San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

Accordign to SFGate,The family of Tahir Sheikh Fakhar, 56, who died on November 9th, 2009, after his truck flipped over a Bay Bridge wall and plunged onto Yerba Buena Island, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the state and civil engineers who designed and warned about the dangerous S-curve that caused the accident. After the deadly accident, Caltrans ramped-up signage and added rumble strips, flashing lights and other advisories to notify drivers to slow down. The speed limit on other sections of the bridge is 50mph. Before the accident about 43 crashes had been documented on the s-curve. The wrongful death suit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court and accuses Caltrans of negligence in designing the S-curve, part of a detour installed on the bridge while a new eastern span is constructed. The suit blames the poor design and lack of warning signs and signals, and seeks unspecified damages. Bart Ney, Caltrans spokesman, stated that increased enforcement of the sped limit and public awareness has cut down on the accident rate at the S-curve.
Ironically, the S-curve was constructed to keep drivers safe, as it replaced the seismically unsafe eastern span. The new speed limit is 40 mph on the curve, which is a 10 mph decrease from the rest of the span of the bridge. Back in October 14, 2009 around 2:30 p.m., another big rig overturned at the s-curve, which prompted Caltrans officials to approve better warning signs to alert motorists to slow down, which were insufficient in preventing Fakhar’s tragic accident. The semi-truck was driven by Manuel E. Garcia Jara, 55, who had reportedly traveled across the bridge many times, but had never navigated the new S-curve, which opened on September 8th. Like Fakhar, Jara was traveling over the 40 mph limit, when his 18-wheeler entered the curve and overturned on the westbound lanes. Prior to proper warnings, the sudden and unexpected curve did not give drivers enough time to slow down until it was too late and they had already lost control of their vehicles. These accidents highlight the need for Caltrans and its engineers to better analyze future construction projects in order to prevent such catastrophic accidents. Tax payer money goes into these projects, and the public expects a high standard of safety when Caltrans builds a new project-- let’s hope they have learned from their mistakes.
If you or a loved have been injured in a car or trucking accident, please call the Brod Law Firm today. We have the experience necassary to help you win the compensation you deserve.

According to newsiferno.com, a lawsuit has been filed against Johnson and Johnson, claiming that it’s pain reliever Motrin caused Sabrina Brenton, a six year old girl, to lose her eyesight, one of handful of serious complications of the syndrome, after developing Stevens Johnson Syndrome. Apparently the girl was treated with three children’s Motrin for a fever, after which she soon showed symptoms of the rare yet serious and often deadly syndrome. There is no definitive cause or known trigger, but it seems that a number of anti-inflammatory drugs-NSAID’s, such as ibuprofen, have been connected to SJS cases. Noteworthy is the fact that SJS did not manifest immediately in Sabrina’s case, as symptoms were absent in the first couple of doses. Many drugs do list skin reactions as potential symptoms of an allergic reaction to the medication-- which refer to skin allergies and SJS-- but do not list them as specifically as possible reactions.

According to the May Clinic, Stevens-Johnson syndrome is a rare, serious disorder in which your skin and mucous membranes react severely to a medication or infection. Often, Stevens-Johnson syndrome begins with flu–like symptoms, followed by a painful red or purplish rash that spreads and blisters, eventually causing the top layer of skin to die and shed. Other Symptoms associated with the syndrome include: facial swelling; tongue swelling; skin pain; hives; blisters on skin and mucous membranes, especially in the mouth, nose, and eyes. Before the rash develops, a person with Steven-Johnson syndrome may experience burning eyes, in addition to the flu-like symptoms already mentioned. Anyone experiencing the above symptoms should seek medical attention immediately. The Mayo Clinic states that the exact causes of Stevens-Johnson syndrome can’t always be identified; however, the condition is usually an allergic reaction in response to medication, infection, or illness. Medications are the most common culprits, and they include: anti-gout medications, such as allopurinol; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; sulfonamides and penicillins, used to treat infections; and anticonvulsants, which are used to treat seizures.

If you or a loved one has suffered due to the use of medications, over the counter or otherwise, or have questions regarding product liability law, please call our office. We have over 10 years experience pursuing product liability claims and will aggressively work on your behalf to get you the compensation you deserve.

