California Personal Injury Blog - Automobile Accidents - Most Commented

Are You Really in Good Hands with Allstate?

David Rosenthal — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:35:33 GMT

Allstate Insurance is easily the most prolific advertiser of auto and casualty insurance lines. It runs a series of television commercials starring Dennis Haysbert (of Major League fame) that cleverly portray real life situations, such as rear end auto collisions, and some not so real life situations, like wayward college football fans running their car into a statue of renowned coach Bobby Bowden, to illustrate the need for insurance. The pithy theme of each ad is driven home with the statement "that's Allstate's stand", and with the suggestion that you are not in good hands unless your insurance is through Allstate.

However, experienced consumer attorneys know that Allstate's advertising claims are in stark contrast to its every day claims handling practices. Trial lawyers are in a unique position to judge the overall approach of insurance companies because they deal with a broad cross-section of insurance companies in a wide variety of factual scenarios. During the handling of thousands of claims, the true corporate color of an insurance company shines through. And after reviewing a high volume of claims documents recently, the American Association for Justice unequivocally rated Allstate as the worst insurance company for consumers.

Allstate policy holders might feel that the wrap on Allstate is the result of sour grapes on the part of attorneys who are resentful that their outrageous claims were not paid by the company. However, Allstate's rating was not solely the result of a "boxing glove" corporate policy of lowballing legitimate claims made against its policy holders, although that was certainly part of it. Allstate has also made clear it was willing to get into the ring and duke it out with its own policy holders in the name of increasing profits. In addition, its low rating was based on paying high executive salaries as a reward for successful lowball tactics and charging higher premiums, in part to pay for its expensive advertising.

One recent Allstate commercial illustrates another goal of the Allstate advertising campaign. The ad shows a court room scene where the judge imposes a judgment on a young man (the defendant) in the amount of $100,000 after an auto collision. The defendant's attorney turns to the injured person's (plaintiff) attorney to explain that the defendant has only $50,000 in insurance. The plaintiff's attorney replies that the defendant has a college fund that can be used to pay the balance of the judgment, and concerned parents ask their attorney - "can they do that?" The defendants attorney replies that they can.

The ad is designed to mislead the viewer into believing that the defendant is an innocent victim (it was just an "accident"), and that both the court system and a greedy plaintiff's attorney are the victimizers. This promotes the belief that trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits are the cause of high insurance premiums.

In real life, such a scenario would likely be the result of an auto collision caused by a speeding driver who was distracted by his cell phone and ran a red light, sending the other driver to the hospital with serious, possibly permanent injuries. The other driver incurs medical expenses of $25,000, loses income from work of $10,000, and has ongoing pain and limitations. Although the value of the pain, suffering and inconvenience is well in excess of $15,000, the other driver is willing to settle out of court for the responsible driver's $50,000 policy limit to avoid going to trial, and probably out of a moral feeling that he does not want to collect against the responsible driver's personal assets.

Even though the other driver is without fault, the insurance company for the responsible driver puts on its boxing gloves and offers only $40,000, which is less than the policy limit of $50,000. The attorney for the injured person has no choice but to spend thousands of dollars to take the case to trial to seek the full value of the injured person's damages. A jury of reasonable people taken from the general population (rather than a judge as portrayed in the ad) determines that the total value of the injured person's loss is $100,000. Now, because of the insurance company's lowball at all cost mentality, there is a judgment against the responsible party for more than his insurance coverage.

Allstate Insurance has engaged in a successful marketing campaign. But this expensive advertising comes at a cost. The consumer warning caveat emptor is especially appropriate when you consider purchasing insurance from Allstate. Purchasers of insurance from Allstate may find that the "good hands" have boxing gloves on, and making a claim is like ringing the fight bell.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Rosenthal

Contributing Factors: The Good Samaritan v. The Jaywalker

Amber Wheat — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:26:19 GMT

A news story on MSNBC relates an incident involving a bus driver who pushed three people out of the path of an oncoming vehicle only to get hit by the truck himself. Jim Moffett risked his life and sustained great injury to save two little old ladies and another man.

What he did was a good thing, but The Colorado State Patrol says what he was doing before the collision was not okay. Mr. Moffett, the other man, and the little old ladies were jaywalking. Mr. Moffett was cited and will be fined.

