San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

The parents of the 22-year old Nils Yannick Linke, the young man who was killed on Masonic Avenue last August after being run down by a negligent driver, have filed a wrongful death lawsuit. The complaint describes the sad details of the accident, from the behavior of the two defendants before the accident to their behavior after the accident --when they left the defendant for dead. The story goes like this: At approximately 7:30p.m., defendants and over the following two hour time period consumed alcoholic beverages including two bottles of wine, a champagne cocktail, a beer, and two shots of liquor. The defendants left the restaurant at approximately 10 p.m. and drove while intoxicated. After striking Nils the defendants got out of car and saw Nils lying in the street, convulsing and bleeding. At that point they moved the bicycle to the sidewalk and returned to the car without rendering aid to Nils. Then they fled the scene at a high rate of speed, without contacting emergency personnel. Shortly after, they were stopped by the police, whereby they performed a driving under the influence investigation. Even though it had been two hours since the accident, it was determined that the defendant’s blood alcohol level was 0.10, and also tested positive for cannabinoids.
The parents allege that the defendants acted with conscious and deliberate disregard of the rights, safety, and interests of others by voluntarily commencing and thereafter continuing to consume alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication knowing from the outset that one of them must thereafter operate a vehicle. They also allege that because of their negligent, careless, reckless, wonton behavior and that because they decided to unlawfully drive and operate a vehicle, that they be held liable for general, specific, and punitive damages; for interest to the extent allowable by law; for the costs of the suit; and for such further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we don't feel there is really anything left to say, except that we hope Nil's family is fully compensated for there loss and that they are able to move past this tragedy in there own time.

If your loved one died due to the negligence of another person or if you have questions regarding wrongful death and personal injury law, please contact our firm. We have over 10 years experience handling wrongful death cases and know how to win you the compensation you deserve.

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Jogging Strollers, which were imported by phil&teds USA Inc, have been recalled for repair due to risk of amputation and laceration hazards. The CPSC reported that when someone is opening or closing the stroller they can get a finger caught in the hinge. So far phil&teds has received three reports of injuries to adult users, one of which was a finger amputation. The other two included finger lacerations. Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled jogging strollers immediately and be aware that it is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The recall includes the sport v2 and v1 models, both of which have three wheels The company has received a total of three reports of adults that have been injured as they unfolded or folded these strollers. The recalled strollers were manufactured in China and sold in specialty juvenile stores nationwide from May 2008 through July 2010 for between $350 and $450.

Around 22,000 of these strollers, sold between May 2008 and July 2010 at specialty stores, are involved in the recall. The serial numbers on the v2 model range from 0308/001 to 0510/0840, and on the v1 model they range from 0308/001 to 0510/0906. The serial number has the first four digits as the month and year of manufacture, while the last four digits refer to the individual stroller number and can be found on the folding hinge. Consumers who have a recalled jogging stroller can contact phil&teds USA to get a free hinge-cover kit and repair instructions. They can also visit www.philandteds.com or call the company toll-free at (877) 432-1642 for more information.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe that any company, not just phil&teds, that sells things that people pay good money for and expect a certain level of safety from, should be able to meet those expectations, and, if they can’t, then they should take every step necessary to provide full compensation to the consumer. If you have any questions regarding product liability law or suffered an injury due to the use of an unsafe product, please contact our firm for a free consultation.

According to ConsumerAffairs.com, hundreds of Toyota Prius owners have been complaining about a headlamp related problem since 2006. The complaints are similar: the headlamps flicker and then go out. Some Prius owners had their headlights go out while they were driving at night, and one person in particular was going around a blind curve at night when the lights went out. When owners take their Prius to the dealership to have the problem fixed, the price to cost the problem can range between $300-$2000, depending on if it is mechanical or electrical, or, if it is electrical, how extensive the electrical issue. For those who had their headlamps fixed or replaced, many of the headlamps would fail to function normally—either they pointed to high or low, would not adjust properly, or would go out again in as little as 6 months. Needless to say this is a costly burden to loyal Toyota customers.

