Personal injury lawyers must understand that this Prop 51 amends the California Civil Code, sections 1431, et seq. and appropriately advise clients of their potential collectibility of non-economic damage claims. Our competent Sacramento personal injury attorney would be able to give you an honest estimate of your claim before we take on any clients’ cases according to the most updated laws in California.]]>
Please be careful and respect other people when you light up your firecrackers. Never aim at someone or one’s property. Some firecrackers do take its own trajectory and it can nevertheless hit someone’s face …]]>
Please be careful and respect other people when you light up your firecrackers. Never aim at someone or one’s property. Some firecrackers do take its own trajectory and it can nevertheless hit someone’s face or skin can cause burn injuries. Burn injuries from firecrackers can be very serious and cause disfigurement of one’s body. In civil courts, such damages can be very expensive.
Celebrate our Independence Day but stay out of trouble and have fun! I sure don’t wanna have to come after you in court.
Both government restrictions on kids’ meals would have between 600 to 650 calories limit with certain grams of fat and sodium. The …]]>
Both government restrictions on kids’ meals would have between 600 to 650 calories limit with certain grams of fat and sodium. The bill that was passed in San Francisco would further require such meals to include fruits and veggies. Proponents of the bill cite studies of fast food restaurants aggressive marketing for toys that affects the purchasing decision of fatty children’s meals. Opponents of the bill argue it is not the government’s job to mandate by law dietary restrictions. Most people have all heard the arguments of the both side and formulated our own opinions on the issue.
As a personal injury attorney, one issue comes to mind with the trend of this progressive movement by the government to assume duties in children’s and people’s dietary choices and that is whether the government is also agreeing to accept potential civil liabilities in their action of assuming social responsibility in health. It seems as if there would be no situations where telling people not to consume too much fat would result in any injuries to a person but layers of liability can sometimes be very complex and non-obvious that a possibility of liability is hypothetically there.
Is the government aware of not only the social impact of their legislation but also their assumption of duties come with legal requirements of prudent and reasonable actions and a potential liability? Let’s hope that a good intention is not poorly exercised in unreasonable ways.]]>
The policy behind each of these four laws is to either protect victims to a certain degree or to prevent …]]>
The policy behind each of these four laws is to either protect victims to a certain degree or to prevent unjust outcomes to both plaintiffs and defendants although each jurisdiction in adopting these rules have different views about how to go about serving such policy. Courts and legislatures adopted one of the four laws above to address this issue.
Below map shows what each state and Washington DC has done to serve the policy. The distribution of pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence 50% and 51% seems to be balanced throughout the map. Pure contributory negligence jurisdictions include four states and the Capital. It is interesting to note that pure contributory negligence jurisdictions seem to cluster in the Southeast Atlantic region – Alabama, District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia.
So what do these laws mean? There are situations where a plaintiff and a defendant are both at fault in causing damages to the plaintiff. These situations are precisely what these rules are adopted for. Below explains each of these rules and how much a plaintiff recovers if at all at what percentage of fault by both the plaintiff and the defendant.
In jurisdictions that adopted a pure comparative negligence law, a plaintiff recovers purely based on the percentage of a defendant’s fault in causing a damage to the plaintiff. Hence, a plaintiff can recover even when the plaintiff is 99% at fault and the defendant is 1% at fault.
In jurisdictions where a modified comparative negligence law has been adopted with the 50% bar rule, a plaintiff can only recover if the plaintiff is up to 49% at fault. If the plaintiff’s fault reaches 50%, he or she is barred from recovery. That’s why this is called the 50% bar rule. This rule is basically saying that a plaintiff cannot be equally or more at fault in causing the damages to him or herself than a defendant. The plaintiff, if able to recover, will recover a reduced portion of the damage by the fault of the plaintiff.
In jurisdictions where modified comparative negligence law has been adopted with the 51% bar rule, a plaintiff can only recover if the plaintiff is up to 50% at fault. If the plaintiff’s fault reaches 51%, he or she is barred from recovery. The policy for this rule is that a plaintiff cannot be more at fault than a defendant to recover. The plaintiff, if able to recover, will recover a reduced portion of the damage by the fault of the plaintiff.
In jurisdictions where pure contributory negligence law has been adopted bars recover for a plaintiff if he or she is even slightly at fault in causing own damages. Even if 1% fault by a plaintiff will bar any recovery for the plaintiff. This harsh rule is still in place for 5 jurisdictions including Washington DC.
Depending on what kind of law your jurisdiction has adopted, your attorney must be aware of the rule and prepare your case accordingly. In California, according to California comparative negligence statute, plaintiffs are lucky that they can still recover 10% even with 90% fault by the plaintiff so long as a defendant is at fault for 10%. This seems like a fair play without any punitive policies against plaintiffs. Our personal injury attorney fights tooth and nail for our clients when it comes to comparative liability and damages. Even when damages suffered is great, liability issue can eat away a good portion of damages awarded.
