San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

As readers of this blog know, we are proud to serve as a dog bite law firm for Oakland, Santa Rosa, San Francisco, and all of Northern California.  In today’s blog post, we look at a very specific category of dog-inflicted injuries, police dog bites.  Although police dogs can be an important and justified law enforcement tool, there are times when police dogs attack the wrong person or are not trained in a proper manner causing undue injury to their victims.

Hayward Settles Claim Involving Use of Police Dog

The Oakland Tribune announced this week that the city of Hayward has entered into a settlement in a lawsuit involving a police dog that inflicted serious injuries on a man.  According to his Complaint, in March 2014 the man had been seated in his car in the driveway at his workplace when a police car pulled up next to him.  After shining a light into his vehicle, again per the man’s claims, an officer handcuffed the man while another officer held him down with a knee to his back.  The man alleged that the police then released a dog which tore at him inflicting serious injury to his arm and chin.  The city agreed to pay the man $45,000 to dismiss the claim, but declined to issue any further comments on the matter.

The Reality of Police Dog Attacks

A 2006 study published in Injury Extra and available via ScienceDirect looks at the unique character of police dog bites.  The authors found that police dog bite victims, unlike those involved in domestic dog attacks, were typically dogteethbitten multiple times (for a heartbreaking example, read about the Nevada incident late last year in which a police dog inflicted multiple wounds on a 17-month-old child according to the Las Vegas Review Journal).  Police dogs tended to attack the head, neck, chest, and flank regions more often than their domestic counterparts and their victims were hospitalized more often, had more surgeries, and underwent more invasive testing.  The authors concluded that police dog injuries tended to be more serious than domestic dog bites, likely a result of the breeds chosen for police work and the training the dogs underwent.

California Dog Bite Law Generally

As we’ve discussed in prior posts, California has a strict liability statute (Civil Code Section 3342) that applies to typical, civilian dog bites.  There is no “First bite free” rule; owners are liable for their dog’s acts even if they had no reason to suspect the animal might attack.  The owners can raise a few limited defenses including contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.  In some cases, courts have denied recovery to a bite victim who actively provoked the dog.

California Law on Police Dog Bites

Subsection (b) of the dog bite statute directly addresses cases involving police dog attacks.  The rule prohibits a claim under the statute when a police or military dog bites in self-defense or when helping the agency: 1) Apprehend a suspect when the officer reasonably suspects the person is involved in criminal activity; 2) Investigate a crime or a suspected crime; 3) Execute a warrant; or 4) Defend an officer or another individual.  Subsection (d) further clarifies that this exception only applies when the agency has adopted a “written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or military work.”  Additionally, part (c) of the statute makes a claim available when the victim was not part of not part of nor suspected to be a part of the acts that prompted the use of the animal.  In plain English, subsection (c) means that an innocent bystander attacked by a police dog would have a dog bite claim.

Importantly, while the dog bite statute does place some limits on claims for police dog attacks, those limits only apply to claims under the statute itself.  This means a victim may still have a claim for excessive force, negligence, or another civil wrong.  Any claim brought against a police department must comply with special procedural rules applicable to claims against state agencies.

Our Bay Area Dog Bite Law Firm

K-9 units are an important part of the war on crime.  However, sometimes police dogs attack the wrong person or are overly vicious in their attacks.  In such cases, the victims can sue for compensation for their injuries and their suffering.  To learn more, call our Northern California dog bite lawyer in Oakland, San Francisco, or Santa Rosa.  A consultation is always free and we work with victims of both domestic dog bites and police dog attacks.

See Related Blog Posts:

Northern California Dog Bite Lawyer Looks at the Facts and the Law on Dog Attacks

In Some Cases, a Dog Bite May Lead to Punitive Damages

(Image by Heather Paul)

Few words can stir up as many emotions as the word “home” does.  Home should be a place where we feel safe, where we can let down our guard, be our truest selves, and feel love.  Everyone deserves a place to call home, regardless of age, race, or sex.  Likewise, individuals with disabilities have a moral, ethical, and legal right to be treated fairly when it comes to housing.  Sadly, housing discrimination is a very real problem and our San Francisco tenants’ attorney is committed to fighting for everyone’s right to a place to call home.

Proposed Settlement in Disability Discrimination Case Under Fair Housing Act

Last month, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a press release announcing a proposed settlement in a case against a Wisconsin landlord and property owner accused of discriminating based on disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”).  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants, one individual and one company, discriminated against a mother and daughter by refusing to renew their lease because the daughter is a person with Down Syndrome.  Further, the defendants allegedly demanded the family develop a “plan” to address behaviors purportedly stemming from the daughter’s disability and pressured them to move.  Additionally, the gavel3defendants were accused of discriminating against the pair by not taking prompt action to stop disability-related harassment by others living in the building including offensive comments (e.g., “You don’t belong here. . . you belong in an institution.”), interference with their use of the property, and following the pair around the premises.  Allegedly, complaints about this behavior went unaddressed.

Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the defendants will pay $40,000 in damages to the mother and daughter.  In addition, although they continue to deny the allegations, the defendants agreed to maintain an equal opportunity housing environment, institute non-discrimination housing policies, and attend training on fair housing requirements.  Commenting on the settlement, a Housing and Urban Development official said: “No family should have to endure degrading insults and comments in the place they call home.  Today’s settlement reflects HUD and the Justice Department’s ongoing commitment to taking appropriate action against individuals who violate the housing rights of persons with disabilities.”  Likewise, a DOJ attorney noted: “Persons with disabilities, like all Americans, have the right to live in housing free of discrimination and harassment from both landlords and tenants.”

The Fair Housing Act and Other Laws Prohibiting Housing Discrimination

As detailed on a Housing and Urban Development website, the FHA (aka Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968), prohibits discriminating against people in housing sales, rentals, and/or financings because of sex, race, national origin, or color.  In 1988 (effective March 1989), the FHA was expanded to similarly prohibit housing discrimination against people with disabilities or based on familial status (e.g., pregnancy or the presence of minor children).  The FHA also contains certain requirements to ensure multifamily units are accessible to people with disabilities.  There is a limited exception allowing age-restricted 55-and-older communities if the property meets legal requirements.

The FHA is just one tool the law provides for fighting housing discrimination.  Here in California, the state’s own Fair Employment and Housing Act protects many classes of people against housing discrimination, expanding the federal protections to include sexual orientation, ancestry, religion, and medical conditions, among other characteristics.  Likewise, some localities including the City of San Francisco have their own versions of the FHA and are often broader than the federal law (e.g., including weight, height and source of income as well as a number of other protected groups).

A Fair Housing Advocate in San Francisco, Oakland, and Santa Rosa

Attorney Brod is proud to be a fair housing advocate.  As a San Francisco housing discrimination attorney (with additional offices in Oakland and Santa Rosa), he uses federal, state, and local laws to fight for those who’ve suffered discrimination by a landlord or property owner.  Our team can help clients file a complaint with the housing authorities or even file a lawsuit if necessary.  Do not assume your case is too small to warrant attention.  Many housing laws include provisions for the recovery of attorneys’ fees in successful cases.  Call today to learn more.  You don’t need to fight alone.

See Related Blog Posts:

Santa Rosa Tenants’ Attorney on Renters’ Rights in Northern California

Bay Area Tenants’ Attorney on Renter Protections in Era of Rising Rents Throughout Northern California

(Image by cousine4everkis)

 

For most of us, hiring a good mechanic comes down to one crucial trait – trustworthiness.  Hiring the wrong mechanic can lead to financial losses, injuries, and even deaths.  Yet, according to one local news station, auto repair fraud is far too common and far too easy to cover-up.  As a San Francisco auto repair fraud injury law firm, we fight for those who simply made the wrong choice (an easy error to make) and who paid a steep price for lies told by so-called “experts” in cars and safety.

Auto Repair Fraud and Government’s Blind Eye Impacts Bay Area Family

Last Friday, NBC Bay Area told a frightening tale of a visit to the auto shop gone wrong.  Reporters spoke to a San Jose family who hired a local shop to make some repairs to their SUV.  After noticing strange noises upon steering after the shop worked on the vehicle, the family eventually learned that the shop’s employees had gone to great lengths to hide more than $11,000 worth of damage done to the SUV allegedly while in the store’s care.  Eventually, one employee broke ranks to tell the family that the SUV had crashed several feet off a mechanical lift.  The employee said managegaragement ordered them to fix the car as well as they could and return it to the family without saying a word about the incident.

NBC’s report suggests that numerous consumers have said that the California Bureau of Automotive Repairs (“BAR”), an agency meant to ensure shops comply with state regulations, provides little justice for consumers and the family involved in the events above say this lax oversight puts people at risk.  According to NBC’s investigation, over the past three years, fewer than 3% of complaints involving auto repairs led to any enforcement action due in part to the BAR’s limited authority to issue penalties.  A Bureau executive explained that the law only permits them to issue fines or citations against unlicensed shops or violators of the smog-check program and said all they can do is refer victims of billing or repair frauds to the court system, referrals that generally only occur after a string of related incidents.  The BAR does have a mediation process that helps consumer recover some $5 million annually, but the system keeps the complaints secret even where the BAR believes fraud occurred.  This, in our view, is a recipe for more fraud.

