Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

Marijuana-Related Car Accidents in California

January 2, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

As of January 1, 2018, California residents will be able to purchase marijuana for recreational use. This means that it will no longer be against state law for Californians to have a small amount of marijuana in their possession for personal use. Of course, marijuana remains heavily regulated by the government.

It is undisputed, however, that marijuana has an effect on the motor skills of those who use it. Under California Vehicle Code section 23152, it is against the law for anyone “who is under the influence of any drug to drive a vehicle.” This includes marijuana. Of course, it may not be easy to determine if a driver is under the influence of marijuana because the indicators of intoxication are not necessarily as readily identifiable as alcohol intoxication.

Marijuana, like alcohol, remains in a driver’s system for some time after ingestion, and it can continue to affect the motor skills of a driver for many hours after consumption. Unlike alcohol, however, there is no convenient method for a driver to determine if they are still under the effects of marijuana. Thus, uninitiated consumers of marijuana may find themselves getting behind the wheel of a car when they are still under the drug’s influence, creating a serious risk of causing a California drugged driving accident.

Third-Party Workers’ Compensation Claims in California

December 26, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In California workplace injury cases, the general rule is that a workers’ compensation claim is the injured employee’s sole remedy against their employer. The idea is that the no-fault workers’ compensation program is a more efficient method of getting an injured employee the compensation they need while they recover from their injuries. However, damages are limited in California workers’ compensation cases to actual medical expenses and lost wages.

California law also permits workplace injury cases to be filed against third parties that are responsible for an employee’s injuries. For example, if a truck driver is injured while unloading his cargo due to some hazard on the loading dock, the company receiving the delivery may be named as a third-party defendant in a personal injury lawsuit. However, special care must be taken in the preparation of these cases to avoid unintended consequences.

A recent case discusses the difficulties one plaintiff encountered after successfully obtaining a judgment against a third-party defendant. In that case, the plaintiff was injured in a Wal-Mart store while on the clock for another company. Immediately after her injury, the plaintiff sought and obtained workers’ compensation benefits through her employer for both medical expenses and lost wages.

California Court Finds Arbitration Agreement Invalid in Workplace Injury Case

December 22, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a California work injury case involving the enforceability of an arbitration agreement that was signed by the plaintiff’s employer and the defendant, but not the plaintiff. Ultimately, the court concluded that while the accident would otherwise have fallen under the arbitration agreement, since the plaintiff was not a party to the contract, he could not be forced to submit his claim to arbitration and was entitled to use the court system.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident when a tire on the U-Haul truck that his employer had rented blew out. The employer had rented the truck and instructed the plaintiff to deliver massage chairs to the state fairgrounds. This was the first time the plaintiff, who was normally a warehouse worker, was asked to deliver merchandise.

Prior to taking possession of the truck, the plaintiff’s employer signed the U-Haul rental agreement, which contained an agreement to arbitrate any claims arising from the use of the truck. The rental agreement specified that it applied to “agents and employees” of the party signing the contract.

Liability in California Car Accidents Involving Autonomous Vehicles

December 19, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

California, and Silicon Valley in particular, has long been a hot-bed for technology, starting back in the 1970s with the development of semiconductors. In recent years, California has broadened its focus to all kinds of technological advancements. Perhaps one of the most anticipated technologies brewing in the state has been that of the driverless car.

Given the recent advancements in the technology, the day when driverless cars are a common sight on the road is not far away. When driverless cars do become common, there are going to be a host of legal issues that need to be resolved. For example, who is in charge – and thus, who is liable – in the event of an accident involving a driverless car?

In anticipation of the arrival of driverless cars, California lawmakers have started to wrestle with some of the issues the technology will present. According to a recent article, the California Department of Motor Vehicles is in the process of creating specific rules for driverless cars. The tension seems to be between fostering an innovative environment in which companies are encouraged to develop new products and the safety concerns presented by autonomous vehicles.

Can a Car Accident Victim’s Failure to Wear a Seatbelt Be Used against Them in a California Personal Injury Case?

December 15, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The fact that seatbelts can save lives or reduce the severity of injuries in a California car accident is common knowledge. Indeed, California law requires all cars to have properly functioning seatbelts and also requires drivers and passengers over the age of eight to wear a seatbelt at all times.

While seatbelt use can save the life of a motorist involved in a car accident, the act of wearing a seatbelt does nothing to decrease the chance of being involved in an accident. This has led states to come to differing conclusions about whether a defendant in a car accident lawsuit can use the fact that the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt as a defense or as a way to limit their own liability.

California’s Approach to Seatbelt Non-Use Evidence

California takes an interesting approach when it comes to seatbelt non-use evidence in that courts allow a defendant to argue that a plaintiff’s failure to wear a seatbelt should factor into the jury’s determination of the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct. To understand how this works, it is necessary to understand California’s comparative fault statute.

