Articles Posted in Motorcycle Accident

This past May, we celebrated Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month in California, but this is really a topic that is applicable all year round. In 2013, about 14 percent of all vehicle fatalities were motorcyclists, which made them 16 times more likely to die while out on the road. Although motorcyclists only account for about three percent of drivers, it’s important to respect motorcyclists and share the road with them.

Motorcycle ridersOf course, motorcyclists also have an obligation to drive safely and wear protective gear. After all, there are quite a lot of them in California. According to the latest numbers, there are about 830,000 motorcyclists registered in California, the most of any state in the country. In 2013, number showed that there were 485 motorcyclists killed in accidents on Californian roads and 13,143 were injured. To keep motorcyclists safe while on the road, there needs to be a joint effort between vehicle drivers and motorcyclists that promotes safe driving for everyone.

It is important that drivers remember to always share the road with motorcyclists. These cyclists have the exact say rights to the road as any other car and truck. As motorcycles are smaller and less noticeable than cars at times, it is very easy for them to move into another car’s blind spot. If a driver doesn’t see the cyclist, there’s a good chance the driver will hit the cyclist if the driver tries to make a turn or change lanes.

California Highway 138

California Highway 138

It is no surprise that California is home to some of the most dangerous roads in the country. Partly due to road construction, partly our area geography, our roads are infamous for devastating and taking lives. The areas of Orange County and neighbors such as San Bernardino, San Diego, and Los Angeles are the most dangerous. While knowing this fact is uncomfortable for drivers, being aware of the danger is a big step in avoiding it.

Highway 138

Highway 138 gained its notoriety when the television show Dateline investigated its deadly reputation for its story on America’s most deadly roadways. The section east of Palmdale and west of Interstate 15 was determined to be the worst area of road in the country. The problem is said to be the wide variety of dangers faced on the road as it typifies the issues California drivers face on the states profusion of two lane highways. In its early days, Highway 138 served as a rural, farm to market travel way. The traffic was slim to none, except on market days. Its original travelers were in considerably smaller cars, going at much slower speeds. Today, the vehicles are much greater in number, size and speed, overloading the original intent of the highway. To add insult to injury, modern day travelers have designated the highway the short and scenic route to Las Vegas, hence it is often inundated with drunk drivers.

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a personal injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Both plaintiff’s and the defendants’ vocational rehabilitation experts agreed that Tailman’s earning capacity after the incident was approximately $37,000 per year. As a result of a 2005 incident, Tailman did not have a consistent unimpaired earnings history. In addition, in 2003, Tailman had a medical complication, which left him unable to work in 2003 and caused him to file for bankruptcy. In the 2003 filing, Tailman identified that he earned approximately $35,000 per year in 2001, 2002 and less in 2003. The only unimpaired earning year he had in the five years prior to the incident was 2004. In that year, Tailman contended that he earned $214,000. Also, in early 2008, his clients submitted signed declarations confirming that Tailman was going to train them for an indefinite period of time, multiple times a week, at $200 an hour. Tailman contended that he had returned to his 2004 earning capacity immediately before the incident. Plaintiff’s economist determined the present value of Tailman’s past and future loss of earnings to be around $2 million.

Defense counsel contended that Tailman’s injuries were preexisting from a 2005 motorcycle accident where he sustained injuries to his right rotator cuff. Counsel argued that most, if not all, of Tailman’s symptomatology was a result of the prior incident.

Tailman contended that he fully recovered from the 2005 incident, which is evidenced by his winning a level 5.5 tennis tournament at the end of 2007.

The defense orthopedist conducted a nearly two-hour medical examination and reviewed all of Tailman’s available medical records and films. Based upon MRI studies taken after the 2008 incident, the orthopedist concluded that Tailman’s rotator cuff tears were present prior to the incident. He further opined that Tailman repeatedly exaggerated and misrepresented his medical conditions in the past and, therefore, cannot be believed now. The expert also opined that all of Tailman’s limitations in range of motion existed before the 2008 incident.

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

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a personal injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: As a result of laying his bike down, Tailman sustained torn tendons in his right and left rotator cuffs. He underwent a right rotator cuff repair surgery. His past medical specials were $103,953.89.

Facts:

On March 29, 2008, plaintiff Matt Tailman, 52, a personal trainer, was riding his motorcycle westbound in Sacramento when he was in an accident with a vehicle driven by Fred Avis, who was in the course and scope of his employment with ABC.

Avis was traveling south and stopped at the intersection with a red light. He then commenced a wide right turn, crossing into Tailman’s lane of traffic. Tailman changed into the No. 3 lane to avoid Avis’s vehicle. After completing the right turn, Avis turned into the No. 3 lane, stopped and parked. Tailman could not avoid Avis’s vehicle and laid down his bike prior to impact.

Tailman sued Avis and Walter Zoo, who was doing business as ABC and therefore was Avis’s employer. He alleged that Avis was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and that ABC was vicariously liable.

