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

PG&E has finally agreed to move the pipeline from the Crestmoor neighborhood. PG&E would have us believe the decision was made out of concern for residents.  According to PG&E president Christopher Johns:

PG&E understands that no one wants the damaged section of Line 132 rebuilt at its current location.  We know residents in the neighborhood have suffered a terrible trauma and the pipe is a horrible reminder.

Is that the reason?  Or did PG&E simply figure out that moving it was in its financial best interests.  After all, the law makes PG&E liable for any diminution in the value of the neighborhood homes. As long as the pipe runs under the neighborhood, the homes are worth very little. Remove the pipe and values will rebound. In the end, it's cheaper for PG&E to move the pipe than it is for it to leave it there. 

Isn't it as simple as that?

PG&E to Move Pipe

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Martin Ricard reported on the lawsuits against PG&E that we filed today on behalf of some of the San Bruno fire victims. Ricard summed up the allegations in the six lawsuits, filed on behalf of nine different victims, succinctly:

According to the lawsuits, the residents' injuries were a direct result of PG&E's operation of the pipeline, which, the firm says, has been [marked by] a "run-to-failure" attitude toward replacing old pipes and maintenance practices known to cause risk.

What's a "run-to-failure" attitude?

That's the strategy of running old equipment until it fails and then dealing with the damage inflicted instead of investing the money necessary to prevent the failure from happening in the first place," Danko said. "The practice appears to be part of PG&E's long-standing corporate culture of placing profits over people."

More on the lawsuits here.  More on PG&E's run-to-failure mentality here.

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

The NTSB's preliminary report on the San Bruno Fire has led some politicians to ask why it took PG&E so long to turn the gas off.

Jackie Speier. . . expressed bewilderment that PG&E failed to send anyone to turn off the ruptured pipe until "33 minutes after 100-foot-high flames . . .were clearly visible from (Highway) 101, more than 10 miles away.

Not a bad question.  But that’s not really the issue on which we should focus. Just for the moment, forget about where PG&E was after the fire erupted. Where was PG&E before?

The Gas Line Was Leaking Before the Events of September 9

It’s unlikely that the pipe was just fine on September 8, and suddenly and without warning ripped apart on September 9.  Rather, in the days leading to September 9, the pipe likely had a small leak, sometimes called a “pencil leak.”  The pencil leak allowed gas to permeate the neighborhood. Gas found its way into the wall spaces of the nearby houses.  The gas met with an ignition source – perhaps a small spark from someone turning on a light switch. A flash fire began in the house.  The fire traveled back to the source of the gas – the pipe in the street. Only then did the pipe explode.

How do we know that?  Two reasons: Basic fire chemistry and residents’ reports of the smell of gas well before the explosion.

Fire Chemistry

Pure gas does not burn. Rather, for gas to ignite, it has to be mixed with air. Only when the gas-to-air mixture is 5-15 percent gas and 95-85% air will it burn. The gas-to-air mixture at the site of a high pressure pipe rupture is almost pure gas and so is generally too "rich" to burn.  A combustible mixture usually can be found only at some distance from the source of the leak.

Not only must the gas-to-air mixture be just right for it to be combustible, but that mixture needs to meet up with an ignition source.  Seldom is there an ignition source right at the site of the rupture. That’s another reason gas fires typically begin some distance away from the rupture and then work their way back to the leaking pipe.

The NTSB should quit hoping to find some flaw in the pipe that made it all come apart at once. It won’t find one. It should instead look for some small flaw that allowed a slow “pencil leak.”

Neighbors Smelled Gas

Next, we know that residents smelled gas in the days leading to the fire. Those residents include Chris Torres who lived at the epicenter, and others as reported here and here. The smell of gas in the days before the fire support the “pencil leak” theory.  But the preliminary report doesn't talk about that at all. How can the NTSB ignore what the residents have to say?  

So, where exactly was PG&E in the days leading to the fire?  Unfortunately, the NTSB doesn't seem to be interested in that part of the story.  Neither are the politicians.

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

By now, most drivers know how dangerous rollovers are. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, they make up only 3% of all accidents, but account for 31% percent of all traffic vehicular fatalities.

One reason rollovers are so dangerous is that, when a vehicle rolls over, its roof can crush down on the occupants, causing head injuries, paraplegia and death.

Windshields Keep the Roof Up

The surprise is that, in today's vehicles, the windshield is engineered to provide much of the stiffness necessary to keep the roof from collapsing.  In fact, some experts say that the windshield accounts for up to 60% of the cabin's structural integrity in a rollover.

If It Isn't Installed Right, It Won't Stay In

If the windshield pops out of the frame in a rollover accident, it can't do its job of holding the roof up. Sometimes, an improperly installed windshield will pop out on the first roll, allowing the roof to crush down on the second. That's why, when someone is killed in a rollover that should have been survivable, experienced accident investigators want to know about the windshield: Did it stay in the frame as it was supposed to? Or did it pop out? If it popped out, was it the factory original windshield or had the windshield been replaced at some point after the vehicle left the factory?

Because of the demands on the windshield, field replacement of a cracked or broken windshield has become a tricky procedure. For example, if an installer doesn't wear disposable gloves when handling the replacement windshield, oils from his hands can contaminate the bonding surface. The process of "gluing" the windshield into place is also critical. Even if everything else is done right, the bond's strength can be compromised if the car is left outside in the sun with the windows rolled up. Or if the car's owner is allowed to drive off with the car too soon. Any resulting imperfection in the bond will allow the windshield to pop out in an accident.