The tow truck was headed southbound on Broadway and ran a red light at an estimated speed of 60mph and collided with the bus. After hitting the bus, the tow truck knocked down a fire hydrant and plowed into a nearby 7-Evelen store. The bus driver …]]>
The tow truck was headed southbound on Broadway and ran a red light at an estimated speed of 60mph and collided with the bus. After hitting the bus, the tow truck knocked down a fire hydrant and plowed into a nearby 7-Evelen store. The bus driver was ejected out of the bus after the crash and was transported to USC Medical Center but later died.
As an accident lawyer in Los Angeles, I was shocked to find out about the accident as I was also a few blocks away this morning from Broadway and 4th. The way the bus driver lady died from the accident is a very sad story and it makes me mad about reckless drivers in Los Angeles. This is a story of another negligent driver needlessly breaking the speed limit by 30 mph over the legal limit running red light, knowing what great damage it can do with its big tow truck. Him saving two minutes to go make his bucks was probably more important other people’s life and safety. The bus driver lady was just doing her job serving people’s transportation needs in LA and did not do anything wrong to deserve this horrible death.
My condolences go out to the victim’s family and I hope the family will sue the towing company including the driver to seek civil justice for the wrongful death of the driver.]]>
Traditionally, in California you could collect $100,000. You were able to collect for your past treatments at a market rate. However, according to the Supreme Court of California in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions (Aug. 2011), it is no longer the case. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate decision in Hamilton last year, ruling that the plaintiff cannot recover for more than the amount the insurance company pays in full. The Court noted that this ruling does not modify or change the existing collateral source rule because “the plaintiff does not incur liability in the amount of the negotiated rate differential,” this case does not come within the rule.
The Court further comments on the admissibility of evidence on the medical bill and the reduced amount paid. Court said when a medical care provider has accepted as full payment for the plaintiff’s care an amount less than the provider’s full bill is relevant to prove the plaintiff’s damage for past medical expenses. Therefore it is admissible. However, the fact such payments were actually made in whole or in part is inadmissible because it is not relevant.
A personal injury litigation is a complex process not only substantively but procedurally. It takes a competent injury lawyer to litigate cases. Our personal injury attorney understand the process and the laws very well so we can prepare the best case for you.]]>
|Code Section||Civ. §1714|
|Comparative Negligence||“Pure” form adopted by Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 532 P.2d 1226 (1975).|
|Contributory Negligence-Limit to Plaintiff’s Recovery||-|
|Contribution Among Tortfeasors||Yes; (Civ.§1431.2) liability of each defendant per non-economic damages shall be several only and not joint.|
You need to talk to an attorney to assess and valuate your tort claim based on California’s comparative negligence statute.]]>
One problem in taking the MRI, which costs somewhere between $1,500 and $5,000, is whether the wrongdoer’s insurance company will find this cost justified especially when there is no disc herniation. Insurance companies only want to pay for absolute minimum of what they have to and in gray areas like this, they are certainly not willing to pay for the cost of the MRI.
This is where a personal injury lawyer must present a case to argue why such cost was justified regardless of the findings. As a personal injury lawyer, I communicate with my client and a medical practitioner to see the type and location of pain as well as further initial findings and opinions of the doctor. Of course if a doctor is certain as to where is no need for an MRI as the injury is as light as soft tissue damages, I do not recommend going through unnecessary procedures, which could reduce the recovery amount for my client. So I have to be involved in a medical treatment procedure to be able to make the best case for my clients and to maximize the recovery for them. I do admit it is more difficult in smaller cases than in bigger cases and we sometimes even turn down some people as we believe it’s better to just handle the claim on their own because it really is not in the best interest of our clients to engage in a contingency fee agreement with us when there is a risk of them receiving sub par treatments due to a pressure of having to split such a small pool of recovery with our firm.
So in sum, the answer to the question (as always it seems to have been since law school and I apologize for it) is, it depends. It will depend on your injury.]]>
Ideally, if you have PIP or a medical insurance, you can have your own insurance to pay for the bills now and later when a settlement / verdict is made, the insurance company will receive reimbursement. This process is called subrogation.
If you don’t have that option, you can still receive treatments through doctors and chiropractors who are willing to provide medical treatments upfront to be later reimbursed as the case becomes successful. Our law firm knows many doctors who work on lien so if you have been victimized by a car accident, just call us at (213) 632-8123. We will take care of you to receive medical treatments that you deserve while your case is progressing. Our Los Angeles personal injury attorney puts our clients first.]]>