Common Auto Repair Fraud Scams

The Coalition Against Insurance Fraud calls itself “America’s only anti-fraud alliance speaking for consumers, insurance companies, government agencies and others.”  In a section dedicated to Auto Repair Scams, the group suggests auto repair fraud can put life and safety at risk (citing one car’s steering assembly allegedly “fixed” with nothing more than a hanger!), stress, wasted time, and inflated insurance premiums for all honest drivers.  Of course, that’s in addition to the financial costs incurred by those who go outside of the insurance system for repairs.

The Coalition cites several scams used to defraud both consumers and insurance companies.  These include: Padded bills that may go well beyond an initial estimate; Unnecessary repairs for non-existent problems; Use of counterfeit, substandard, or used parts while charging for new parts (note: in some instances, used parts are appropriate but dishonesty surely isn’t!); Performing shoddy repairs or even none at all; and Disingenuous “specials” used to hook customers.

Our Northern California Law Firm for Repair Shop Victims

If you’ve been the victim of auto repair fraud in Northern California, particularly if you believe that the fraud led to serious injuries or loss of life, please call our office.  As an auto repair fraud law firm in Oakland, San Francisco, and Santa Rosa, we are prepared to battle shifty repair shops, disingenuous insurance companies, and even disreputable acts by state agencies. Call today so we can begin investigating your claims.

See Related Blog Posts:

CA Vehicle Defect Attorney on Dealers Selling Used Cars Without Repair or Notice to Purchaser of Recall

Vehicle Defect Attorney Looks at Settlements Between Federal Government and Major Automaker

(Image by  debaird™, does not reflect a shop mentioned in the article)

By its nature, fraud is a crime of secrets.  The depth and breadth of these secrets are part of the reasons why whistleblowers are such an essential part of the fight against health care fraud.  The law recognizes this and both rewards and protects health care fraud whistleblowers for their role in helping return wrongfully diverted government health care funds to already-strained program budgets like Medicare and Medicaid.  As a whistleblowers’ law firm, The Brod Law Firm is proud to work with the men and women who speak up when others might remain silent.

Whistleblower Files Retaliation Lawsuit Against Former Employer

One whistleblower in Oregon is currently pursuing a lawsuit against his former employer claiming illegal retaliation based on his role in reporting potentially fraudulent Medicare claims.  According to The Oregonian, Dr. Robert Dannenhoffer filed a federal whistleblower claim late last week against Architrave Health LLC, a health doctor2care organization in southern Oregon.  Dr. Dannenhoffer claims that a subsidiary company, Umpqua Medical Group, set up an improper compensation structure that rewarded doctors for prescribing certain medications and procedures for Medicare patients.  He says the pay structure led to inflated Medicare payments in violation of both the False Claims Act, a general law dealing with fraudulent claims for government funds, and the Stark Act, a law specifically limiting the ability of medical providers from profiting on referrals.

Per his lawsuit, Dr. Dannenhoffer says he insisted that Architrave self-report some $10 million in improper Medicare payments to Umpqua.  He alleges that he was then fired from a position as Architrave’s CEO.  Further, he claims the company’s leadership used their clout in the local medical community to get him removed from one position and to ensure he was not selected for another job opportunity.  Dr. Dannenhoffer is asking the court to reinstate him to his former position and asks for financial damages including back pay, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

Retaliation Claims Under the False Claims Act

Subsection (h) of the False Claims Act (31 U.SC §3730(h)) provides a cause of action for a whistleblower who is “discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment” because the individual attempted to stop a violation of the Act.  In plain terms, the subsection allows a whistleblower to bring a federal lawsuit against an employer who fires, demotes, or otherwise punishes the whistleblower for filing suit or otherwise trying to stop the filing of false claims for payment with the federal government.  These retaliation claims must be brought within three years of the discriminatory act (e.g., three years from the date of a retaliatory firing).  Under the provision, a successful claim can result in reinstatement, double back pay, interest, and repayment of other sustained due to the discrimination including litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.

A Partnership for Truth

We are proud to partner with private individuals who serve as whistleblowers in the fight against health care fraud and government contracts fraud.  Our commitment as a government fraud whistleblowers’ law firm includes protecting these whistleblowers against retaliation.  We also ensure that our clients receive the reward the law provides if their suit leads to a recovery on behalf of the government, a reward that can be up to 30% of the amount recovered.

If you’ve witnessed fraud on the United States government or any of its agencies, call to learn how we can help you use the False Claims Act to stand up for truth.  We also work on cases involving fraud on state government using to fight fraud similar legislation at the state level.

