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

Event Data Recorders (EDRs) have been in cars since at least 1997. They are similar to the“black box” found on airplanes. The EDR in a vehicle is usually part of the vehicle restraint system and records information generally related to accidents. Some EDRs continuously record data and others are activated by crash-like events.

Manufacturers are not required to install EDR’s in the cars they manufacturer. But they do anyway. Ford, GM, Chrysler/Daimler and Toyota include them on most  models. 

In 2006, NHTSA set minimum standards for manufacturers who install EDRs.  The manufacturers must comply with those standards for EDR's installed on or after September 1, 2012. The NHTSA standards will require that the following data be recorded:  speed, engine throttle position, brake use, measured changes in forward velocity (Delta-V), driver safety belt use, airbag warning lamp status and airbag deployment times.

Currently, some manufacturers shroud the quantity and quality of EDR data in secrecy. For example, no one, other than Toyota, knows exactly what data Toyota’s EDRs record, what data is retrieved, and how it is processed and analyzed to produce a report.  Sean Kane of Safety Research and Strategies sheds some light on the murky subject of EDRs in his report found here.  All this will change in 2012, when NHTSA will require manufacturers to make their EDR data publicly available.

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

Governor Schwarzenegger has signed a bill into law that will allow adults who serve alcohol to minors to be held accountable for their actions.  Under the new law, adults who serve alcohol to those under the legal drinking age of 21 can be sued for any injuries or death that result from the intoxication.  Surprisingly, before the law was passed, adults who served minors in their homes were immune from civil liability.

 As discussed here, trial attorneys and Mothers Against Drunk Driving  teamed up to sponsor this bill aimed at protecting everyone from the harmful consequences of under-age drinking.

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

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.
 

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

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!  

• 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

Spinal cord injuries can result from a spectrum of causes: compression of the space around a disk, fractures of a vertebra (cervical, thoracic or lumbar), or a disk "blown" or crushed by a fall. The spinal cord can be injured or severed by a gunshot or by a knife wound. But the leading cause of spinal cord injuries is, by far, motor vehicle accidents (MVAs).

 Often, the MVA victim is concerned about whether a pre-existing condition will make a difference in his case. Generally, it will.

The person whose negligence causes an MVA is responsible only for the harm that results from that particular accident. That means that, if the victim had a pre-existing injury, the victim is entitled to compensation only for the extent to which the accident made the victim's condition worse.

Sometimes the victim had no pain from his pre-existing condition, but the condition made him more susceptible to being injured. Then the "eggshell plaintiff" rule applies. The rule provides that it is no defense that a pre-existing neck or back condition made the victim more susceptible to injury. The wrongdoer who caused the MVA must fully compensate the victim. It makes no difference that another victim without the pre-existing condition might not have suffered any injury at all. The "eggshell plaintiff" is entitled to be fully compensated for the injuries he suffered in the accident, even if the careless driver had no way of knowing the victim's condition was so fragile.

The victim’s pre-existing condition plays an important part in the evaluation of spinal cord injury cases. Sometimes, sorting out what injuries were pre-existing from those that were not can be exceedingly difficult. Because of that, the cases are best handled by attorneys experienced in analyzing medical evidence and in presenting that evidence to a jury.

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

Proposition 213 became law in 1996.  That law says that an uninsured driver who is injured in an auto accident  may not recover certain damages due her, even though the accident was entirely the fault of the other driver.  The damages the innocent driver is prohibited from collecting are her non-economic damages, which include pain and suffering.

The insurance companies passed Prop 213 to save money and maximize profits at the expense of the driver who was not at fault in an accident. The only exception: an uninsured driver my collect damages for pain and suffering if the negligent driver who caused the accident is later convicted of drunk driving.

By its terms, Prop 213 applies to those uninsured drivers who were actually at the wheel when they were struck by another driver.  But courts have  applied this law broadly to keep compensation from drivers who weren't even in their cars when the accident took place.  For example, courts have ruled that Prop 213 deprives uninsured drivers of the right to be compensated for the injuries even if they were outside their parked car when they were run down. 

Given the harsh results, it is important  that all drivers carry liability insurance on their cars and trucks.

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