Articles Posted in Car Accident

Distracted driving has been a problem since the advent of automobiles. Distracted driving is when the driver takes his or hers eyes from the road to focus on something else. Throughout the years, the reasons for those distractions have changed with the times from, fussing with children and radios to swatting insects, eating and most recently texts and GPS devices.

The use of cell phones and texting while driving has led to many deaths and is considered the leader in distracted driving issues today. Texting and cell phone use takes a lot of brain power. It takes more than a few seconds to type out or even speak a message to someone else. It is a big distraction, especially while traveling at 45 + miles per hour.

Laws across the country have been developed to severely limit or even ban texting and driving. The effectiveness of these laws is addressed daily across the country wherever they are in place. In jurisdictions without these laws, the issues are building and pressure is high to take measures.

A cyclist, Mr. James Glendon Combis, 59-years-old, died in a crash with an automobile in Sacramento in October. Mr. Combis was riding along Stockton Blvd near Quinta Court approximately 6:30 a.m.. For reasons unknown, he veered suddenly into traffic and was struck by a SUV.

According to the California Highway Patrol, the driver of the Chevrolet Tahoe attempted to stop and avoid hitting Combis but was unable to. Mr. Combis was jetted into traffic and received major, life-threatening injuries. He was rushed to Kaiser South Sacramento Hospital, succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead.

Mr. Combis was not wearing a helmet. The bicycle had no rear light and it is not known if it had a front light. Details like these seem unimportant in the face of such a tragedy but, in fact, may have saved his life.

In recent years, states all around the United States have adopted laws that prohibit the use of cellphones while operating a vehicle. Failure to abide these laws can lead to heavy fines and lawsuits if an accident happens. California has strict laws regarding cellphone usage while driving. The first law prohibits drivers from using hand held cellphones or devices while driving.

The second law prohibits newly licensed drivers 18 years of age and younger from using both handheld cellphones and hands free devices. Another law says that all drivers are not allowed to text while driving.

There are exceptions of using cell phones while on the road:

The strength of a car accident claim is based on two factors; damages and liability. The intricacies of these two factors determine the amount of money an injured person can ask for in a car accident settlement.

The liability of a case refers to how much of the accident was the plaintiffs fault. The plaintiff is the person filing the claim, most often the victim of the accident. The defendant’s insurance company will attempt to assign a portion of the blame on the victim. The portion that is assigned will have an impact on the amount the plaintiff can ask for in the settlement.

Should the plaintiff be found 50% or more guilty they are unable to file a claim in the accident. Whatever percentage they are found responsible for will reduce their claim by that much. For example, if the plaintiff is found to be only 20% responsible for the accident, their claim is reduced by 20%.

A substantial amount of drowsy driving accidents occur within the teen driving years. This is no coincidence. It has long been known that most teens are sleep deprived and are often required to drive after little to no sleep.

Exams, after school jobs and social activities take up much of a teen’s life. Teens are expected to drive, those are the years during which American’s learn to drive. Add to this, the fact that a teen brain needs more sleep than an adult brain and you have a recipe for driving disaster.

Any drowsy driver can cause considerable harm and even death. Driving a car or truck while sleepy is dangerous but driving a long haul truck, heavy equipment or other large industrial vehicle can be especially dangerous but the most at risk population of drivers for drowsy driving accidents are teen drivers.

There are times when stopping on the side of a busy highway or interstate is unavoidable. Sometimes things just happen and there is no way to stop or avoid it. Flat tires, emergency phone calls, and insects in the car can cause a driver to pull over immediately. However, doing so is very dangerous and can also be deadly.

Vehicles whizzing along a busy road are not able to see a car parked, stalled or pulled over on the side of the road very well. The speed and distraction of the road put any parked car at a big disadvantage. Distracted drivers, whether texting, playing music or drowsy, can easily veer off the road and into a parked car, hitting it head on or side swiping it. This practice is especially dangerous at night when the roads are dark and illuminated only by headlights and towering Halcion lights.

Running out of gas and breakdowns occur and are often unavoidable. A flat tire or blown motor takes you off the road in a hurry. Short of instances like this, all stops should be at a rest stop or gas station where a driver can find assistance, supplies, information and shelter.

Have you sustained a brain injury in an auto accident? If so, you might be worried about your work and other important things. In such a case, it is very important that you get help of a brain injury lawyer in California. There are a variety of reasons of hiring a head injury attorney in California. When it comes to hiring a lawyer, the first most important thing you should keep in mind is that the lawyer you are going to choose should specialize in the brain injury cases. You can choose a general lawyer as well, though it is not recommended. Keep reading to know more about this topic.