See Related Blog Posts:

The False Claims Act and the Health Care Fraud Fight in 2016

False Claim FAQ, Part Two: The Importance of Whistleblowers and Our Whistleblowers’ Law Firm

(Image by Alex E. Proimos)

When it comes to the weather in California, one word has dominated the headlines in recent years: drought.  However, this year is off to a much rainier start than years past.  While we could certainly use the rain, it is important to remember the fundamentals of rainy day driving.  Rain and water can make travel more complex and more hazardous, but our San Francisco car accident law firm believes drivers must take responsibility and exercise appropriate caution in wet conditions.

January Sees Huge Rainfall Totals in Northern California

According to SFGate, El Nino delivered on its promise of a wet start to 2016.  Forecasters say that the weatherrainy phenomenon typically brings in warm Pacific Ocean waters that can add moisture to the region’s air mass.  In San Francisco, where a typical January sees 4.5 inches of rain, January 2016 brought a whopping 6.94 inches, the highest total since 2008 and more than the past five Januaries combined (a statistic “helped” by the fact that January 2015 saw no rain at all)!  Other impressive totals include 12.06 inches in Eureka (186% of average) and 12.68 in Redding (213% of average).  While most of California is still dealing with drought conditions, forecasters say this may ease if the season brings in 150% of the average rainfall.  One section along the North Coast has already been removed from the official drought tally.

Tips on Rainy Day Driving from Edmunds.com

Edmonds.com begins its discussion of wet weather driving with a surprising fact – Rainy day driving is actually more dangerous than snowy day driving.  The automotive industry company cites National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data finding a higher likelihood of crashing during wet, rainy conditions than during wintry weather like snow or sleet.  Why?  Perhaps because fewer people hit the roads during snowy weather, but it is likely also because people take rainy day driving for granted and forget to prepare.

Here are some tips from Edmunds on how to stay safe on the roads during rainy weather:

  • Prepare your tires – Make sure you have sufficient tread. Experts now recommend using a quarter (versus a penny) and placing it upside down into the tread.  If you can see the top of Washington’s head, you need new tires.  You also want to check your tires’ air pressure regularly.
  • Prepare your car – Proper maintenance on the rest of your vehicle is also key. Important items to check include windshield wipers, headlights, taillights, and turn signals.
  • Slow down – Speeding is dangerous anytime, but especially in wet weather when you lose traction. Wet weather can cause up to a one-third reduction in the amount of friction built up between the tire and the road.  In rainy conditions, experts suggest reducing your speed by about a third (from 55mph to 40mph) although that is a rough guideline and sometimes slower travel speeds are best.
  • Stay back – In dry conditions, travel about 3 to 4 seconds behind the car in front of you (use a fixed marker like a telephone pole for reference). In wet weather, increase the travel distance and stay 5 seconds behind the car in front of you, 6 seconds if it is raining at night.  Likewise, when possible try to avoid being boxed in by cars on either side of you.  It may not always be feasible in high traffic areas, but it is ideal to leave yourself a way out if a car stops unexpectedly.
  • Be smart about technology – Do not use cruise control (including adaptive cruise control) and do not rely on forward collision warning systems. Wet weather can compromise certain systems’ accuracy and the act of releasing the gas before braking can provide extra traction that gets lost if cruise control is activated.  On the other hand, traction control, anti-skid technology, and anti-lock brakes can help with wet weather driving.
  • Hydroplaning – Hydroplaning occurs when tires ride atop a layer of water, losing contact with the road itself. If this happens, easing off the gas may be enough to regain contact.  If that doesn’t work, gently press the brake to transfer the car’s weight and interrupt the hydroplane.  Don’t steer until you regain traction.
  • Skidding – Despite the old advice, experts now say to simply try to steer in the direction you want to go, a much simpler task than figuring out where the skid originated and turning into it.

Wet weather can make driving more complicated, but usually it is a driver and not Mother Nature who is responsible for a wet weather accident.  If you were hurt because another driver used poor judgment in wet weather, call our San Francisco, Oakland, or Santa Rosa car accident law office for help getting the compensation you deserve.

See Related Blog Posts:

Flooded Roads, Heavy Rains, and Being Prepared Even in California’s Drought

Wet Weather and Driving Safety

(Image by David Prasad)

Tragedies involving children are particularly difficult to comprehend and the mere thought of a car accident killing or injuring a child is enough to send a shiver down any parent’s spine.  While statistics show that children are safer than ever on the road, a surprising number of car accidents involving children occur in driveways and other private spaces.  So-called nontraffic crashes involving children are terrible to contemplate, but discussing them is crucial to preventing future tragedies and obtaining justice for the victims of these incidents.  Our Oakland child injury lawyer is dedicated to both fights.