Recently, a man has pleaded guilty to raping a 94-year-old woman in a Northern California nursing home. According to the San Jose Mercury news, 43 year old Roberto Cruz Recendes pleaded guilty to a sex count, elderly abuse and an enhancement of inflicting great bodily injury, and he is facing a 17 year prison sentence. Recendes was arrested in Mexico in 2008, six years earlier the police arrested the wrong suspect. Under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Section 15657 expresses the remedies available and states: Where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is liable for physical abuse or neglect, and that the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice in the commission of this abuse, the specific remedies (as provided by law) shall be applied. The Act is based on legislative findings that explain how elderly persons and dependent adults are a disadvantaged class, that cases of abuse of such persons are seldom prosecuted as criminal matters, and that few civil cases are brought in connection with this kind of abuse due to problems of proof, court delays, and lack of incentives to prosecute these suits.
Even though the Act is was written in 1991, it is still young and there remains some uncertainty regarding the issue of fighting a claim for civil remedies under the Act. That is why anyone who believes they have a claim should seek out an experienced attorney who is aware the delicacy of the law of and knows how to fight such cases, as each case must be specifically dealt with in relation to its facts in compliance with rules requiring specifics based on fact. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we have over ten years experience fighting for the rights of victims and are prepared to handle any type of elder abuse claim. Whether they deal with neglect, physical abuse, recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice--we will carefully and astutely fight for the victim.

Did you know an employer could be held liable for its own negligence in failing to adequately warn employees about the risks of use of electronic devices while driving or failing to take other measures to reduce those risks? Put another way, there is the potential for an employer to be held vicariously liable for employees who use a cell phone the employer provided and not prohibited from using while driving. During the recent past, companies have been forced to settle costly cases arising from such circumstances. Consequently, issues of safety and liability regarding employers not having policies in place that ban the use of electronic devices while driving are becoming harder to ignore. As such, employers need to create and incorporate new policies into their everyday operations.

For these reasons, and because the leading cause of worker fatalities year after year is motor vehicle accidents, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), in conjunction with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA), has increased efforts to encourage employers to enact safety policies prohibiting employees from using electronic devices while driving. This initiative conicides with President Obama's Oct. 1, 2009, Executive Order that bars federal employees from texting while operating government owned vehicles. In addition, the DOT earlier this year announced, under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, a ban on texting by drivers of commercial vehicles. Approximately 30 states have existing laws to prevent some drivers from using cell phones or text messaging while driving. However, some states have laws that target only a segment of drivers, such as teenagers or those with learner's permits.

Speaking of teenagers, another bit of good news regarding their safety on the roads, as well as those who share the road with them, was reported yesterday. According the Associated Press, fatal car crashes involving teen drivers fell by about a third over five years. The CDC says that the number of deaths tied to these accidents has fallen from about 2,200 in 2004 to 1,400 in 2008. The CDC credits the drop in accidents to a range of factors, such as safer cars with air bags and highway improvements. The main reason, however, is credited to the fact that most states are getting tougher by tightening restrictions on when teens can drive and when they can carry passengers.
If you have questions regarding liablity and car accidents, or if you or a loved one were injured in a car accident and need legal representation, please call our firm.

Spride, a provider of personal vehicle sharing services, and City CarShare, a Bay Area nonprofit car sharing organization have announced the availability of the first personal vehicle share program within a car sharing fleet. The new Spride Share pilot program enables car owners to loan their vehicles to members of City CarShare, which has more than 13,000 members, by equipping their cars with City CarShare’s access and tracking technology. The launch of the program is directly related to Assembly Bil 1871, a bill that Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed into law. The new law establishes that personal vehicle sharing does not constitute a commercial use of the automobile, eliminating the primary barrier to broad adoption of personal car sharing opportunities. Prior to the law, car owners ran the risk of losing their personal auto insurance if they received compensation for sharing their cars.

