Elderly Driver Strikes 11 On LA Sidewalk

This afternoon a 100-year-old man in Los Angeles backed his car on to a sidewalk and struck eleven people, including nine children.  The incident happened across from an elementary school shortly after classes had ended.  While reports vary, it would appear four of the children were initially in critical condition, with only one remaining so tonight.  Some of the victims were briefly trapped under the vehicle that had been driven by Preston Cart, who was described as cooperative.  While at the scene and shortly afterward, Carter told investigators that his brakes failed.

See the Fox News story and photographs HERE.

An accident like the one above will undoubtedly stir the debate regarding elderly drivers.  Under California law, drivers over the age of 70 must renew their driver's license in person, rather than via the Internet or by mail.  Elderly drivers may also be required to take a supplemental driving test if they fail a vision exam, or if a police officer, a physician, or a family member raises questions about their ability to operate a vehicle.  While we do not yet know the result of the police investigation, and whether a brake failure actually did contribute to the accident, the scenario above is strikingly familiar to others involving elderly drivers.  It is not uncommon for an older driver to mistake the gas for the brake pedal and then conclude the brakes "failed" because their vehicle did not stop.  A tragic accident like this, especially one involving children, is all the more heart wrenching if it could have been avoided.

Compensation for the victims of automobile accidents involving impaired drivers should be an important concern for everyone.  When a careless or compromised driver strikes a pedestrian, causing a tragic accident like the one above, he or she should be held accountable.  An Orange County lawyer with experience at handling pedestrian accident cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 21 years of experience handling traffic accident cases, including those caused by elderly drivers.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been the victim of a traffic accident caused by an elderly or otherwise impaired driver?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Pedestrian Accident In Menifee Causes Serious Injuries

On Sunday evening at about 7:00 p.m., a suspected drunk driver struck a pedestrian in Menifee, resulting in serious injuries.  According to the story in the Press Enterprise, the alleged drunk driver, 31-year-old Juan Vargas Mendoza, struck the 54-year-old woman after she had momentarily stepped into the street.  The accident happened in the 31600 block of Brentworth Street, and Mendoza reportedly hit another vehicle on the side of the road before the accident was over.  Witnesses to the incident restrained Mendoza until police arrived at the scene.  As of early today, the victim was listed in stable condition, and anybody with information is asked to call the Menifee Sheriff’s Department traffic division at 951-210-1000.

See the Press Enterprise story HERE.

The case above is apparently another example of what happens when a driver gets behind the wheel of their car while impaired.  From the Google images of the accident scene, there does not appear to be any impediment to a driver's view of pedestrians in or near the street.  Even assuming that the victim stepped into the street when she shouldn't have, it would appear that any driver traveling at a safe speed could see such a danger and have time to react.  The area where the accident happened is residential, and the speed limit is likely to be no more than 25 miles per hour.  Aside from this, if it is proven Mendoza was driving while intoxicated, then his carelessness may be presumed under the law, regardless of his speed.  

Compensation for the victims of DUI related accidents should be an important concern for everyone.   When an impaired driver strikes a pedestrian, causing a tragic accident like the one above, he or she should be held accountable.  An Orange County personal injury attorney with experience at handling pedestrian accident cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.   Mr. Ralph has more than 21 years of experience handling automobile accident cases, including those caused by drunk drivers.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been the victim of a pedestrian accident caused by an impaired driver?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Rescue Doctrine and The Valley Village Electrocutions

Last Wednesday, a solo traffic accident involving a 19-year-old driver in Valley Village resulted in the tragic deaths of two women who had come to the driver's aid.  According to news reports, the driver of a white SUV, traveling at perhaps an excessive speed, lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a fire hydrant and light pole, knocking it to the ground.  The wire from the pole apparently electrified the pooling water around the accident scene, unbeknownst to a number of rescuers and bystanders.  When two women, Stacey Schreiber (39) and Irma Zamora (40) approached the SUV and stepped into the water, they were electrocuted and dropped to the ground instantly.  A number of other bystanders were injured by the electricity when they approached.  Schreiber and Zamora were eventually removed from the water by firefighters, and sadly both died shortly after being transported to a local hospital.

See the KTLA/Los Angeles Times news story HERE.