The good news is Toyota Motor Corp. is going to alleviate this costly burden. They have agreed to settle the class action lawsuit regarding the faulty headlamps in its 2006 to 2009 Prius hybrids, which resulted in at least 2,500 complaints from motorists. The complaint stated that Toyota concealed the problems from owners even though the automaker had long been aware of the problem, a problem the suit called a “dangerous but undisclosed safety defect.” Under the terms of the settlement, eligible Prius owners will be reimbursed for their costs to fix failing headlamp systems. They will also get their warranties for headlight problems extended to five years or 50,000 miles, instead of the standard three years or 36,000 miles. Toyota can now rest assured that they have put the 2006-2009 behind them, which means no more court appearances, no recalls, and they can begin to rebuild their reputation of being a car company that deliverers quality and reliability—as they have faced several lawsuits over the past few years regarding sudden acceleration, all of which have damaged their image.

If you feel you have a product liability claim or have a question about product liability law as it pertains to a particular incident that happened to you, please contact our firm. We have over 10 years experience fighting and winning product liability suits and would be happy to consult with you regarding a potentential claim.

California Watch reported last week that, since 2010, five lawsuits have been filed against nursing home operators, all of which allege neglect or abuse due insufficient staffing. The lawsuits are a “big wake-up call,"according an attorney representing one of the plaintiffs. State data was used by prosecuting attorneys to identify nursing home chains and facilities that provided inadequate numbers of staff, and their message is clear: the practice of earning profits through understaffing is no longer acceptable, now that plaintiffs are fighting back. Complaints by the plaintiffs varied and include: being left unattended, call lights were left unheeded; received inadequate help with getting to the bath room, which resulted in sitting in a urine-soaked bed for yours; one resident was not moved enough to avoid developing bed sores; inadequate assistance with eating and rough handling by staff; being drugged until feeling sleepy and groggy; surgery to correct bedsores.

As we have stated before, deciding to place a family member in a nursing home is painful and difficult. Some families, however, have no other choice when the medical and physical demands make other options impossible. Choosing the right and appropriate home is not a task to be taken lightly. Families should make an appointment to tour each home in which they are interested. During each tour they should ask to see more than the public areas and visit several residents' rooms. And, if possible, families should try to walk through the facility on their own, which will allow them to experience it without input from staff or the managing director, who may have a one-sided biased interpretation. Also, It is advisable for families to meet the other caregivers, faculty, and staff, and establish a relationship with them, and make sure that their loved ones receive care in a manner and in an environment that promotes dignity and respect. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe there is no substitute for visiting and seeing for yourself if a particular nursing home is acceptable—we have heard too many horror stories from families about relatives that were neglected or abused due to lack of oversight.

Another story of nursing home abuse has made the headlines again. This new story took place in Fair Oaks, California. According to the Sacramento Bee, a man named Sean Suh installed a video camera, referred to as a “grannycam,” beside his grandmother’s bed at the time she moved into residential care. He did so because he wanted to make sure that the staff was aware that his grandmother, Kyong Hui Duncan, was being watched and that her family cared for her. Sadly his grandmother, who was 73, died from a variety of problems that, as Shu sees it, were a direct result of abuse she suffered at Fair Oaks Residential Elderly Care.

Suh found the "grannycam" unplugged during many of his visits to his grandmother--and is the main reason the family was seeking a new facility. Shu did recover a short video in which a staff member is seen violently shaking Duncan while in her wheelchair. That clip is the major reason for California’s decision to shut down Fair Oaks and the civil lawsuit filed by Duncan’s family in which abuse, neglect, and wrongful death are alleged. When his grandmother began presenting with gashes and bruises and was apparently “drugged,” Suh sought a new home, but when he found a new place, and then he received a the call that she had passed away.

Suh’s complaint led to an investigation, which then led to an order by California Department of Social Services to shut down the facility. The State of California is seeking permanent revocation of the home’s license. The evidence and allegations against them are damaging. One piece of evidence is a video showing a staff member move Duncan to her wheelchair, then dump the chair backward while shaking the wheelchair. Other allegations are that staff did not appropriately restrain Duncan and neglected to respond to her in a timely manner after she fell. There were also occasions in which Duncan suffered from bruises and untreated infections. Her autopsy report showed toxic narcotic levels that indicated there was at least one drug in her system that had never been prescribed by her doctor. The lawsuit charges that a combination of factors ultimately contributed to Duncan’s death. Other accusations against the facility include fire code violations, inappropriate disposal of contaminated needles, forging prescriptions, and using expired prescription medications.