The Danger Is Real

The National Glass Association has studied NHTSA's crash data. It won't say exactly how many of the deaths in NHTSA's database resulted from improper windshield installation, but it concedes that "a measurable percentage of those fatalities occur when an improperly replaced windshield does not remain firmly bonded to the vehicle during a crash."

Of course, consumers are not in a position to inspect a windshield bond, or to otherwise ensure that the installation was done right.  But the expert installers know how important the job is, and they are supposed to get it right. There's no question that, because of the way today's cars are designed, it can mean the difference between life and death.

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

Safety regulations were supposed to prevent the San Bruno fire.  But they didn’t.  One reason is that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC president pictured) didn't do its job.  Instead of enforcing the regulations, when the CPUC caught PG&E in a violation, it let PG&E slide.  Not just once. But more than 400 times in the past 6 years.  That’s according to the CPUC’s own records. 

PG&E is the worst safety violator of all the utilities in the state of California. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, 410 “probable” violations since 2005. Yet, in not one case did the CPUC fine PG&E. Instead, it let PG&E off with a warning.  Every time.

Why?  The CPUC says that it goes easy on PG&E for two reasons. First, it “assumes” PG&E has an interest in safety. According to the Chairman of the CPUC’s consumer safety division:

We operate under the assumption they are interested in having a safely operated system.

But given PG&E’s history of running its equipment to failure, why would the CPUC “assume” that PG&E is interested in safety? The fact of the matter is that PG&E is not interested in safety.  It is interested in profits.  Anyone who doubts that need only read PG&E’s somewhat indifferent warning to shareholders about the problems with its gas operations. Though PG&E showed great concern that an explosion might be a drain on profits, it expressed no concern for what an explosion might do to its customers.  PG&E gave the CPUC no real reason to believe it was interested in safety.

Next, the CPUC says it let PG&E slide because the CPUC didn’t see a disturbing 'trend".

If we saw a trend that gave us concerns in terms of what we are finding out there, we would take enforcement action. 

A trend? How about 410 violations in the past 6 years? Does that not constitute a "trend"? Exactly how many violations does the CPUC need?

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

The fact of the matter is that Glenview homes aren't worth today what they were on September 8.  That’s because some house hunters who might have considered buying in the Glenview neighborhood before the fire will now fear that the neigborhood is unsafe. Others, in light of all the pain the neighborhood has experienced, will simply prefer to buy elsewhere. 

In real estate terms, the explosion and fire has "stigmatized" the neighborhood. Stigma always depresses home values. Values will drop even more when some Glenview residents, unable to become once again comfortable in their homes, are forced to move out and to sell almost regardless of the price they get.  

The homes' diminution in value represents a significant economic loss to Glenview residents.  The loss may be difficult to quantify, but it doesn't make it any less real.  Even those homeowners who decide not to sell will be affected when, for example, they try to refinance or borrow against their properties.  

A home need not have burned to be “damaged” by the fire.  Whether Glenview residents decide to keep their homes or to sell, they have all suffered a loss. They are all deserving of compensation.   

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

Not necessarily.  If the claim process is proceeding smoothly with open and productive communication between the claimant and the insurer, then the claimant may stay the course. But a qualified attorney can help when the claimant feels:

• frustrated;
• deadlocked with the insurer;
• unfairly treated by the insurer; or
• concerned about time passing and possibly losing her rights.

To assist the homeowner with the claim, the attorney will need a complete copy of the homeowner’s policy, including the "Declarations Page", and all "Endorsements" and "Riders".  Generally, the Declarations Page is the first or second page of the policy which states the dollar limits for each category of coverage and lists the "extras" known as endorsements and riders. The endorsements and riders will be listed by a code number or letter, or combination thereof. 

The attorney will also need a complete copy of the homeowner’s personal claim file, including all communications the homeowner has had with the insurer and any of its representatives. 

If you're not sure that you are being treated fairly and would like an attorney's input, give us a call or send us an email.

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

Unintended or sudden acceleration problems have been around for years. From the beginning, car manufacturers have always wanted to blame the driver.  As long ago as the late 1980"s, manufacturers reported that "Startled and confused drivers hit the wrong pedal.” 

It’s no real surprise, then, that Toyota blames “driver error” for the recent spate of reported unintended acceleration cases involving its vehicles. It relies on preliminary findings from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration that unintended acceleration cases may be due to what NHTSA calls “pedal misapplication”.

The problem with NHTSA’s findings are that they rely on data from a car's “EDR”, or event data recorder. An EDR is a device similar to the “black box” found on airplanes. But while the black box on an airplane is highly accurate, the EDRs installed in cars are not. They simply can’t be relied on, especially when it comes to unintended acceleration cases.

Here’s why relying on EDR data would give a false picture of what's behind cases of unintended acceleration:

• Before 2007, EDRs did not capture pre-crash data. Since unintended acceleration is always a pre-crash event, the EDR is worthless for unintended acceleration cases in cars older than three years.
• 95% of unintended acceleration cases are low speed events . Even the new EDRs, however, are not activated in low speed accidents.
• In the rare high-speed unintended acceleration case, the entire power reserve in the air bag control module capacitor may be called upon to deploy the air bags, leaving none for the recorder and no data is stored.  Instead, the data is lost.
• Unlike the aircraft Black Box data, EDR data has not been scientifically validated.

Toyota has admitted in other cases that the data from its EDRs are not reliable and should be kept out of court. If Toyota doesn’t trust the data from its own EDRs, why should we?
 

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