Now car owners can make their cars available for hourly reservations, and members can conveniently locate, reserve, and gain access to a car using their phone. What is more, car owners can make money by sharing something they already own, while the cost for borrowers is only about $7 dollars an hour. Because choosing reliable transportation in the bay area is always a challenge, car sharing may prove to be bay area resident’s greatest option. The program allows residents to collectively share the responsibility of reducing carbon emissions and eliminating some of the hassle their daily commuting routines, and it may just make commuters feel less harried and frantic, which may, in turn, lead to fewer accidents. Here at the Brod Law Firm we believe the creation of such program proves that citizens can band together to make up for the failures of public transportation, and the dissatisfaction and burden many people feel owning a car.

German scientists have unveiled a self-driving car. They say that the days of humans behind the wheel are numbered, that the cars of today are the horses of yesterday, and that this new technology can slash accidents and help the environment. In addition they claim this new technology will sharply reduce the number of cars on the road, suggesting that people will no longer need their own vehicles so much and will used driverless cars pooled in car-share schemes, instead. They predict that the new technology could be applied to private areas like airports in 10 years, on motorways in 10-20 years, and in cities (once all the obstacles are removed) in 23-30 years. The cars, called the “Made in Germany (MIG), use cameras, laser scanners, heat sensors and satellite navigation to see other vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians, and respond to traffic lights.
Google engineers have recently introduced their own driverless car that uses artificial-intelligence software that can sense anything near the car and mimic the decisions made by a human driver. So far seven test cars have driven 1,000 miles without human intervention, although someone was behind the wheel in case something went awry, and more than 140,000 miles with only occasional human control. Google’s researchers do not have a clear plan on how to create a business plan using the cars, but the project's inventor, 43 year old director of Stanford Artificial Intelligence laboratory, Google engineer, and co-inventor of the Street View mapping service, is a passionate promoters of the use of robotic vehicles to make highways safer and lower the nation’s energy costs, which also happens to be a commitment shared by Google’s co-founder Larry Page.
Here at the Brod Law Firm we think these cars are a great idea in regards to public safety. For example a human can only see one or two cars in front of them, while these driverless cars can see in all directions at a range of 70 yards. At the same time however, it still remains to be seen how reliable they will turn out to be. Also this technology brings up legal questions. Current law currently states that a human must be in control of a car at all times. So what does it mean if a human is not really driving the car, say, when the car malfunctions and gets into an accident? Google researchers claim to have figured that one out; they say they have carefully examined California’s motor vehicle regulations and determined that because a human driver can override any error, the experimental cars are legal.

According to the St. Claire Record former Judge from St. Clair County, Judge Michael O’Malley, is part of a legal team leading two separate product liability suits filed the same day in Madison and St. Clair counties over the diabetes drug Avandia. O’Malley retired as judge on July 30th to join a St. Louis personal injury firm. When he was judge, he presided over at least one class action against drug companies. In 2005, he certified a case against Bay and GlaxoSmithKline, over the cholesterol fighting drug Baycol. The Illinois Supreme Court overturned O’Malley’s ruling in 2009. In the Avandia suits filed October 1st, O’Mailley is taking on GlaxoSmithKline as an adversary.

According to the suit residents Ida Akins and Allen McAllister say GlaxoSmithKline was wrong in selling a diabetes drug without first warning of potential serious side effects from which they suffered. Walgreens is a co-defendant in both suits. Akins and McAllister claim they used Avandia to treat their type 2 diabetes mellitus, but suffered severe injuries, one of which was a heart attack, from their ingestion of the drug. The defendants are being accuses of negligence, negligent pharmaco-vigilance, a breach of express warranty, a breach of implied warranty, fraud, and a failure to warn. They say both GSK and Walgreens are liable for their injuries because they created and heavily marketed Avandia as safe, despite knowing the drug posed a substantial health risk to patients with type-2 diabetes.

Avandia's potential risks and side effects have led critics to suggest that Avandia should be removed from the shelves. Yet, the FDA has not bothered to properly warn the public of its potentially fatal effects. Instead they merely issued a black box warning. In 2007, a study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic and published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that Avandia increases the risk of a heart attack by 43 percent and concluded that Avandia increased the risks of cardiovascular death by 64 percent. Now accusations have been made that the drug's manufacturers, GlaxoSmithKline, withheld data that showed problems with Avandia and neglected to properly warn the public and users of the drug of its potentially fatal side effects.