Charter Bus Full of Employees Crashes on the Way to Holiday Party

December 12, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, a charter bus carrying upwards of 30 people to a workplace holiday party was involved in a serious accident on Highway 101, near the Cesar Chavez St. off ramp in San Francisco. According to a recent news report, the accident occurred shortly after 8 p.m. after the bus began fishtailing for an unknown reason. Once the driver of the bus lost control, the bus flipped over onto its side, blocking all of the lanes of traffic. Thankfully, no other cars were involved in the collision.

In total, nearly 30 people were taken to the hospital with varying injuries. Witnesses to the accident told reporters that at least two people were unconscious and trapped inside the bus until emergency responders arrived on scene and were able to remove them from the bus.

Police spoke with the driver of the bus, who told them that he was not sure why the bus began to fishtail, but it may have been due to “excessive speed.” The driver remained on the scene and assisted the victims before getting any medical treatment himself. Police do not believe that alcohol was involved, but the accident is still under investigation.

California Court Holds Government Entity May Be Precluded from Asserting Plaintiff’s Non-Compliance with Government Claims Act, Based on Misleading Statements

December 8, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued an opinion in a California car accident case involving the alleged negligence of a police officer. The case required the court to discuss the Government Claims Act and whether the plaintiffs’ non-compliance with the Act should prevent the plaintiffs from proceeding with their case against the government defendants. Ultimately, since the court determined that the government officials involved in the case may have made misleading statements to the plaintiffs and their attorney, the court permitted the plaintiffs’ case to proceed in order for a jury to determine whether the plaintiffs should be excused from compliance with the Act.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were seriously injured when a car driven by a police officer with the L.A. School Police Department (LASPD) ran a red light and crashed into their vehicle. After the accident, but before the plaintiffs were taken to the hospital in an ambulance, the plaintiffs were provided a business card indicating that the responsible party was LASPD. The card listed the LASPD address and website.

Four days after the accident, the plaintiffs’ attorney filed a claim for damages against LASPD. The attorney obtained the complaint form from the LASPD website. The plaintiffs later filed a personal injury case against LASPD. Once the case was filed, certain information was passed, including the name of the officer responsible for the accident as well as the name of the government organization that owned the vehicle, the L.A. Unified School District (LAUSD). The plaintiffs then amended their complaint to add LAUSD.

Intoxicated Drivers Pose a Major Threat to California Residents

December 5, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Despite the efforts of the state and federal governments to curb intoxicated driving, drunk and drugged driving account for a large percentage of the overall traffic deaths caused by California car accidents. Indeed, according to the Center for Disease Control, between the years of 2003 and 2012, over 10,000 Californians lost their lives in car accidents involving an intoxicated driver.

Research conducted over the past several decades has confirmed what most Californians already knew – that driving in an intoxicated state greatly reduces judgment and reaction time. This has led the state’s lawmakers to enact a strict set of penalties for drunk drivers. In California, it is illegal to operate a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08 or greater. Similarly, motorists are prohibited from driving while they are under the influence of any drug or medication – even if the medication is lawfully prescribed. This includes marijuana.

When a motorist causes an accident due to their intoxication, they may be subject to both criminal and civil liability. Criminal cases are brought by the State of California, and while there may be some restitution ordered as a result of a criminal case, compensating a victim of a California DUI accident is not necessarily the goal of a criminal trial. Accident victims seeking compensation for their injuries should file a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit against the allegedly drunk driver.

California Car Accident Victim’s Case Against Insurance Company Dismissed Based on Overbroad Release of Liability

December 1, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a car accident case requiring the court to determine which state’s law applied to the case. While the opinion is from a Georgia court, the choice-of-law issue is one that could potentially arise in any California car accident case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was formerly a Georgia resident who was attending school in California. Prior to leaving for California, the plaintiff’s parents bought her a car. The car was licensed and insured in Georgia.

One day, the plaintiff was involved in a car accident that she claimed was caused by the other driver’s negligence. The plaintiff settled her claim with the other driver and executed a general release of liability pursuant to the negotiations between the parties. However, the plaintiff claimed that her injuries exceeded the amount she recovered from the other driver, so she filed a claim with her own insurance company under the underinsured motorist provision.

California Court Discusses the Scope of Church’s Duty to Parishioner in Recent Premises Liability Case

November 27, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Earlier this month, the state’s supreme court issued a written opinion in a California premises liability case brought by a man who was seriously injured as he was crossing the road from an off-site parking lot to the defendant church. The case required the court to determine whether the church owed the plaintiff a duty of care to prevent the type of injury he sustained. Ultimately, the court concluded that the church did not owe the plaintiff a duty.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was planning on attending an evening service at the defendant church. As the plaintiff arrived at the church, he was directed to an overflow parking lot across a five-lane highway. When he pulled into the parking lot, he found a parking spot and exited his vehicle.

The plaintiff needed to cross the street to get to the church. However, the parking attendant did not tell the plaintiff that the church had volunteers stationed at the intersection about 100 feet away. Rather than walk to the nearest intersection, the plaintiff attempted to cross the street mid-block. As he was navigating the five-lane highway, he was struck by a passing motorist.