.

Another important point for California accident victims to understand is that insurance companies routinely deny coverage or offer reduced compensation to accident victims in hopes of settling the case for as little compensation as possible. In these situations, it is imperative that an accident victim consult with a dedicated California personal injury attorney to discuss their case and devise a plan of action to ensure that they receive the compensation they are entitled to obtain.

Third-Party Workplace Injury Lawsuits and California’s Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule

January 16, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

When an employee is injured in a California workplace accident, they will likely miss a substantial amount of work and may have significant medical expenses related to their injury. When it comes to recovering financially for injuries sustained in a California on-the-job accident, injured workers generally have two avenues of recovery: a workers’ compensation claim or a third-party personal injury lawsuit.

A workers’ compensation claim is designed to be a quick and efficient way to get an injured employee compensation for their injuries. The workers’ compensation program is a no-fault program, meaning that an employee does not need to establish that their injury was caused by the negligence of their employer or a fellow employee. However, workers’ compensation claims do not permit the recovery of damages related to an employee’s pain and suffering, which can be considerable.

An injured employee’s other option is to file a third-party personal injury claim against the party responsible for causing their injuries. Injured employees who file third-party injury claims will need to establish that the named defendant was somehow negligent and that the defendant’s negligence was the cause of their injuries. If successful, an injured employee who files a third-party personal injury claim may be entitled to compensation for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and any pain and suffering that was caused by the accident. In some cases involving “oppression, fraud, or malice,” the injured employee may also be eligible for punitive damages.

Filing an Insurance Claim after a California Car Accident

January 12, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

When someone is injured in a California car accident, the initial focus is on recovering from the physical and emotional injuries caused by the accident. However, once those heal, the financial stress of the accident begins to set in. Often, an accident victim has missed work and has mounting medical expenses that must be paid.

In the vast majority of car accident cases, one of the parties involved has car insurance that can provide compensation for a victim’s injuries. Indeed, under California law, all motorists are required to carry a certain amount of liability insurance to cover the costs of an injury that the driver causes. This mandatory coverage, however, does not necessarily cover the costs incurred by the insured if the at-fault driver does not have insurance. For that type of protection, uninsured motorist protection must be purchased.

Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Protection

As noted above, the bare-bones insurance requirement in California does not mandate that a driver insures against an accident caused by an underinsured or uninsured motorist. However, all insurance companies are required to offer this type of insurance. Uninsured motorist insurance protects drivers and passengers in the event that the at-fault driver does not have insurance coverage or has inadequate coverage limits to fully compensate an accident victim for their injuries.

Aggressive Driving and Intoxicated Driving Are Among the Top Causes of California Auto Accidents

January 9, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Each year, over 3,000 people die in California car accidents. While there are many potential causes of car accidents, certain causes routinely appear near the top of the list each year: aggressive driving and intoxicated driving.

Of course, all motorists are required to drive in a safe manner and remain free from the intoxicating effects of drugs or alcohol. However, in reality, tens of thousands of California motorists engage in this prohibited conduct each day, putting everyone with whom they share the road at risk of being involved in a serious or fatal traffic accident.

When a motorist causes an accident due to intoxicated or aggressive driving, anyone injured as a result may be able to pursue a claim of compensation through a California personal injury lawsuit. These cases generally require that an accident victim establish that the other driver engaged in a negligent act that resulted in the accident victim’s injuries. In many cases involving intoxicated or aggressive driving, the fact that the other driver violated one or more traffic laws leading up to the accident can help an accident victim establish the other driver’s negligence.

California Court Discusses Potentially Conflicting Witness Testimony

January 5, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a California personal injury case discussing how trial courts should treat potentially conflicting testimony from a witness. The case arose in the context of allegations made by the plaintiff that the defendant manufacturer caused his asbestos-related illnesses while he was employed for a public utility. The main issue in the appeal was whether the lower court was proper in disregarding the plaintiff’s witness testimony based on the fact that it could be interpreted as being self-contradictory.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff worked for PG&E in the 1980s, and as a part of his employment, he was responsible for replacing gaskets. The defendant manufactured gaskets that, at that time, were sold to PG&E and contained asbestos. The plaintiff’s lawsuit named approximately 50 defendants, but this appeal focused only on one.

In support of his claim, the plaintiff presented a witness who worked for PG&E at the same time as the plaintiff. The witness first testified through a deposition that was held well in advance of trial. During the deposition, the witness explained that he was responsible for ordering the gaskets for PG&E during the time when the plaintiff was employed there, that he ordered gaskets from the defendant, that some of those gaskets were later discovered to contain asbestos, and that he personally saw the plaintiff working with the gaskets.