Those who criticize the FDA contend that the same department that is responsible for investigating a new drug's risks is the same department that decides drug approval, leading critics to believe that this fact poses a sincere conflict of interest—and that any information about risks that are discovered should be forwarded directly to the FDA commissioner, instead of being passed through various levels of bureaucracy within the FDA. Because heart attacks are the leading cause of deaths in diabetics, the risks of heart attack associated with the use of the drug should have been released to the public sooner. Had the FDA acted done that, perhaps many injuries and deaths could have been prevented. If you or someone you love thinks that they may have been hurt from using Avandia, contact the Brod Law Firm to learn more about your options.

According to the Press Democrat, the CHP is looking for a maroon-colored SUV in connection with a hit-and-run collision that seriously injured a cyclist in Saturday’s GranFondo ride, a 103 mile ride through northern California. Witnesses told officers it could have been a ford Explorer or something similar. As of yet, officers don’t have a description of the driver or a license plate. The cyclist, Anoush Zebarjadian, a 57 year old veteran bike rider of San Francisco, was on Graton Road at around 4pm when he was hit. He was knocked unconscious and suffered serious head injuries, and he remained in the hospital Wednesday in serious condition in ICU at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital. A CHP officer, as of yesterday, was continuing to try to learn the driver’s identity and find the vehicle. A witness to the collision said the driver drove aggressively as he passed riders on a downhill slope just prior to hitting the cyclist. The witness also said that as driver passed the cyclist, he pulled the large vehicle to the right and hit the cyclist and his bike. At that moment Zebarjadian hit the ground and the driver did not stop.

These rides are often on windy roads with skimpy or no bike lanes at all that make it nearly impossible for drivers and cyclist to share the road safely, but that is no excuse for drivers to become impatient and angry, and then drive aggressively. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we think perhaps the planners of these rides need to provide better info to the public by alerting drivers-- days before as well as the day of the ride--of possible delays and perhaps provide detours during the rides so that cyclists are not put at such a risk. The most seasoned rider, as we have seen here with Zebarjadian, can become a victim of hit and run in an instant. Zebarjadian will obviously need the public’s help finding the hit-and run driver, because there may not be enough of an effort on the part of the police put into solving this crime, and also because, even though there several witnesses, no one was able to provide a thorough description of the car or license plate. Sometimes other witnesses and people who have information don’t bother to speak up because they assume that others will provide the information.

If you are loved one were the victim of a hit-and-run accident, please contact our office. We have over 10 years experience fighting for victims of hit-and-run accidents, and we are happy to answer any questions you may have regarding these kinds of cases.

According to the Huffington Post, 10 people have been injured in a roller coaster accident at Knott’s Berry Farm in Orange County. The accident happened Thursday night on a rollercoaster called the Pony Express. The injuries reported were minor, however. A spokesperson for the park stated that a train leaving the station didn’t make it over the first hill and rolled back into another train, and one person who getting into a waiting train and nine people on the train that rolled back were injured. All the victims were taken to the hospital. The cause of the accident is now under investigation.
Roller coasters and amusement rides are usually associated with fun for children, adults, and families. Most people who visit amusement parks and ride roller coasters with suffering an injury; however, each year thousands are injured while on roller coaster or any other amusement park ride. Tragically, in the most extreme situations, some visitors don’t leave an amusement park or water park alive. Most amusement park injuries result from equipment malfunction, but people can also be injured on water rides, water slides, in wave pools, and rides that use inflatable devices. Serious injuries associated with amusement parks can include:
• Deadly Falls – riders can die after being thrown from rides.
• Cartoid Artery Dissection (CAD) and Stroke --A roller coaster's vigorous jerking of an amusement park rider's neck can potentially lead to a CAD injury and stroke for the rider.
• Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) – Injury to the brain due to the forces and stresses that can be imposed on veins in the riders' brains. Equipment that become separated during a malfunction ride can strike riders and cause head or brain injuries.
• Drowning - drowning due to negligently supervised amusement park swimming pools.
• Inflatable Ride Injuries
• Lacerations, Broken Bones and Torn Ligaments
• Emotional Injuries and Distress – Sometimes the mental trauma that victims suffer may be greater than any physical harm they suffer, which can require extended, if not lifelong treatment.
As in any business, amusement parks can operate equipment that suddenly malfunctions, equipment such as doors, lap bars, and shoulder harnesses used to restrain riders can malfunction. In addition, employees operating amusement park rides and working at water parks can fail to use a reasonable standard of care on the job. Unfortunately there is no federal law on amusement park safety. If you or a loved one suffered injuries at an amusement park, you may be entitled to compensation. If you think you may have a claim or have questions regarding laws regarding amusement park safety, please call the Brod Law Firm today for a consultation.

