San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

Recently, San Francisco’s MUNI released a revised budget proposal for the 2009-2010 fiscal year that calls for eliminating bus routes or sections of bus routes and cutting back on service and jobs, in an attempt to get out of the $129 million budget deficit. MUNI has proposed three options for eliminating routes and segments of routes and reducing service. Option 3, the hardest hitting, would allow for a 6.3 percent reduction in service hours—ultimately saving muni $17.8million. They are also increasing the cost of services such as monthly passes, which will go into effect on July1st. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, city transportation officials warn that service may erode—which is what happened during a budget deficit in the mid-1990’s, when a shortage of drivers, maintenance workers, street supervisors and schedulers made for an unreliable system plagued by frequent breakdowns and missed runs, leading to widespread public anger and frustration.

So what will the result of eliminating routes and jobs, while raising the price of a monthly pass? Will MUNI become less reliable and erode just as predicted by city transportation officials. Perhaps regular MUNI riders will decide to bike around town, instead of relining on the bus—which would be a great way to offset some the inconvenience these cuts will no doubt induce. But if there are more bikes on the streets, and, because our city is not anywhere near being 100 percent bike friendly (i.e., the lack of a suffient number of bike lanes and aware drivers, etc.), then there will probably be more bicycle accidents. And if some regular MUNI riders decide to take to their cars, this will probably create more traffic, which will, in turn, produce more impatient drivers and a higher potential for injury accidents. And if the system does erode, then the safety of MUNI passengers might very well be compromised if the buses they ride are not properly maintained or if drivers become disgruntled and care less about looking out for their passengers. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we can’t help but see MUNI’s proposed budget cuts from fearful point of view. Over the past few years there have been too many accidents between buses and bikers and pedestrians, despite MUNI’s efforts to improve service. So we worry about the effect budget cuts will have on the citizens of San Francisco.

Skimming over the news today I noticed another article regarding recalled products. This time, according the Associated Press, the recalled products are fitness balls, made in China and manufactured by New York based EB Brands. The fitness balls have been recalled because the balls can unexpectedly burst during use if they are over inflated. The company received reports of people sustaining fractures and multiple bruises when they fell after balls had burst. In the same article, another recall alert was posted for Shape-O Toy Maracas imported by Tupperware. This toy was also made in China. The toys are considered hazardous because they can brake and expose small parts, which children can choke on. The handles are also a suffocation hazard for children.
This issue of hazardous products manufactured in China is becoming more and more prevalent. Whose fault is it that these products are injuring consumers? Is it China for not ensuring products manufactured in their country are safe, or our fault, for not monitoring or inspecting imports? Product safety lies with both exporters in China and importers in the United States. When companies here choose to do business with the world’s leading manufacturing power, they need to ensure quality and safe standards are met within the entire supply chain. Companies are often not dealing with only one supplier, but often are dealing with the supplier’s suppliers. The sourcing becomes invisible when companies choose China to manufacture their goods, potentially placing the innocent U.S. consumer at risk. In the wake of massive product recalls, we need to wake up to the fact there seems to be a serious lack of integrity at all business levels on all sides. Just as we need a huge overhaul in our nation’s food safety regulatory agencies, we also need an improvement in how we choose to produce and manufacture products. More stringent laws and regulations must be applied to companies that choose to commit fraud against consumer safety. In the meantime, injured people are left to seek recourse in our civil system.

May is approaching, and May is National Bike Month—a time for remembering that other people on the road are human beings. Staying aware of this fact can help us get where we’re going with more patience and less stress. This is a philosophy San Franciscans could benefit from as San Francisco strives to become a more bike and pedestrian friendly city. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we have dealt with many bike accident cases, cases usually involving drivers who at fault. Often the reason they are at fault is because they don’t have proper training or awareness driving or parking along city streets full of cyclists. While our community is waking up the fact that we must learn to coexist, we still have a way to go. Not only are bicyclists being injured in unnecessary numbers, but pedestrians are also being injuring at an increasingly alarming rate. For example, just last week, a man was dragged under a bus just after he stepped off of it. Logically speaking, if we became a community which was more bike friendly, it seems that we would also become a pedestrian and transit friendly city by default. If only we could follow the lead of Northern Europe, where children in such places as the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany all receive extensive training in safe and effective cycling techniques as part of their regular school curriculum—most of whom complete such a course before the fifth grade. Motorist training is in those countries is also more extensive as well. Heavy fines and points are placed a driver’s record for driving or parking in bike lanes, cutting off cyclists or otherwise endangering or inconveniencing them.

