California Personal Injury Law Case Notes : California Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Kristine Meredith : The Danko Law Firm : Car Accidents & Product Liability

Of course a wife is entitled to recover against the wrongdoer who caused the death of her loving husband. But what if the husband had long ago abandoned her? Without a loving relationship or continuous support, is the "forgotten widow" entitled to any compensation at all?

In most cases, yes, because the forgotten widow or abandoned wife who has lost her husband is viewed as having lost her husband's financial support. Even if the husband had not been paying that support, the widow is entitled to compensation.

In the usual wrongful death case, an award for loss of support is based on the amount of support the widow proves her deceased husband would have provided to her in the future. But a California court has ruled that, in the case of the forgotten widow, that proof is not necessary.

The California court  in Powers v. Sutherland Auto Stage Co., considered a case where the deceased spouse had deserted his wife more than 13 years before his death. During that time, he had sent her only infrequent small checks, and for several years prior to the his death, the claimant wife had heard nothing from him and did not know his whereabouts. The spouse was entitled to no compensation for the loss of her husband's "care comfort or society.' But the court determined that the wife was entitled to be compensated for the loss of her legal right to support.

It made no difference that the wife had never attempted to enforce her rights. Her right to support was created by the marriage and would exist so long as the marriage itself existed. By causing the death of her husband, the wrongdoer deprived the forgotten widow of a right to which she was legally entitled.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There's no longer any debate.  Tires older than six years should be discarded and replaced, even if they otherwise appear to be in good condition with plenty of tread.  In fact, they should be tossed out  even if they've never been used.  That's because tires older than six years are prone to "detreading."  Detreading is a type of tire failure where the tread peels from the tire much like the skin may peel from a banana.

Detreadings are more dangerous than flats or blow-outs.  Some vehicles, including SUV's, can become uncontrollable after a detreading and can roll over, especially if it's a rear tire that fails.

One need look no further than the vehicle's owner's manual for guidance.  Almost all the car manufacturers now warn to replace tires after six years, regardless of condition.  That includes Volvo, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, and even Ford. In fact, Ford posted a warning on its website: 

Tires degrade over time, even when they are not being used. It is recommended that tires generally be replaced after 6 years of normal service. Heat caused by hot climates or frequent high loading conditions can accelerate the aging process.  

Until recently, the tire manufacturers argued that tires were good for at least 10 years.  Maybe even indefinitely if they had adequate tread. It's only now that the tire makers agree that the "six-year" rule should be followed.

What gives?  Wouldn't a tire manufacturer want consumers to toss out tires sooner, so that they could sell more?

No.

Tire manufacturers make tires in batches and then store them until needed. That' means the tire you buy at a tire store as "new" may be up to 10 years old.   Sometimes even older.  If buyers began rejecting those tires, tire manufacturers would have to change their whole way of making and distributing their product to get them to market and sold while still "fresh."

Consumer groups have argued that tire makers should stamp the year of manufacturer on the outside tire sidewall, so the consumer would have no trouble telling how old the tire is.  Or at the very least, tire shops should be required to advise customers when the new tire they are buying isn't exactly "new." 

Tire makers and tire shops resist.  They say the code containing the tire's date of manufacture is stamped on the inside sidewall for anyone to see.  But the problem with that is the coded information is hard to find and is, well, in code.      

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

California's "financial responsibility" law requires that all motorists carry a minimum level of liability insurance in case they cause an accident. That includes an accident that hurts a cyclist. The problem is that the minimum coverage ($15,000) is enough to cover minor injuries only. If any hospital stay is involved, the minimum coverage is unlikely to be enough. The majority of accidents involving a bicycle and a car send the cyclist to the hospital. Cyclists are thus placed at particular financial risk by "underinsured" motorists. 

If the cyclist owns a car, he can protect himself by purchasing "Uninsured/Underinsured" coverage.  The benefits of this coverage applies whether the driver who caused the accident is uninsured, or insured but carries an inadequate amount to cover the injuries. The coverage will apply even though the cyclist was on his bicycle and not in his car.  Thus, in the appropriate case, the cyclist's UM/UIM coverage will step in and compensate the injured cyclist, up to the amount of the cyclist's coverage limits.

For the cyclist to take advantage of the UM/UIM coverage, the cyclist may not accept a settlement from the driver without first obtaining his insurer's permission. If the cyclist does accept a settlement, the UM/UIM may refuse to pay the cyclist's claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link