Like other professions, if the lawyer specializes in dealing with brain injury lawsuits, then you will have better chances of winning the case. These lawyers have better success rate than the general lawyers. In order to meet your needs, the brain injury lawyer in California will follow the right steps. Brain injuries are not the same as the other injuries. It is relatively difficult to recognize the signs of a brain injury, as the injury is not visible. In some cases, the symptoms of a head injury do not show up for several years or months. By hiring an attorney, you can make the identification easier, as your lawyer will take you to a good doctor for diagnosis. Once you have gone through the diagnosis, the doctor will give you a report containing complete information about your injury. Your lawyer then will be able to figure out a reasonable amount of income based on the severity of your injuries.

As said earlier, brain injuries are relatively different from other physical injuries. Therefore, insurance companies deal with brain injury claims in a different way. They have different terms when we talk about paying compensation to a head injury victim. In such a situation, you should better seek advice of an experienced and smart brain injury lawyer in California as they have better knowledge of the ins and outs of a head injury lawsuit. The aim of insurance companies, for the most part, is to pay as little amount as possible in case a claim is filed. So, it is recommended to get help from an experienced lawyer if possible.

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: Marks was taken by ambulance from the scene of the accident to the emergency room. She sustained a fracture to her right ankle, which was treated with closed reduction casting, rather than internal fixation, due to metal allergies. She also claimed that she sustained cervical and lumbar strains and sprains, torn medial menisci in both knees, as well as minor injuries to her hands, right leg and the right side of her chest.

Facts:

On Oct. 17, 2005, plaintiff Cathlene Marks, 59, a Walmart manager, was driving northbound in Sacramento, CA. At approximately 2:30 p.m., Marks drove through an intersection and collided with a bus operated by Susan Helen, who was traveling westbound. Marks claimed she sustained multiple injuries in the crash.

Marks sued Helen and XYZ Transit Inc., the owner of the bus. She alleged Helen was negligent in the operation of the bus and that XYZ was vicariously liable for her actions.

Marks contended that Helen failed to yield for oncoming traffic at the intersection, since the defendant’s part of the intersection was controlled by a stop sign, while plaintiff’s was not.

The defendants admitted liability at the start of trial, and the matter proceeded to assess damages.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

On August 3, 2009, plaintiff reported feeling numbness in his left leg. An examination found palpable tenderness in the right groin over the ramus and in the posterior right sacral region. On August 6, 2009, he was examined by another doctor and he reported continued morning headaches. X-rays of his right ribs taken on August 10, 2009 revealed a non-displaced fracture of the anterior segment of the eighth rib. By September 3, 2009, plaintiff’s headaches were becoming more severe, with confusion, altered mental status, blurred vision, lower extremity tremors, and numbness. A CT scan revealed a 2.5 cm hematoma on the left cerebral hemisphere and midline shift. He was admitted to a hospital, and burr holes were done for drainage. The following day, a CT scan found more hemorrhage and a craniotomy was performed. He was discharged on September 14, 2009. Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with disc bulges at L3-L4 and L4-L5, severe spinal stenosis at L4-L5, and L5-S1 facet hypertrophy. He underwent physical therapy from April 14, 2010 until May 25, 2010, and he underwent an epidural injection on January 14, 2011. He underwent a surgery at L4-L5. Plaintiff claimed that he had cognitive deficits and experiences memory loss, confusion, and right arm tremor. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that plaintiff’s relationship with his wife and his quality of life had been affected by his injuries. He suffers from depression and a personality change, with him being more aggressive and argumentative with a shorter temper. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that this was an effect of the closed-head injury. Defense counsel disputed the traumatic brain injury claims and the need for back surgery.

CLAIMED DAMAGES

According to Plaintiff: $214,261 past medical; $39,390 future medical; $1,500,000 past pain and suffering; $2,000,000 future pain and suffering.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

According to Plaintiff: Demand: $2,195,000 (CCP § 998); Offer: $50,000 at time of trial.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a brain injury lawsuit could develop and resolve. Reviewing this summary should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Plaintiff: On June 24, 2009, plaintiff Mark Matt, a 74-year-old farmer, was driving a truck southbound on G Avenue when he came to a stop at the intersection with S Avenue and then began to proceed through the intersection. He was struck by a truck driven by defendant Reid Murphy, who was traveling eastbound on S Avenue making a delivery for his employer, HIS Services, to XYZ Services Inc. Murphy did not stop at a stop sign at the intersection.

Plaintiff sued Murphy, his employer, IHS, and XYZ, alleging that Murphy was negligent in the operation of the vehicle, while IHS and Sears were vicariously liable. Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Jim Marion for indemnification and apportionment of fault.

Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Murphy was not paying attention and was speaking to his assistant at the time of the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that plaintiff stopped, looked both ways, and then proceeded into the intersection at 5 mph.

Murphy claimed that he could not see the stop sign because a freightliner truck owned and operated by Jim Marion was blocking his view.

Defense counsel argued that plaintiff was a substantial factor in the cause of the accident.

Plaintiff’s counsel argued that there were a number of warning signs to Murphy that a stop was coming.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue Reading ›

Contact Information