When we hear stories like this, the public reacts with outrage. “How can they fine this man when he probably saved lives?” Well I know precisely how they can do it. His actions were a contributing factor to the collision. The driver of the pickup was cited for reckless driving, but it takes two to cause an accident. One person to not pay attention and another person to be there. If they hadn’t have been jaywalking there wouldn’t have been an accident at all. In the same vein, if the driver had been more attentive, there wouldn’t have been a collision, either. They are both jointly and severally liable.

It takes a very special kind of person to do what Mr. Moffett did and I have the utmost respect for him. I hope that he will be okay and I am sure that the citation will be paid for by admirers (if not dropped altogether).

I hope that others take this instance as a warning that jaywalking is never a good idea. Crosswalks are there for a reason. Helping little old ladies to cross the street is very nice, but making sure they get to the other side safely within a crosswalk is nice and smart.

Our firm regularly deals with pedestrians who have been injured by vehicles. The injuries are often severe because, while the driver has tons of steel protecting them, the people on the street don't even have a helmet to protect themselves. Be smart out there, we don't want you or anyone you love to need our services. If the worst should happen, you know where to find us.

Commenters on MSNBC responded with outrage, what are your thoughts? Do you agree with the officers?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Two Drivers Seriously Injured in Head-On I-5 Crash

Todd Slaughter — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:23:22 GMT

ANDERSON, Calif. - A mid-afternoon crash on I-5 yesterday sent both motorists to Mercy Medical Center with major injuries. According to the Redding Record Searchlight, the crash occurred on I-5 near Balls Ferry Road when a vehicle driven by a 29-year-old Red Bluff man lost control in the northbound lanes and crossed the center median. The vehicle then crashed into a southbound car driven by a 63-year-old Red Bluff woman. Both are reported to be stable at this time. It was not raining when the crash occurred, but the roadway was wet.

Several road closures have been occuring throughout the Northern California with the recent batch of cold storms that have crossed the region. It has also been reported that many vehicles have lost control on I-5 north of Redding as they passed through the Sacramento River canyon. There are no specific road closures at this moment, but motorists should be checking ahead for closures and chain requirements through the President's Day holiday. Be safe out there.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Street-racing crash in Yorba Linda kills 68-year-old woman

IB Contributor — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:17:41 GMT

A 68-year-old Orange County woman was fatally injured in an auto accident Sunday when she attempted to make a left turn from a residential neighborhood, The Orange County Register reported Monday. Police officials suspect that street racing may have caused the crash.

Witnesses told Brea Police officials that two cars were seen speeding side-by-side, southbound down the hillside street of Fairmont Boulevard when one of the cars, a black Chevrolet pickup, collided into the victim's white Buick sedan, the article stated.

The accident occurred at 12:47 p.m., at the corner of Fairmont and Oak Meadow Drive.

Joetta May Martinez of Yorba Linda was transported to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

The driver of the pickup, Charles William Marquardt III, also from Yorba Linda, was taken to the hospital for minor injuries. The 17-year-old male driver of the car reported to have been driving next to the pickup was questioned by police. No charges have been filed yet and their names were not released.

Residents who live nearby said they came running out of their homes when they heard a loud collision. One neighbor rushed to the woman's aid and tried to check her pulse, but didn't get one on her neck or hand. Another rushed to check on the driver of the pickup, who was reportedly shaken up and kept inquiring about the lady and whether she was alright. Neighbor Paul Noonan said the driver of the pickup "seemed brokenhearted and just devastated."

Several residents cited a growing problem with cars speeding around their neighborhood and the danger of turning from a residential street onto a downhill street with a blind curve. The speed limit on Fairmont is 40 mph; Oak Meadow is 25 mph.

Residents have asked for a traffic light at that intersection, but it hasn't happened so far

If this were indeed a street-racing incident, Marquardt is looking at prison time. He is also looking at a civil lawsuit for wrongful death. In the right circumstances, if Marquardt was driving someone ele's car, whoever allowed him to drive their car could be liable to the family of the deceased accident victim under a theory of "negligent entrustment".