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

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a personal injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff was taken to surgery at 4:20 p.m., where a hole was found in the stomach with the g-tube floating free in the abdomen. The surgeon concluded that plaintiff had sepsis as the cause of his arrest. Plaintiff suffered a second cardiac arrest that night after surgery but was successfully resuscitated. However, he remained in a coma. He later developed gangrene in both legs, requiring above-knee amputations, as a consequence of his initial injuries.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant hospital nurses were negligent for causing the perforation/peritonitis by improper handling of the PEG tube and failing to notify physicians about plaintiff’s condition. All physician defendants were negligent for failing to diagnose plaintiff’s condition before he suffered a cardiac arrest from sepsis which caused hypoxic brain injury beyond his initial brain injury from the motorcycle accident.

The defense contended that all care provided was within the standard. Plaintiff presented with a very complicated surgical condition, and he has a very short life expectancy. His initial brain injury would have precluded future employment.

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

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a personal injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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 personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff, age 23, entered defendant hospital on July 6, 2009 after sustaining a severe head and other injuries in a motorcycle accident. He was intubated in the ER and evaluated by a surgeon, who determined that none of his injuries required surgery. While in the SICU, he had a tracheostomy placed on July 20 and a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placed on July 21.

Plaintiff remained in the SICU until July 28, when he was transferred to the medical-surgical unit of the hospital. On July 29, at 4:00 p.m., the nurse flushed the PEG line. The family heard a loud pop, but nothing was recorded in the records about this incident. The nurse did call the on-call surgeon about a decreased BP and increased heart rate. The surgeon asked that a cardiologist be called to consult on the patient, but the cardiologist claimed that he never received the page.

That evening, plaintiff began complaining of abdominal pain. On July 30 at 2:00 a.m., the nurse called the on-call surgeon and reported an elevated pulse. He was told that the cardiologist had never come in to see the patient. The cardiologist was called again at 4:15 a.m., and he ordered Cardizem and transfer to the Cardiac Care unit, which occurred at 5:45 a.m. At 7:00 a.m., the cardiologist came to examine plaintiff, and he ordered tests to rule out a pulmonary embolus. Defendant surgeon saw plaintiff at 8:00 a.m. and ordered that plaintiff be moved to the Medical ICU for a stat chest x-ray, which was read by defendant radiologist as normal.

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

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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 motorcycle accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to court records: On July 21, 2007, at 10:40 a.m., plaintiff Larry Burt was operating his motorcycle west on California Road, east of Placerville in an unincorporated section of Placer County, California.

Defendant Wallas Tames, a resident of California, drove a pickup truck with a trailer east on California Road and collided with plaintiff’s motorcycle. Defendant said he crossed over the center line in a curve and sideswiped plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleged defendant was negligent.

Defendant conceded liability and defendant would not argue comparative fault.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to court records:

Leg fracture; degloving injury to knee; knee replacement surgery.

CLAIMED DAMAGES
According to court records:

$50,000 past medical; $25,000 to $50,000 future medical.

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

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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 motorcycle accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to court records: On September 15, 2008, at the intersection just north of Interstate 5 and Highway 99 in Sacramento, California, plaintiff Barry Remmy and defendant Matt Oliver were involved in a car versus motorcycle accident.

Defendant was traveling the wrong way on the one-way roadway when he met plaintiff in a curve. Plaintiff made a quick turn on his motorcycle to avoid defendant’s vehicle, and the motorcycle slid out from under him.

Plaintiff was a plastic surgeon.

Defendant admitted liability but disputed the claim for lost earnings. Defendant also contended plaintiff was involved in a second motorcycle accident approximately six weeks after the first in which he fell 20 to 30 feet off a cliff and was found unconscious. Defendant claimed many of plaintiff’s injuries could be attributed to that accident.

CLAIMED INJURIES
According to court records:

Clavicle fracture; fractured ribs; pain; sleep deprivation.

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

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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 big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

At this point, delineators were supposed to be installed. They were not installed for two years after the prior accident, and did not extend the entire length of the center median to the left-turn pocket when they were installed.

The plaintiffs claimed that the restaurant told customers, through signage and a valet service, that they should turn right out of the lot, proceed south and then make a U-turn to proceed north.

The plaintiffs further claimed that, because of these instructions, the vehicle driver made a U-turn and hit the motorcycle. The vehicle driver testified that he was given instructions to make a U-turn.

All the defendants claimed that the vehicle driver was entirely responsible for the accident.

Caltrans claimed that, since it does not own the parking lot, it cannot be held responsible for any of its alleged defective designs.

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

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of an injury case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit 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 big rig accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: The plaintiffs sought damages for loss of care, comfort and society.

Facts:

In Nov. 2005, the plaintiffs’ decedents, both in their 20s, were killed in a motorcycle accident on the Highway, just south of the Harry’s Fish restaurant. The two had been riding a motorcycle along the road when a vehicle exited the restaurant’s parking lot and attempted to make a U-turn across traffic lanes. During the turn, the vehicle collided with the motorcycle. The motorcycle driver was killed instantly; the passenger survived impact, but died later at Sacramento Hospital.

The parents of the driver and passenger sued the vehicle driver, who settled for $2.2 million.

The parents then sued the California Department of Transportation, the city of Sacramento, the county of Sacramento, Standard Parking Corporation and Sea View Restaurants, operating as Harry’s Fish, for negligence.

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

Continue reading

Contact Information