The precise cause of the crash has yet to be determined, but preliminary reports suggest excessive speed on the part of the SUV driver was at least a contributing factor.  This incredibly tragic story not only evokes sympathy for the victims and their families, it raises important legal questions.  Perhaps one of the most interesting questions is one of liability.  Should the driver of the white SUV be liable for the two deaths and the injuries sustained by rescuers if it is shown he was negligent in causing the accident?  Under California law, there is little doubt a firefighter or police officer would be precluded from recovery against the driver since they assume the risk of such injury by virtue of their jobs.  However, private rescuers (such as Schreiber and Zamora) and their families may recover if it can be shown they did not act rashly or recklessly during their rescue efforts.  Here, the electrified water was a danger not readily apparent to bystanders as evidenced by the number of people who were electrocuted so it would seem none of the rescuers (particularly Schreiber and Zamora) acted in a rash or reckless manner in trying to come to the aid of the SUV driver.  It appears the rescue doctrine would permit a recovery under these circumstances.

Compensation for rescuers and their families should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a private person comes to the aid of a negligent driver and is injured or killed as a result, the one who carelessly caused the accident should be held accountable.  An Orange County injury lawyer with experience at handling traffic collision and rescue cases can make a fair assessment of these claims. Mr. Ralph has more than 21 years of experience handling automobile accident cases, including those raising legal issues like the one above.   He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been injured or killed while rescuing someone following an avoidable accident?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case

Skateboarder Alleges Police Brutality

A 20-year-old skateboarder who was arrested by members of the Los Angeles Police Department on Saturday afternoon is making a claim of excessive force.  According to the KTLA news story, Ron Weekley, Jr., was stopped by police because he was riding his skateboard on the wrong side of the street.  The stop ultimately turned into a violent arrest, and Weekly ended up suffering a broken nose, broken cheekbone and concussion.  A spokesperson for LAPD has indicated Weekly violently resisted arrest, a charge now being brought against him.  Interestingly, there is a cell phone video which clearly shows one officer punching Weekly in the face while he is being held on the ground by a total of four officers.

See the KTLA news story and video HERE.

How does the stop and detention of a skateboarder for riding against the flow of traffic end up in such a violent arrest?  While it is entirely possible for a suspect to resist so violently that broken facial bones could be warranted, it seems hard to imagine this could occur when the officers outnumber the suspect four to one.  A police officer making an arrest for a nonviolent crime is entitled to use areasonable amount of nondeadly force to effect the arrest.  What is reasonable is obviously subject to interpretation, but it doesn't likely include punching a suspect prone on the ground in the face with a clinched fist, as can be seen in the video.  Where the amount of force employed exceeds the bounds of reason, the police officers and their department may have crossed the line and deprived the subject of their civil rights as guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions.

Compensation for the victims of civil rights violations by the police should be an important concern for all Californians.  When someone who has been taken into custody is deprived of their civil rights and unnecessarily injured by the police, the governmental entity should be held accountable for all of the injuries and damages sustained.   An Orange County trial attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 21 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.   He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been a victim of a civil rights violation?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Recall On Defective Baby Seat

According to news reports, Bumbo International Trust is recalling about four million of its popular baby seats after at least 50 children reported fell from the seats on elevated surfaces.  The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the recall on Wednesday and disclosed that nineteen of the infants apparently suffered skull fractures, prompting the company and government agency to urge parents to stop using the product until they obtain a repair kit.  The seats have been sold in the United Stated at Sears, Target, Toys R Us (including Babies R Us), USA Babies, Walmart, and various other online sellers and toy and children's stores nationwide.  The recalled products were sold between August of 2003 and August of 2012, for between $30 and $50.

According to the news report, consumers should not take the seats back to the stores at which they were purchased since they cannot provide the repair kit.  Instead, the buyers can order the free kit from Bumbo's website or can call the company at 866-898-4999 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (CT) Monday through Thursday and between 8 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. (CT) on Friday.

See the CBS news report and video HERE.

Under California law, in order to prove a product was dangerously designed and that the manufacturer is therefore strictly (automatically) liable for injuries, it must be shown that the product  did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform.  This is called the consumer expectation test, and it consists of the following elements: (1)  The product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way; (2)  The plaintiff in the case was harmed; and (3)  The product's failure to perform safely was a substantial factor in causing the harm.  This test is applied whenever a product does not meet reasonable minimum safety expectations of the ordinary consumer.  No expert testimony need be offered.  It seems obvious in the case above that the ordinary consumer would expect their child to be safe in a seat designed for infants.  Although no restraint was included in the initial design, given the seat's configuration which seems to wrap around the child's legs, most parents would likely think their child was safe from falls.  

Compensation for the victims of dangerously defective products, especially those that injure children, should be an important concern for everyone. When an unsafe product, such as dangerous child seat, causes severe injuries or death, the seller should be held accountable for the injuries and damages they have caused.   An Orange County product liability attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 21 years of experience handling personal injury and product liability cases, including just this type.   He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been injured by an unreasonably dangerous product?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Wildomar Crash - Caused By Drowsy Driving?