Toddler Killed as Car Pulls onto Road in Richmond

This week, the Oakland Tribune provided additional details about an accident on January 28 that led to the death of a young girl.  It was around 2:25 PM in Richmond when a man was getting ready to leave his home on the 300 block of Beck Street near South 35 Street.  As he pulled away in his truck, he tragically hit and killed a two-year-old girl.  Police suspect the toddler was chasing after her father to say goodbye when she was hit and say they do not believe he saw the child before hitting her.

Creating a More Accurate Picture of Child Car Accident Victims

In general terms, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety notes that car accident deaths for children under 13 have decreased 78 percent since 1975.  The IIHS lists a total of 3,643 child car accident deaths in 1975 compared to 939 in 2013 (side note: we think even one is too many!).  Even more dramatically, the rate of child pedestrian fatalities dropped 89 percent.  This is great news, but it is also an incomplete picture.

It was only with the passing of a new law in 2007 that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been charged with collecting data on so-called “nontraffic crashes.”  These are accidents that occur off public traffic ways including accidents in driveways, private roads, and parking facilities.  In 2014, the NHTSA published “Not-in-Traffic Surveillance: Child Fatality and Injury in Nontraffic Crashes—2008 to 2011 Statistics” looking specifically at nontraffic incidents involving victims aged 14 years and younger.  On average, from 2008 to 2011, 221 non-occupant children and 40 occupant children died each year in nontraffic incidents.  Breaking the non-occupant figure down further, an average of 104 children were killed by front-moving vehicles, 95 by rear-moving vehicles, 7 in rollaway crashes (i.e. no driver in the vehicle), and 15 in other forms of nontraffic crashes each year.  Additionally, an average of around 8,000 children were injured in non-traffic incidents each year, including 60% who were vehicle occupants and 40% who were outside of the vehicle involved in the incident.

Nontraffic crashes are particularly dangerous to the youngest of children.  In the study years, a full 84% of non-occupant children who died in nontraffic crashes were aged 4 years or younger.  For occupant child fatalities in these off-road crashes, there was a fairly close split between children aged 0-to-4-years (46%) and 5-to-14-years (54%), although that still reflects a higher tendency for young children to be the victims in these incidents.

A Child Injury Lawyer in San Francisco, Oakland, and Santa Rosa

Children are our most precious resource.  Drivers must always be on the lookout for children, remembering both their small stature and inability to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions.  If your child was injured or killed in a car accident, whether on the road or in a nontraffic location like a driveway or parking lot, we can help you get the compensation your family needs and deserves.  Call our Oakland law firm for child car accident victims to learn more.

See Related Blog Posts:

Backover Accidents: Prevention and Compensation

Child Injury Lawyer Watching Federal Investigation Into Defective Child Safety Seats

 

There are countless poems and other verses about the beauty of trees.  They can provide shelter, give fruit, and offer shade.  Part of their beauty is in their powerful size, stretching to the sky and often much wider than an adult’s arm span.  This is also what makes them potentially dangerous, potentially deadly.  In some cases, property owners are responsible when a tree falls and injures or kills someone else.  Do not assume you are without recourse if you or a loved one are the victim of a tree fall injury; read on for some general information and call our Northern California tree fall injury law firm in San Francisco, Santa Rosa, or Oakland to learn more.

Tree Fall Kills Driver in SoCal

According to the San Francisco Chronicle and the Associated Press, a motorist in Pacific Beach died Sunday when powerful winds knocked a tree onto a residential roadway.  Fire Captain Joe Amador told reporters the tree measured eight feet in diameter and also crushed three unoccupied, parked vehicles.  The storm’s strong winds knocked down dozens of trees throughout Southern California, even ripping up rooftops before continuing its journey up the coast.

treefallApplying Premises Liability Law to Tree Cases

We have far too little information to make an informed legal judgment about the recent Pacific Coast tragedy.  However, broadly speaking, most fallen tree cases are governed by premises liability law (often thought of in terms of “slip and fall” cases), a topic that falls under the broader rubric of negligence law.  As detailed in the Section 1000 of the California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”), the basic claim that a plaintiff was injured because of the way the defendant managed his property requires showing:

  • Negligence – The defendant negligently used or maintained the property
    • CACI 1001 explains that a defendant “is negligent if he or she fails to use reasonable care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. A person who [owns/leases/occupies/controls] property must use reasonable care to discover any unsafe conditions and to repair, replace, or give adequate warning of anything that could be reasonably expected to harm others.” Relevant factors in the analysis include location, the likelihood someone would encounter the issue, the potential gravity of any harm, etc.
    • As in many cases, the rule looks at what the defendant “knew or should have known.” Ignorance is no excuse if an ordinary person in the defendant’s situation would have been aware of the problem and had enough time to remedy it.  Property owners are expected to make reasonable reviews of their property for possible dangers.
  • Control – The defendant must have owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled the property;
  • Harm – The plaintiff was injured/harmed;
  • Causation – The negligence above was a substantial cause of the harm.