I curious to see how the Orange County District Attorney's office handles this case. The DA has an opportunity here to send a message that street racing will not be tolerated in Orange County and that violators who cause accidents and injury people will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Here is an interesting link to a nonprofit group called Street S.M.A.R.T.S. (Sports Machines Against Racing on the Street), which aims to educate people about the dangers of street-racing. Their Web site is http://www.streetsmartsusa.org/. The Web site has memorials to victims of street-racing as well, which serves as a tragic reminder. I like their motto, which is, "If you must race, remember, TAKE IT TO THE TRACK!"

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by IB Contributor

Pedestrian Hit by Lassen County Deputy

Todd Slaughter — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:06:02 GMT

It is hard to believe that we are posting about another pedestrian vs. vehicle accident occuring in Northern California. On December 9, 2008 a 59-year-old Susanville woman was hit by a Lassen County Sheriff's unit as she was crossing Main Street. The accident occurred when a Deputy Sheriff saw a break in traffic and turned left from Park Street onto Main. Unfortunately, the deputy did not observe the woman in the crosswalk until it was too late and hit her.

The woman was taken to Banner Lassen Medical Center for treatment of her injuries. The nature of the injuries was not disclosed.

According to the Lassen County News, the accident is being investigated by the CHP.

In reviewing the media reports throughout Northern California over the last few weeks, it appears that there have been a high incidence of pedestrian vs. automobile accidents, as well as automobile vs. automobile accidents. Some drivers are complaining in blogs that others seem pre-occupied and are driving erractically.

We all need reminding sometimes that it is important to anticipate the conduct of others, particularly when the roads are busy with holiday shoppers and travelers. While the hustle and bustle of the Holidays are part of the joy of the season, an injury-causing-collision is not. Let's all stop and think for a moment before going out to the shops and malls this season.

Let's all be safe for the Holidays! That would be a blessing!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter

Drunk Driver gets a Slap on the Wrist for Fatal Crash

Amber Wheat — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:25:43 GMT

I was shocked and very upset to read about Troy Hovey’s sentencing. Judge Robert Glusman handed down the weak sentence of 180 days in jail and three years probation for taking the life of Amit Tandon.

Mr. Tandon’s widow is pregnant and was unable to face the man who killed her husband in court, but she sent the judge a letter asking for the maximum of 10 years in prison. But friends and relatives of Hovey sent letters also, telling the judge about what a wonderful man Hovey was.

This case did not go in front of a jury. Hovey pleaded no contest to a felony charge of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and driving with more than .08 percent of alcohol in his system. In actuality, Hovey had a blood alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit He knew what he did.

I have always contended that drunk drivers make choices. These are not “accidents” (any good plaintiff attorney knows to call it “the collision”), but they are mistakes. Mistakes are made when people make wrong choices. Defense counsel cited addiction and alcoholism as excuses for him. The judge expects Hovey to “embrace recovery.” Hovey has tried twice before to get sober and was even participating in an outpatient program at the time of the accident.

What really irritates me is that Judge Glusman defends his ruling by saying that probation has not been prohibited in vehicular manslaughter cases and that means the Legislature wants judges to examine each case on its merits. Well fine! Look at the merits of this case! He knew he had a drinking problem (in tort law we call that forseeability), he went drinking, he got really drunk, he got back in his car, he raced down Highway 99 at 60-80 miles per hour, he crossed the median, and slammed head-on to a husband and soon-to-be father. He killed this man. Where is the justice for Tandon’s family?

The judge is confident that “this won’t happen again,” but his parting words are “If I find you’re drinking, I’ll be the last person you want to see.”

I am incredibly saddened by this outcome and it’s message to other drivers who drink and then take stupid risks. It’s not the drinking that’s the problem, it’s the driving after drinking. Get drunk to your hearts content, but STAY HOME. As citizens of America we have every right in the world to drink alcohol, but nobody has the right to put the lives of others at risk.

Am I being too harsh? I know I am coming down hard, but I firmly believe that there is no excuse for drunk driving in today’s day-and-age. With cell phones, taxi companies, public transit, volunteer drivers, and so many other options, drinking and driving should be a thing of the past.

What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Serious Motorcycle Accident in Nipomo

Nigel Whitehead — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:09:55 GMT

The San Luis Obispo Tribune reported a serious Ford Explorer v. motorcycle accident on April 26, 2008 on Highway 1 near Nipomo. The driver of the Ford Explorer turned left in front of the motorcycle rider causing the collision. Even though the rider was wearing a helmet he suffered significant injuries. Hopefully the helmet saved this man's life.