If you or a loved on has suffered injuries due to abuse at a nursing home or if you have questions regarding elder abuse law, please contact our firm.

http://The term third-hand smoke is a relatively new term that troubles some researchers and non-smokers. According to a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, and as is discussed in Scientific American, third-hand smoke is a cocktail of toxins that linger in carpets, sofas, clothes and other materials hours or even days after a cigarette is put out, and it is a health hazard for infants and children. The study shows that most people surveyed agreed second-hand smoke is dangerous, but not all agreed that third-hand smoke can harm the health of infants. Third hand smoke actually refers to the toxins that remain and then pile up over time, coating the surfaces of a room. In small spaces the build up is heavy and noticeable, in larger spaces it is less visable—but that does not mean the smoke can not enter a child’s nose. Smokers, too, are contaminated and actually emit toxins from both their clothing and hair.
The toxins may be difficult to quantify, nevertheless they are present after the cigarette is put out. Consider the this: cyanide, a chemical that interferes with the release of oxygen to the tissues, and arsenic, a poisen used to kill mammals, are present in cigarette smoke. These toxins can build in layers on surfaces, such as floors, and pose a greater risk to children, simply because they are the ones exposed to these surfaces. They also ingest twice the amount of dust as adults, as they are have faster respiration and are closer to dusty surfaces. The developing brain is especially susceptible to low levels of toxins. As a result of these new revelations, several courts have recognized the right of children to be protected from thirdhand smoke. For example, in custody disputes, some judges have stipulated that there be no smoking 24 to 48 hours before a child is expected to arrive and smoking-- or banned even when the child is not present, thereby protecting them from third-hand smoke. This new information shows that as more people become aware of the dangers of tobacco smoke residue, both judges and legislators will face the challenge of extending to nonsmokers the same protections from third-hand smoke as are provided from second-hand smoke.

According to newsinferno.com, Depuy Orthopaedics ASR hip implant were recalled last year and continue to claim victims, and the recall was not limited to the U.S. Globally, there have been thousands of hip replacements that utilized the Depuy implants. The Depuy hip replacement is a metal-on-metal hip implant that is made of chromium and cobalt, and the implant contains a cup that is implanted into the hip, and ball and joint that connect to the leg. The recall was issued after research showed that 1 out of every 8 patients who had received the implant had to have an addition surgery to fix failing implants only after 5 years, instead of the expected 15 years. Additional research also suggested that the implants have a high failure rate, especially in patients of small stature. Also, it is speculated that the complications with the implant have to do with the breakdown of the metal components, which release metal shavings that end up in the bloodstream. The result is cobalt poisoning, a dangerous condition that increases the risk of health problems, of which include dementia or heart failure.

Now, many patients around the globe are seeking legal action against the manufacturer, which happens to be a division of Johnson and Johnson. Many who received the implants may need additional surgery, but everyone who received the implant has a potential claim against the manufacturer, as well as the distributor. Already, patients in the U.S. have filed lawsuits and claims against Depuy, and more are likely to be filed. Also, just recently, all federal lawsuits against DePuy were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Ohio. Depuy is recommending that implant patients have their blood tested to check for high levels of chromium and cobalt. If you or someone you love suffered an injury due to the use of a defective product or if you have questions regarding a potential claim, please contact our firm. We have over 10 years experience fighting for the victims of defective products.

According to sfexaminer.com, on average, 22 pedestrians are killed each year in San Francisco and 800 are injured, which means over two walkers are hurt every day on city streets. Almost 50 percent of all traffic deaths in San Francisco are pedestrians, an amount more than four times the national average. Pedestrian accidents in San Francisco cost the city millions every year. To address this point, Mayor Gavin Newsom issued an executive directive that outlines goals to cut down serious traffic injuries and fatalities 25 percent by 2016, and 50 percent by 2021.