Put simply: If the owner knew or should have known that a tree was a hazard and the owner failed to act, the owner is legally liable for any injuries or financial damages caused by a falling tree or tumbling branch.

A quick note: If you speak with people other states about premises liability law, you may find them emphasizing the terms “trespasser,” “invitee” (often a business-related entrant) and “licensee” (often a social guest).  These terms address the status of the injured person.  While this status can be part of the negligence evaluation and impact the reasonableness of the owner’s actions (i.e. one typically owes higher duties to someone who comes into a store to do business than someone who breaks in overnight!), this status is just one part of the calculation and is not controlling in and of itself as it is in some other states.

A Few Points on Trees: Ownership and Prevention

In California, Civil Code 833 that “Trees whose trunks stand wholly upon the land of one owner belong exclusively to him, although their roots grow into the land of another.”  Property owners must be mindful of tree maintenance.  Since we would always prefer to help prevent accidents (though we are very proud of our work helping people recover compensation after accidents!), we wanted to include a few words on tree maintenance.

Many common causes of tree collapse can be managed by being a good steward of your land.  These causes include improper maintenance, failure to trim loose branches, improper planting/installation (e.g. planting where the roots will not be able to effectively anchor the tree or simply planting in an unwise location), and failure to spot/respond to disease.  Owners/Occupiers must inspect their land to determine if any trees pose a hazard to guests or passersby, including risks that would only become reality in harsh weather.  If a hazard is detected, the landowner must take precautions ranging from trimming branches, treating disease, and possibly removing the tree.  Responsible property owners should regularly inspect their property and employ a certified arborist to look at trees annually.

Our Tree Injury Lawyer in Oakland, Santa Rosa, and San Francisco

If a tree fell and injured you or a family member in Northern California, you may have a legal claim.  This is true whether the owner was a private individual, a company, or even a government authority (although claims against the government require some special procedural steps).  Call our tree

See Related Blog Posts:

When Winds and Negligence Combine to Cause Injury to Northern Californians

Recovering Injury Compensation Following Mudslides

(Image by Ruid Rlet, not of incident discussed in article)

Sometimes good organizations, with good missions and many good people on board, do bad things.  A notable example is when a charity or public service group falsifies information with respect to a federal grant or other government support.  It can be hard to speak up against any large organization and it can be even harder in the case of a group you know does good work.  Still, it is important — knowingly falsifying a federal grant application or violating its terms is wrong no matter how well-intentioned the ultimate mission.  As a recent settlement reminds us, making false claims for federal grants, a type of federal grant fraud, is a violation of the False Claims Act and charitable organizations must, like any recipient, obey the terms of government grants and use the money in a responsible manner.  As a law firm for federal grant fraud whistleblowers, we take these cases seriously and believe that ensuring accountability is an important form of protecting taxpayer money.

Big Brothers, Big Sisters Pays $1.6 Million to Settle False Claims Charges

On January 21, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a press release announcing that Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (“BBBS”) agreed to pay $1.6 mimoneyrollllion to resolve allegations it made false claims relating to DOJ grants.  BBBS is a national organization with some 300 affiliate agencies that help provide mentoring support to children across the country.  BBBS has received millions of dollars in grant funds since 2004 from the DOJ in order to support programs for at-risk youths.  These grants require that BBBS maintains sound accounting processes and uses financial management systems that comply with federal regulations/guidelines, principles aimed at ensuring grant funds are accounted for and directed toward appropriate purposes.

  • Allegations

In the recent litigation, the government alleged that BBBS violated the rules with respect to three specific DOJ grants awarded between 2009 and 2011.  Following a 2013 audit, the DOJ alleged that BBBS commingled grant money with general operating accounts, failed to segregate expenditures in order to guarantee grant funds were used as intended, and failed to maintain appropriate internal financial practices to ensure proper use of grant money.  Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer explains the reason for concern: “Organizations such as Big Brothers do great work, but in carrying out their mission they also have an obligation to the populations they serve and to the taxpayer to ensure that government grant funds are used responsibly according to the rules.”

  • Settlement

Although BBBS has not admitted to any wrongdoing, the organization agreed to pay $1.6 million to settle these allegations.  Since 2013, the organization has replaced its management team and begun putting policies in place to control the use of federal grant money.  The settlement also includes an agreement by BBBS to implement strict compliance measures to ensure proper use of grant funds including the creation of whistleblower policies and a commitment to regular audits by both internal and independent auditors.