According to the Mercury News San Bruno residents have begun filing class-action lawsuits in San Mateo County Superior Court over the San Bruno explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 37 homes. The lawsuits seek to force PG&E to turn over control of the $100 million victims fund to an independent third-party. In one lawsuit specifically, Daniele Ditripiani, a resident of San Bruno, seeks unspecified damages to be paid to him and others. According to the lawsuit, DiTrapani was at home on September 9th when the blast occurred and that he “has been injured and suffered damages." The lawsuit is the second class-action against the utility during the recent aftermath of the explosion and claims PG&E was negligent and that it was the utility’s actions or lack of action that caused the 30-inch pipe to explode, stated the Mercury News . The complaint also alleges that residents there have been “contaminated by debris, ash, (and) toxins” due to the blast and fire. Also according to the lawsuit, cleanup timing remains unclear as well as the timeframe for when San Bruno can return to a so-called “normal state.” The lawsuit indicates that response and clean-up are estimated at over $10 million, with debris removal running about $2 million.

According to the LA Times, an investigation into the explosion looked at work performed on a sewer near the ruptured line in 2008 and the method used by the city to replace the sewer line, which is known to pose risks to nearby pipes. In addition, the LA Times reported, in a separte report, that Rep. Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco) announced legislation that would mandate stricter regulations of gas pipelines nationwide, and that Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer just introduced a bill to impose more stringent pipeline safety standards. Speier also announced legislation to mandate pipeline operators nationwide equip lines with an automatic shut-off, highlighting the fact that this technology would have reduced the San Bruno explosion’s destruction and ferocity. Also part of the bill, pipeline operators would also have to advise homeowners if they live in proximity to high-pressure gas mains. The manual shut-off process took nearly two hours following the San Bruno explosion. The Feinstein-Boxer bill also mandates many other actions, such as automatic electronic valves replace current manual valves and that in-line inspection devices be installed, federal officials create standards for leak detection devices, federal inspector personnel be doubled, safety violation fines be increased, and older lines in seismic areas be prioritized.

If you or a loved one suffered a loss due to the San Bruno explosion, please contact the Brod Law Firm for a free consultation today. We have over 10 years experience helping vicitims of similar situations receive the compensation they deserve.

In 2007, very near Thanksgiving Day, an Illinois State trooper was driving over 100 miles per hour, responding to an accident. The former officer, Matt Mitchell, was reportedly talking on his cell phone to his girlfriend, and sending e-mails on the police car computer, while driving at outrageous speeds. It was estimated that Mitchell was driving approximately 126 miles per hour, and drove across the highway median, where he ran into an oncoming vehicle, and killed two, teenage sisters, aged 18 and 13. The police officer, who pled guilty in criminal court, but did not serve any jail time, has now denied any fault or responsibility in the civil action. In fact, the former police officer has applied for workers compensation benefits to receive payment for injuries he suffered as a result of the crash in which he killed two innocent girls.

Police officers and other law enforcement personnel are not above the law, and must be mindful of the safety of the general public, who they are sworn to serve and protect. In the horrible tragedy in Illinois, the accident that the former police officer was heading towards at the time of the crash, had already been responded to. Undoubtedly, the Illinois State Police are ashamed by this incident, which should have been avoided, and could have been prevented. Ideally, law enforcement agencies around the country will learn from incidents like this, and properly train their police officers to respect the safety of the public when in pursuit, or when responding to an emergency.

At the Brod Law Firm, we fight for people who have been injured due to the fault of others, including police officers driving in a high speed chase, in pursuit, or in response to an emergency. To learn more, please contact us at info@brodfirm.com.