This area of Highway 1 is between Willow Road and the new Woodlands development on the Nipomo Mesa. This development is already bringing thousands of residents and visitors to the area. The major access road to the Woodlands is Highway 101. To date, no stop signs or traffic signals have been installed, despite the significant increase in traffic. What was once a little traveled section of road is becoming increasingly busy while the infrastructure remains the same. Hopefully, as the project continues officials will reassess the need for modifications to the road.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Nigel Whitehead

Toyota Floor Mat And Gas Pedal Defects--Do They Cause Wrongful Deaths?

Claude Wyle — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:11:47 GMT

Federal highway safety inspectors have released new details of a fatal car crash that triggered Toyota Motor Corp.'s largest recall, including a finding that the Lexus ES 350 sedan involved had a gas pedal design that could increase the risk of its being obstructed by a floor mat.

Although Toyota has previously said that the floor mat was improperly installed and may have trapped the accelerator pedal, the latest report by the National Highway Traffic discloses new details, including the fact that the brakes were heavily damaged, possibly due to a design defect in which the Lexus ES braking system loses power-assist when the throttle is fully opened. As consumer lawyers, we investigate whether these defects may have caused other collisions.

Further information indicates that the car was on loan from a Lexus dealership and that the driver may not have been aware how to turn the car off or whether there were other measures he could have taken after the pedal got stuck.

As personal injury attorneys (change to dangerous products attorneys) , we often see the tragic results of poorly designed cars and trucks. The car dealer owed a duty to provide a safe car, however this story shows that we cannot always rely on those whom we believe we can trust. Before driving an unfamiliar vehicle, you might want to inspect the vehicle to determine whether the floor mats are installed properly and whether there is any condition that might interfere with the accelerator or brake pedals.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that last month, Toyota announced the largest recall in its history, asking drivers of 3.8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles to remove their floor mats until a permanent remedy is devised. The recall affects the following Toyota models:

2007 – 2010 Camry
2005 – 2010 Avalon
2004 – 2009 Prius
2005 – 2010 Tacoma
2007 – 2010 Tundra
2007 – 2010 ES350
2006 – 2010 IS250 and IS350

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Claude Wyle

Our Firm Obtains $4.5 Million Jury Verdict

Amber Wheat — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:00:47 GMT

A case study:

The verdict came down on July 2, 2008, just eight days after the trial began.

The case arose from a rear-end motor vehicle collision on November 16, 2005 involving an off-duty County of Sacramento Sherriff driving a County vehicle. Liability was not disputed. Plaintiff, 48 (now), was an estimator for Lund Construction (underground construction co.) at the time of the collision and had been working there for nearly 20 years. Before the collision he had 4 prior back surgeries (2 from comp injuries; 1 from another mvc and 1 redo surgery) with the most recent being in 1992. All the evidence established he had 13 good years with no limitations besides lifting. He had been to the doctor 2-3 times for back pain during this time. No other treatment for his back during this time. Following the collision, he had another discectomy surgery -this time at L3-4 (different level than the prior surgeries). The surgery relieved his radicular symptoms but not his back pain. He missed 5 months of work and then went back to work and worked until October 2007 when he could no longer work. A few months after his post-mvc surgery the topic of a 2 level fusion was discussed with his surgeon. He refused and wanted to try to work. Defense did not contest the surgery/treatment post MVC. Their whole defense was he : 1) should have mitigated by having the fusion earlier; and 2) he should have a 3 level fusion now and if he does he will be able to return to his desk job working full time (mitigation of future earnings). At trial, the evidence established that plaintiff did not want to have the fusion surgery and that he was not able to work given his current condition. Big dispute was over the fusion surgery, likelihood of success and whether he could return to work if he had it.