Government Grants: Funding Comes With Serious Obligations to Ensure Proper Use of Taxpayer Money

Like other government agencies and programs, the DOJ manages a number of programs that provide grants to help achieve important goals such as effective crime fighting and crime prevention measures.  According to the Grants 101 webpage developed by the Office of Justice Programs, one of the things a grant manager considers when evaluating a grant application is whether the “activities proposed in the application are measurable, achievable, and consistent with program or legislative requirements as stated in the solicitation.”  This obligation is clearly intended to protect taxpayer money from misuse and/or improper use.

Government Grant Fraud: Whistleblowers and Whistleblowers’ Counsel

As with so many fraud cases, whistleblowers are essential to identifying fraud and prosecuting the offenders.  Most whistleblowers have attempted to raise their concerns internally, but when they are met with silence or outright resistance, they turn to us.  We are a law firm for government grant fraud whistleblowers, headed by an attorney dedicated to fighting government contract fraud abuse in all forms.  If you believe you’ve witnessed the misuse of, improper accounting for, or other fraud in conjunction with government grants (or, indeed, any improper claims for government funds from false Medicare filings to cheating on military contracts), please call our firm at (800) 424-4700.

See Related Blog Posts:

Government Fraud Case Study: The Violation of “Buy American” Clauses in Government Contracts

Fiscal Year 2015 and the False Claims Act: Reviewing Another Successful Year

(Image by Zach Mccarthy, aka zzzach)

A problem we reported on in mid-December continues to endanger people, including children, in Northern California and nationwide – hoverboard fires.  Hoverboards certainly turns heads the first few time you encounter them (even if it isn’t quite what those of us old enough to have watched the Back to the Future trilogy think of when we first hear the name!) and they can take time to master.  A few bruises from tumbling off while mastering the ride are one thing, severe burns from an explosion are quite another and our team is here to serve as a law firm for hoverboard fire injuries in San Francisco, Santa Rosa, and Oakland.

Petaluma Fire Adds to List of Alleged Hoverboard Explosions

According to CBS SF, a hoverboard is being blamed for a home fire in Petaluma on Monday night.  The hoverboard was allegedly charging and plugged into a wall outlet when it exploded, catching fire and sending burning debris throughout the home.  Thankfully no one was injured, but officials estimate the damage to the home at around $10,000.

hoverboard2Per CBS, the Petaluma fire is the third Bay Area fire in the past two months allegedly linked to hoverboards.  Last week, prior to the Petaluma incident, technology news website CNET reported that the Consumer Product Safety Commission was investigating 39 (presumably now 40) hoverboard fires in 19 states.  The agency is focusing its attention on the lithium-ion batteries and how they interact with the unit’s other electrical parts.  Witnesses say hoverboards have exploded in a range of situations including while charging, during use, and even reportedly while sitting idle near a kiosk in a mall.

In response to the fires, CNET notes that several airlines have banned hoverboards from passenger flights and the US Postal Service forbids shipping hoverboards by air.  Several retailers have suspended sales, some even allowing customers to return hoverboards for a full refund.  Additionally, California has a new law stating no one under 16 may ride a hoverboard on public roads, limiting hoverboard use to bike lanes and roads with a speed limit at or under 35mph, and requiring users to wear a helmet.

California Product Liability Law: Claims and Defenses in Design Defect Litigation

California law is clear – manufacturers and sellers are responsible for injuries caused by unsafe products.  Although other claims exist (e.g., negligence), most claims of injuries stemming from unsafe products are based on product liability law.  As California Civil Jury Instruction (“CACI”) 1200 and related sections provide, product liability claims fall under a strict liability framework meaning the plaintiff does not need to prove the defendant was negligent or had a dangerous intent.  There are three primary categories of product liability claims:

  • Design Defect – Asserts the product’s design was a substantial factor leading to the injury;
  • Manufacturing Defect – Asserts the product deviated from design specifications and that defect was a substantial factor causing injury); and
  • Failure to Warn – Asserts risks known to the defendant but not obvious to a consumer existed and the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate warning was a substantial factor in the injury-causing event.

Design defect cases are further divided into two different categories by the Jury Instructions, the:

  • Consumer Expectation Test (CACI 1203) – Asserts the item “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” and this failure was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s injury, and
  • Risk/Benefit Test (CACI 1204) – More a defense than a type of claim, under this Instruction the plaintiff first shows that the product’s design was a substantial factor leading to the injury. The defendant then has the burden of proving that the feasibility and drawbacks of an alternative design mean the benefits of the chosen design outweigh the risks.

