Unsafe Rental Cars

Assuming that car rental agencies provide safe and well-maintained vehicles, drivers often choose to rent a car for a long road trip rather than put the miles on their own car. Renters trust the rental agency to provide safe vehicles because that’s their business. That’s the service customers are paying for in daily rates. Apparently that assumption may be wrong and the trust misplaced. Sometimes rental agencies seek to push cars off the lot, even when they know the cars have problems with tires, brakes or steering.

In 2004, the Houck sisters were returning to Santa Cruz from their mother's home in Ventura when their rented PT Cruiser crossed the grass median and hit a southbound big rig and burst into flames. Both were killed in the crash.

The girls had rented the Cruiser from Enterprise Rent a Car in SF. What the girls didn't know when they signed for the car was that, a month earlier, Daimler Chrysler recalled 435,000 PT Cruisers manufactured from 2002 through 2005. That recall included the Cruiser that Enterprise provided them. The reason for the recall was that the power steering hose could leak, resulting in a fire.

Nor did Enterprise tell the girls that it had ignored the recall, renting it out to four previous customers without ever getting the necessary repairs completed.

When experts concluded Rachel Houck lost steering ability because of a power-steering fluid leak, the girls' parents sued Enterprise seeking to hold the company responsible for the accident.

Mark Matias, the manager of Enterprise's Northern California area testified that before the accident, he was not aware the PT Cruiser had been recalled. Furthermore, he said the Enterprise corporate philosophy was "you've got to keep booking, because you don't know when you are going to get a car back. But then of course, you run short on vehicles, and if all you have are recalled vehicles on the lot, you rent them out. It was a given. The whole company did it."

His statement explained his understanding of the policy: If a priority recall appears on the computer screen in the rental office, the employee is required to write the word "recall" on a Post-it note and place it on the key in an area designated for non-rentals, but nothing prevents an employee from renting out that vehicle.

A jury disapproved of Enterprise's business practices and returned a verdict against Enterprise and in favor of the girls' parents in the amount of $15 million. Given the Houck family tragedy, hopefully Enterprise, along with other rental agencies will reconsider renting a recalled car and strive to meet the renter’s expectation of safety.
 

Attorneys Want Parents Accountable for Serving Alcohol to Minors

Serving alcohol to minors is illegal. But strangely parents do it or permit it to happen in their home. Stranger still, the law doesn't allow civil recourse against the parent when a teen is killed or injured as a result of the alcohol the parent served. That may soon change.

The Consumer Attorneys of California and Mothers Against Drunk Driving have teamed up to deter underage drinking and hold parents accountable for serving alcohol to minors . They are co-sponsors of the narrowly-crafted Teen Alcohol Safety Act of 2010. It is aimed at adding California to the large preponderance of states that impose potential "social host" liability on adults who knowingly provide alcohol to minors who are subsequently injured or killed as a result of this lack of parental care.

The Senate has signed the bill.  It's now on the governor's desk. If he signs it, it will become law and no longer will parents be immune from liability when they serve alcohol to minors.

Thank you fellow trial attorneys!  

Five Things People Get Wrong About Tramautic Brain Injuries

1. "You couldn't have suffered a brain injury if you didn't lose consciousness." 

Not so.  A brain injury results from any traumatically induced disruption in brain function.  The victim needn't have "blacked out" to have suffered a brain injury.  A disruption of brain function may be evidenced by the victim's inability to recall events immediately before or after the accident, or any feelings of being dazed or confused after an accident.

2. "You couldn't have suffered a brain injury if you didn't hit your head."  

The brain can be injured anytime the head comes to a sudden stop.  The damage occurs when the brain moves inside the skull.  No impact to the head is needed.  If the head and neck makes a sufficient whipping motion, or if the head is shaken sufficiently hard, a brain injury can result..

3.  "Children recover from brain injuries better than adults do."

In fact, children often seem to do worse than adults. The reason is that, for a child, the injury is a "double hazard."  First, the child struggles in the first year or two to recover physically from the injury, if he can.  But even if his physical condition improves, he will find himself behind his peers in school.  Unable to catch up, he may simply fall further behind. 
If you don't have any complaints, you're fine.

4. "It's just a concussion."  

A concussions, though considered "mild" brain injuries, are serious.  For most victims, their symptoms of a concussion will resolve within a year.  However, for a minority of victims -- perhaps as many as 15% -- their symptoms can persist for many years of for the rest of their lives, and can be devastating. 

5. "If you feel OK, then you're fine."

Sometimes, the symptoms of a brain injury occur right away.  Sometimes, however, they can begin weeks later.  Frequently, a victim of a brain injury will suffer a serious loss -- such as the loss of his sense of smell -- and not even be aware of it until he is tested.

Compensating a Wrongful Death Claimant for the Loss of Financial Support

A family member who has lost a loved one due to the negligence of another is entitled to be compensated for his or her loss. In most jurisdictions, that compensation properly includes money to replace the financial support the family member would have received from the loved one had the accident never happened. Here are some of the factors that are considered in determining what sum is appropriate.

  • How much was the victim earning? This is usually determined by wage or earnings records.
  • How much was the victim capable of earning? The victim's "earning capacity" may be higher than what his actual earnings reflected. A higher earning capacity is sometimes evidenced by the victim's education, employment history, and work-related accomplishments.
  • How much was the victim actually contributing to the family member's support? Though actual contributions may be relevant, the family member need not prove legal support obligation as in the case of the forgotten widow.
  • Was future support likely? Even if the family member hadn't received support in the past, he or she may still prove that he or she expected support in the future. For example, parents have been allowed ompensation when they proved that misfortune, ill health, or simply old age might eventually have forced them to rely on the victim for financial help.
  • How much would the victim have spent on himself? In some states, the wrongdoer is entitled to argue that appropriate compensation is determined by subtracting the amount of money the victim would have spent on himself (for things like tuition, health care, hobbies, etc.) from the victim's total projected lifetime earnings.
  • But for the accident, how long would the victim have been expected to work? The victim's "work-life" expectancy is often the subject of dispute. In determining how long the victim would have continued to work, and thus provide financial support, courts consider evidence about the victim's health, lifestyle, and attitudes about work.
  • What is the family member's life expectancy? The family member can recover only the support he or she would have likely received from the victim. That means that the family member's life expectancy, if shorter than the victim's work-life expectancy, may be relevant. In California, mortality tables  are frequently considered when trying to determine life expectancies, but aren't conclusive. 

The family member is entitled to be compensated today for all the support that he or she would have likely received in the future. That means that the total amount of support that the family member would have received must be discounted to present value.  Finally, if the victim acted carelessly or negligently and his actions were a contributing factor in causing his death, then the amount of compensation due will be reduced in proportion to the fault attributable to the victim.