The directive states nine short-term goals, one of which includes a plan to reduce speed limits in school zones to 15 mph, the threshold for which pedestrians can struck by a car and survive, according to Walk SF. The directive also orders new approaches to secure funding for traffic-calming projects, stronger emphasis of pedestrian realms in all planning projects, and increased outreach with community organizations. Newsom is also creating a new Pedestrian Safety Task Force, which will be comprised of officials from SFMTA, the Department of Public Health, the San Francisco Police Department and other city agencies. He also wants a coordinated Citywide Pedestrian Action Plan to be established within 12 months.

Considering the fact that pedestrians account for about half the people killed in traffic collisions in San Francisco, it goes without saying that spending time and money to prevent such accidents is time and money well spent. At the same time this new directive will ultimately save the city money, money it usually spends to settle accident claims--it is estimated that collisions on San Francisco Streets cost the city $280 million a year, or about $350 per resident per year. Included in those costs are medical care, property damage, insurance expenses and loss of income. If you or a loved one suffered an injury due to a collision on the street, please contact our firm. We have over 10 experience winning injured pedestrians the compensation they deserve.

On December 29th, two dogs, a boxer and a Labrador, attacked Bob Ferguson, a 78-year-old IBM retiree, who was walking his small dog in a quiet cul-de-sac in the Blossom Bill neighborhood, according to San Jose Mercury News. Ferguson said that the dogs did not make a sound at the time they charged him. He was bit on his ear, head, and arm and had to go to the emergency, where he received 10 stitches in his ear. He believes he would be dead if a neighbor had not seen the attack and chased the dogs away. Another of Ferguson’s neighbors said the same two dogs attacked his German shepherd just days before, which cost the family $660 at the Veterinarian. They fear the dogs could attack children next.

San Jose city officials have initiated what is called a “dangerous dog attack” investigation based on the attack on Ferguson, and there will be a public hearing to decide what to do about the dogs and the owner. If it is decided that the attack remains in the category of “dangerous” and not “vicious,” then it probable that the dogs will be allowed to live under the condition that their owner buys liability insurance and takes strict measures to secure them. At the end of this story, the main thing Ferguson is left wondering is: “Why would a person living in a quiet neighborhood need two big, threatening dogs for protection?” Here at the Brod Law Firm, we agree. It is unfortunate that some dog lovers place their taste for aggressive dogs above the welfare of their neighbors-- a dangerous hobby that seems to be gaining popularity.

If you or a loved one suffered an injury due to a dog bite and wonder if you have grounds to file a claim, please contact our firm today. Or if you questions regarding Dog Bite Law in California, please contact our Dog Bite Injury Attorney today. Our firm has over 10 years experience fighting for the victims of dog bites, and we have the expertise to win you the compensation you deserve.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced First Class Foods, Inc., of Hawthorne, California, is recalling approximately 34,373 pounds of organic ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and, in some severe cases, kidney failure. The USDA has classified the recall as a Class I, meaning it is a health hazard and the use of the product will probably cause serious, if not, adverse health consequences or death. The problem was discovered through company microbiological sampling. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact a physician. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. The following products are subject to recall:
• 16-oz. packages of “NATURE’S HARVEST ORGANIC GROUND BEEF BRICK” sold singly with one of the following “USE or FREEZE by” dates: “12/30/10″ or “01/08/11.”
• 16-oz. packages of “ORGANIC HARVEST ORGANIC GROUND BEEF BRICK” sold singly and in three-packs with one of the following “USE or FREEZE by” dates: “12/28/10″ or “01/06/11.”
• 16-oz. packages of NATURE’S HARVEST GROUND PATTY” containing four (4) 4-oz. patties with the following “USE or FREEZE by” date: “12/30/10″ or “01/08/11″

Each package label bears the establishment number EST. 18895, as well as the identifying Pack Date of 10341 and 10350 Julian dates. The contaminated products were produced on December 7 and 16, 2010, and were shipped to retail establishments in California, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Washington State. As they are made available, the retail distribution lists will be posted on FSIS’ website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp. Also, consumers can contact the firm, toll-free, at 1-888-843-8016 or can check the website at www.firstclassfoods.com.

If you or a loved one suffered an injury due to the use a defective or contaminated product, please contact our firm for a free consultation. If you have questions regarding product liability law or if you want to know if you have grounds to file a claim, please call us. We have over 10 years experience handling product liability claims and will help you win the compensation you deserve.