Of course, lawsuits are not the answer for every injury.  In a prior blog post, we discussed the Nalwa decision, a 2013 California Supreme Court ruling finding a claim for an injury sustained aboard a bumper car ride was barred because the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury when she chose to board the ride and that the risk of a minor injury was inherent in the ride.  If someone stumbled while learning to ride a hoverboard (assuming it wasn’t due to a problem with the device like unexpected braking), the assumption of the risk doctrine might apply.  However, it is much less likely to apply in the case of sudden combustion!

A Law Firm for Hoverboard Fires and Other Northern California Product Liability Claims

From the information available, it appears a design defect claim would be most appropriate in hoverboard fire cases.  However, it would require a close investigation of the facts of each case to determine which claim or claims apply in a specific case.  Our San Francisco product liability firm (with additional offices in Santa Rosa and Oakland) always plans our strategy by investigating the facts, determining the appropriate claims, and anticipating the potential defenses so we are poised to respond.  In appropriate cases, we also consider whether a class action may be appropriate.

If you’ve been injured by a hoverboard fire in Northern California or in any other consumer product related injury, call to arrange a free consultation.  Remember — Attorney Brod is not only a skilled trial attorney, he is also a skilled negotiator and most cases resolve without the need for a trial.  Attorney Brod uses his experience as a California product liability and personal injury attorney to help clients evaluate a specific settlement offer, but ultimately accepting a settlement is always a client’s decision.  Call to learn more.

See Related Blog Posts:

Hoverboards: A Holiday Craze that May Become a Holiday Nightmare

From the Playing Fields to Extreme Sports, Part One: Recreational Injury Claims

(Image by TechStage; Note: Picture is an example of a hoverboard and does not reflect specific product mentioned in the news reports.)

There are few things we take for granted a much as clean air and a safe place to sleep.  Sadly, our Santa Rosa tenants’ lawyer knows that many Californians do not have this luxury.  As a pending lawsuit alleges, many of our neighbors are stuck in unsafe living conditions, problems exacerbated when landlords turn a blind eye to the suffering.

Paper Examines Santa Rosa Tenants’ Dispute Alleging Unhealthy Living Conditions

The Press Democrat’s Sunday Edition included an in-depth look at the health problems plaguing residents in a northeast Santa Rosa apartment complex and the related battle pending in state court.  According to the report, the apartment was infested with dangerous mold that, along with other triggers, caused serious asthma flares for one young resident.  Numerous other tenants reported moderate to severe health issues they believe are linked to the living conditions at the complex.

Currently, nine families who lived in the Bennett Valley Townhomes complex are suing the current and former owners for damages tied to a range of substandard living conditions.  These include: Mold: Insect infestations; Vermin; Faulty wiring; Defective plumbing; Heating issues; and Leaky roofs.  Last year, residents were forced out of the complex when the city red-tagged the property meaning it posed a hazard to the tenants’ health and wellbeing.  The suit also raises concerns about the ability of Sonoma County code enforcement officers to deal with growing numbers of cases involving substandard living conditions.

Tenant Protections in California

lawbooksTenants throughout Northern California should know that they do not have to live in uninhabitable apartments or otherwise give in to landlord intimidation.  One of the most important tools tenants have is the Implied Warranty of Habitability, a statewide rule that requires that all residential units meet minimum living standards.   As developed in California Code 1941.1, some of the minimum requirements for habitability include being free from rodents/vermin, having hot and cold water, and having adequate waterproofing and weather protection.  Courts have expanded on the list to include several other items like the presence of working smoke alarms and the absence of persistent sewage overflows.

The warranty of habitability is important, but it is far from the only law that protects Northern California tenants.  There are special laws dealing with discrimination, lead/lead-based paint, privacy, mold, and other important residential matters.  Tenants also have contract law rights pursuant to their rental agreements.  Depending on where in Northern California you are located, you may have additional rights.  One of the best known local tenant-protection statutes is the San Francisco Rent Ordinance which includes provisions on rent control for certain properties and protection from eviction, but it is far from the only local law protecting renters.

A Law Firm for Renters in Northern California

If you are a renter in Northern California and your landlord is not maintaining your rental property in a safe, healthy, and habitable condition, please call our office.  We can help you fight for your rights under state and local laws.  Usually we can resolve landlord-tenant matters without the need for a trial.  Do not assume your claim is too small to matter and do not trust your landlord to tell you your legal rights.  An initial consultation with our Northern California renter’s rights lawyer is always free.  We have landlord/tenant law offices in Santa Rosa, San Francisco, and Oakland, but can meet elsewhere in Northern California if necessary to serve your needs.

See Related Blog Posts:

Bay Area Tenants’ Attorney on Renter Protections in Era of Rising Rents Throughout Northern California

What Does “Habitability” Mean in California?

(Image by Eric E. Johnson)