Thankfully, though, we have the San Francisco Bike Coalition, San Francisco’s de facto bicycling advocacy group. They have been instrumental in making riding conditions better for San Francisco bikers, drawing attention to pedestrian and cyclist safety and promoting the upsurge in bike friendly culture. They strive to show all of us on how to share the road. Their most important message is that motorists need to be aware of cyclists on the roadway and avoid endangering them, and vice versa. Portland, however, is the greatest example of what a bike and pedestrian friendly city in the United States should look like. One of the things they offer their community is a class called the Share The Road Safety Class. The class is a result of a partnership that began in 2006 when Multnomah county Judge, Christopher Larson, reached out to safety groups, such as Portland Police Bureau Traffic Division, the legacy Emanuel Trauma Nurses, Portland’s Bureau of Transportation, and other bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups. All these groups have worked together to develop a training that addresses traffic laws, as well as inattention and intolerance on the road. It also puts special focus on ensuring the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and children. Most who participate in the class are there because they have been charged with a traffic violation. If participants successfully complete the Share the Road course, they are eligible for dismissal or a sentence of discharge, a conviction entered with no fine. Partners of the program hope that individuals will leave the class and share what they have learned with others at work and at home. With programs such as these in place, it is no wonder that Portland has zero cyclist fatalities, even as bicycle use is booming.

According to an article by the Associated Press released earlier this week, a government study has found traces of a chemical used in rocket fuel in samples of powdered baby formula, and those traces could exceed what’s considered a safe dose for adults if mixed with water also contaminated with the ingredient. Apparently the study, released last month by scientists at the U. S. centers for Disease Control and Prevention, looked for the chemical, perchlorate, in different brands of powdered baby formula. Also according to the article, the study was brought to the publics’ attention when a Washington based advocacy organization, The Environmental Working Group, issued a press release Thursday. The article goes on to point out that the study was not a study of health effects, so it is unknown how dangerous the product is or the risks involved.

Apparentely, the chemical has turned up in several cities drinking water supplies and that it can occur naturally and most perchlorate contamination has been tied to defense and aerospace sites. The EPA, however, does consider perchlorat exposure a serious issue and expects to announce a decision soon about future steps in dealing with the chemical. The article also noted that certain health authorities emphasize the formula is safe, one of whom is Curtis Stevens of the international Formula Counsel, which represent formula manufacturers. Surely consumers are and will be confused by the conflicting and unverifiable information regarding the risks of consumption of this chemical.

Here are some facts. According to the FDA’s interim health advisory, human exposure to high doses of perchlorate may disrupt how the thyroid gland functions. In adults, the thyroid plays an important role in metabolism by making and storing hormones that help regulate the heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, and the rate at which food is converted into energy. In fetuses and infants, thyroid hormones are critical for normal growth and development of the central nervous system. Perchlorate can interfere with the human body’s ability to absorb and iodine into the thyroid gland which is a critical element in the production for thryroid hormone. So how are we the consumers supposed to react to the varying reports about the risks associated with this chemical?

Now there are a few ways to you could react to this situation: one way is from a purely over-exaggerated, inaccurate, sensational point of view, whereby you worry that that adults and babies will become deathly ill or suddenly combust from exposure to the chemical; another would be from a stance of blind faith, whereby you blindly believe that there probably is not much of a risk since some “health officials” say there are none; or you could view this news from a rational, proactive stance. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we hold the third point of view and think appropriate proactive measures should vary according to individual circumstances, and we realize that the severity of the danger depends on the size of a person and how much they have consumed. But with more and more products showing up on the FDA’s and EPA’s radar, it is hard not feel extremely alarmed. It is no wonder that consumer confidence is at an all-time low. It is clear that now, more than ever, we need food safety reform. We recommend consumers educate themselves and make their own judgments about the products they use and that they visit the FDA’s website as well as pro- consumer websites to find the latest recommendations and warnings regarding those products.

First it was spinach, then it was tomatoes, then peppers, then peanuts, and now it’s pistachios that have been contaminated with salmonella. The Food and Drug administration is investigating Setton International Foods Inc. of Commack, N.Y., along with its sister company, Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella Inc. in the San Joaquin Valley plant as sources of the scare. According to the Los Angeles Times, nearly two dozen dead cockroaches, rodent droppings and one live cockroach on an ingredient rolling rack were found inside the Commack plant during a state department health inspection. The San Joaquin Valley plant then recalled 2million pounds of nuts over fears of possible salmonella contamination.

Sadly, food producers are not legally bound to meet the FDA’s recommendations for a well run plant. Most consumers don’t know that not mandatory for plants to release testing and reporting results . Consequently, consumers in California have every right to feel a little scared when it comes to food safety. The solution to this growing problem is for both public and consumer advocates to place pressure on food processors and food manufacturers and for government to beef up their food safety guidelines. Another solution would be for the FDA to emphasize to all food processors and manufacturers the fact that efforts, efforts that initially seem costly, such as purchasing or investing in equipment that helps their plants churn out safe products, can save them millions in the long run or prevent bankruptcy.

Requiring everyone along the production process to perform rigorous testing will also help make sure ingredients are safe, which ensures consumers are safe. And since during the production process food products can start in one state and end up in several different companies in different states for repackaging or for use as ingredients, and finding the source of an outbreak can be nearly impossible, it is important that all states set in place stringent food quality safety standards. A bit of good news regarding reform comes from California, where a bill by two Los Angeles Democrats, Assemblyman Mike Feuer and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, would require food processors in the state to have plans in place to require periodic testing and to prevent contamination and to respond quickly if it occurred. It may seem glib to say, but, here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe now is the time for food safety reform not just in California but in the entire country-- as it looks like we are all inextricably linked when it comes to our safety and the foods we eat.