A crash in Wildomar earlier today has left a woman in critical condition and on life support.  According to the Press Enterprise, the collision occurred on Bundy Canyon just before 5:00 a.m.  The victim, a woman driving a Honda CRV, was reportedly hit head on when the driver of a Mercedes crossed into her lane and the two cars collided.  Both drivers were transported from the scene by ambulance to the hospital.  The driver of the Mercedes apparently sustained only minor injuries. 

See the Press Enterprise story HERE.

Given the description of the accident reported to the Press Enterprise and the timing of the collision (early in the morning), the likelihood is that this tragic crash was caused by driver inattention, perhaps the result of drowsy driving.  According to DrowsyDriving.org, the following facts have been established via various studies having to do with tired driving:

• Vehicles in which the driver was accompanied by a passenger were nearly 50 percent less likely to be involved in a drowsy driving related crash.
• More than half (55%) of those drivers who reported having fallen asleep while driving in the past year said that it occurred on a high-speed divided highway.
• More than half (59%) of those drivers who reported having fallen asleep while driving in the past year said they had been driving for less than an hour before falling asleep; only one in five reported they had been driving for three hours or longer.
• More than one in four drivers (26%) who reported having fallen asleep while driving in the past year reported that it had occurred between noon and 5 p.m.
• Men (52%) were much more likely than women (30%) to report having ever fallen asleep while driving; men (14%) were also more likely than women (8%) to admit having done so in the past year.
• Drivers age 24 and younger were most likely to report having fallen asleep in the past year, but they were least likely to report having ever fallen asleep. This is consistent with other studies that have found younger drivers to have a higher risk of falling asleep at the wheel.

While only a detailed investigation will reveal the precise cause of the accident above, tired driving is something everyone should seek to avoid.  Accidents involving drowsy drivers are preventable, and no deadline or other reason for driving while sleepy can justify the risk being taken.  The victim in the Wildomar accident had no choice...perhaps the other driver did.

Compensation for the victims of drowsy driving accidents should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a tired driver causes a tragic accident like the one above, he or she should be held accountable.  An Orange County injury attorney with experience at handling traffic collision cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 21 years of experience handling automobile accident cases, including those caused by drowsy drivers.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a family member been victimized by a drowsy driver?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

California's Medical Malpractice System

If you believe you or a family member have been a victim of medical malpractice you should be aware of some of the most important provisions of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA).  This enactment more than 35 years ago imposes certain restrictions and limitations on civil actions that most malpractice victims would likely consider unfair, or at least outdated.  If you believe a doctor or other health care professional has committed malpractice, below are some of the California rules you should keep in mind before filing such a case.

First, unlike other types of personal injury lawsuits (in which the statute of limitations is two years), an action against a health care provider must generally be filed within one year from the date of the alleged malpractice.  The timing for cases involving small children is, however, considerably longer.  Additionally unlike other defendants in injury cases, a health care provider is entitled to a 90-day warning that a lawsuit is going to be filed.  In theory, the Notice of Intent was intended to allow the health care provider the opportunity to resolve meritorious claims before a lawsuit is filed and the reputation of the doctor further tarnished.  In practice, this almost never works as medical negligence cases are rarely settled before a lawsuit is filed with the court.

Perhaps the next most important difference between medical malpractice lawsuits and those involving other types of personal injury claims is what is commonly referred to as the "MICRA cap".  Under the rules enacted more than 3 decades ago, the limitation on recovery for pain and suffering (so-called "non-economic" damages) is $250,000.00.  There is generally no limitation whatsoever in other types of personal injury cases.  The absurdity of this rule is perhaps best demonstrated by the following: If a physician were to carelessly run you over in his car on his way to the hospital one day (causing injuries requiring amputation of both legs), you would be able to recover the full amount of your injuries and damages against the doctor, in the millions of dollars.  However, if that same physician on the same day committed medical malpractice during your care, causing you to lose both legs, your compensation for exactly the same injuries would be only $250,000.00.  Maybe this limit was fair and justified back in 1975.  However, more than 35 years later (with not so much as a penny increase for the inflation/cost of living rate) it often works a substantial injustice in today's world.

Finally, in California courtrooms and particularly those in Orange County, juries very often favor the physician and his or her side of any malpractice case.  Generally speaking, physicians prevail in roughly 90% of the medical malpractice cases going to a verdict in Orange County courtrooms.  That juror bias is often difficult to offset, even in the strongest of cases.  This, and the MICRA cap referenced above, generally translate to lower settlement values, even for very strong cases.

Fair compensation for victims of medical malpractice should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a physician carelessly harms a patient, they should be held accountable.  An Orange County medical malpractice lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has over 21 years of experience handling personal injury and medical malpractice cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a loved one been the victim of medical malpractice?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.