The defense and the plaintiff called expert witnesses to support their point of view:

John: Gary Nibbelink: Rehabilitation Counselor & Consultant, Sacramento, CA
John: Charles R. Mahla of Econ One Research Incorporated, Economist, Sacramento, CA
John: Tushar Goradia, M.D., Neurological Surgeon, Goradia Medical Corporation, Carmichael, CA
John: Ardvan Aslie, M.D., treating medical expert, Sacramento, CA
Defense: George Picetti, M.D., Sutter Medical Group, Orthopedic Surgeon, Sacramento, CA
Defense: Carol Hyland, Carol Hyland Rehabilitation Consultant, Vocational Rehabilitation, Lafayette, CA
Defense: Kirk Blackerby, Economist, Morgan Hill, CA

The defense attorney asked the jury to award $600,000.00 with no future wage loss. John asked for $5.5 million. The jury consisted of eight people, six women and two men. One woman was a state employee and another one was a county employee. Here is the breakdown of the award:

Medical Expenses: $75,007.40
Lost Earnings: $130,000.00
Future Medical Expenses: $325,000.00
Future Lost Earnings: $1,900,000.00
General Damages: $1,000,000.00
Future General Damages: $1,000,000.00
Joann’s Loss of Consortium: $70,000.00

Total comes to $4,500,007.40.

Following this collision and surgery, Mr. Friese missed approximately ten months, went back to work part-time for 6 weeks and then worked full-time from October 2006 until he went off completely on October 2007. He did everything he could to keep working but the pain in his low back continued to worsen to the point he could no longer work. John strongly believes the jury found him more credible because he tried to work instead of not working at all and trying to use this collision as his meal ticket.

The best part about this case was the fact that John offered the defendants a §998 offer of $1.9 million in December of 2007 that the defense passed over.

We got an article in the SacBee and were published in Verdict Search.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Amber Wheat

Chronic Whiplash Pain Is Real, and Often Caused by Spinal Facet Injury

Todd Slaughter — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:24:18 GMT

In an article published in late 2007 in the prestigious Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the often asserted position that whiplash injuries cannot result in chronic pain was evaluated by three reknown spine specialists in an evidence-based analysis. The result: there is no basis for this assertion. In fact, the article shows that a significant number of persons suffering acute neck pain following a motor vehicle collision develop chronic pain that last for years. Further, that a significant number of these patients succumb to partial or total disability. The most common source of the chronic pain: damage to the spinal facet joints.

The facet joints are small joints on each side of a vertebrae that, along with the disc, stabilize the spine and allow bending, twisting and side to side movement. In a rear-end automobile collision, the "facet joints undergo a nonphysiologic pinching motion, with compression posteriorly and distraction anteriorly, usually coupled with shear." This abnormal stress on the joint can cause damage to the capsular structure around the joint, damage to the articulating structures of the joint itself, and even intra-articular hemorrhage. When such damage occurs pain is transmitted to the brain through a medial branch nerve that innervates the facet joint.

The problem with facet injuries is that they do not show up on x-rays, CAT Scans or MRIs. That is because the injuries involve microscopic damage to tiny features within the joint that are not usually observable in these studies. Often, this leads physicians to the conclusion that there is no structural damage to the spine, and that the pain must be deriving from the surrounding "soft tissues." This then leads to the conclusion that "soft tissue" injuries ordinarily resolve in weeks or months, not years.

In the past several years, many advancements have been made in the field of pain management that have furthered our understanding of the role that the facet joints have in chronic whiplash pain. Through injection procedures called "medial branch blocks," and then through specific deadening of the medial branch nerve through a procedure called "radiofrequency ablation," medicine has been able to isolate the facet from other spinal structures to determine if the joint is the source of the pain. The beauty of these new techniques is that only the pain that can come from the facet joint is intercepted. This not only confirms the involvement of the facet joint, it also verifies the legitimacy of the patient's complaint.

In this recent article, entitled Chronic Whiplash and Whiplash-Associated Disorders: An Evidence-Based Approach, (Amer Acad Orthop Surg 2007; 15:596-606), the authors review the medical literature and published data concerning chronic whiplash pain. The review reveals that 15% to 40% of patients with acute neck pain following a motor vehicle collision develop chronic pain, and that 5% to 7% become permanently partially or totally disabled. The most common source of chronic whiplash neck pain - the facet joint (49% to 54%).

Over the years, it has been our experience that the potential of a facet injury to explain chronic whiplash neck pain is often overlooked by the medical community. Patients that continue to suffer chronic pain months and years after a motor vehicle collision should discuss the possibility of such an injury with their physicians. A referral to a competent pain management specialist may quickly confirm the existence of a facet based injury, and lead to good management of this chronic pain syndrome.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Todd Slaughter