San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

Last week Mayor Gavin Newsom submitted a new piece of legislation to the Board of Supervisors: a citywide ban on sitting or lying on public sidewalks, including in front of your house. He introduced the legislation in response to the harassment of pedestrians and merchants by street persons, especially the harassing that takes place in the Haight on a daily basis. Similar ordinances are in effect in other cities, including Santa Cruz, Seattle, Wash., and Austin, Texas. The legislation consists of the following:
• No sitting or lying on sidewalks from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily
• Dogs cannot be more than 2 feet away from owner when stationary
• Offenders must be warned first
• Upon first conviction, fines of $50 to $100 or community service
• Upon second violation, 10 days in jail or a fine of $300 to 500 or both.
• Third and subsequent violations would be subject up to $500 fine and 30 days in jail
• Areas could include most commercial districts
• Restrictions from placing or leaving an object on a side walk” unless the object is in hand or with two feet of the person’s nearest foot
Added last minute to the legislation was a provision requiring the Police Department to report on its enforcement of the law to both the board and the mayor within a year of its implementation.

Some might say that the homeless are being used as political scapegoats and that this is an effort to begin criminalizing homelessness. And some may say that it will cost taxpayers millions of dollars to defend before it overturned like the one in Portland or that it could be a great success like similar programs in Seattle, Santa Cruz, and Austin. Some might say what a joke it is to give homeless people a citation they can’t pay or send them to jail as punishment. Would a cold, hungry person consider going to jail a punishment or a relief? If you think about it, under this sit/lie law, jail would simply become a place where a homeless person can receive free shelter and food (without needing to make appointment!). Jail would become like another branch of social services, and the police would become like social workers, taxing clients from the streets to shelter, then back to the streets. Brilliant! Here at the Brod Law Firm we believe homelessness is, essentially, a national issue, not just a state or city issue, and, despite the mayor’s efforts to fix the problem, there really is no easy fix.

Last week a lawsuit filed by the Bologna family, the family whose father and two sons were fatally shot in 2008, against the city of San Francisco was thrown out. The presiding judge, Charlotte Woolard, ruled that the surviving members of the Bologna family can’t sue the city for allegedly harboring accused murderer Edwin Ramos from federal immigration authorities under federal immigration laws. In her ruling she stated: “In California and in their jurisdictions, it is well established that public entities generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime.” Unlike injury cases where public entities and local jurisdiction can be held liable for injuries suffered at those locations, criminal cases do not follow the same rule. The lawsuit also claimed that that Ramos, an alleged illegal immigrant, had been previously arrested multiple times for violence and drug offenses, and the city failed to notify immigration enforcement. It is interesting to note that the Bologna family had also filed suit in federal court in 2008, and that that suit was also dismissed last year after a U.S. district judge reached the same conclusion. The crime and the criminal’s immigration status are two separate issues (issues that are too complex for the purposes of this blog), the former having no bearing on the latter.

Here at the Brod law firm, complex and tragic cases like this always leave us pondering the nature of justice, really. After all the lawsuits are filed, who is the last person to blame? Of course the person with the gun is the one responsible, but often the families of victims, such as this case shows, believe more than one person be held responsible--which is completely understandable-- in the face of the facts. It is hard to fathom the depth of grief any family feels after such a monstrous crime. Obviously, the family in this case has to come to terms with the result of the lawsuit; but, more importantly, they must come to terms with the deaths of their family members. We have seen our own clients face similar challenges during wrongful death lawsuits. Clients sometimes alienate themselves behind a lawsuit, thereby making it harder to accept and deal with their loss. It is an arduous task coming to terms with death of a loved one; it requires a courageous act of allowing the full measure of grief to penetrate one’s faculties and then by adjusting one’s life accordingly. Let’s be clear, in no way do we claim to be experts on the subject of grieving. Consequently, we always recommend victims’ families to seek out the appropriate form of grief counseling.

Poor MUNI. It seems MUNI just can’t get a break these days. Our wonderful city’s transit system is being buried alive under a huge deficit, and its riders are going down with it. Anyone concerned about the current proposed MUNI service cuts and fare increases should attend the SFMTA meeting on Friday February 26 in Room 400 at City Hall at 9am. These are hard times for MUNI, as their budget is out of control, there has already been a ton of service cuts, people are just starting to get used to paying more for their fast passes, and violence on buses and bus crashes continue. So it is imperative that MUNI riders speak up regarding issues that pertain to their safety and financial well-being during this Friday’s morning meeting. There you can offer your ideas on how MUNI can balance its budget.

There is no doubt that the most significant factor in the agency's recent budget crises is the state's cut of transit funds—the MTA has lost $179.1 million in State Transit Assistance funding over the past three fiscal years. Now, the MTA is proposing more service cuts to Muni in order to close a $16.9 million projected budget gap through the end of the fiscal year. The cuts are as bad as the ones introduced in December, and, if approved, are scheduled to go into effect in May. Some of the changes include reducing frequencies on every Muni line; increasing fares on services including the F-line, express routes, and cable cars; and charging MTA employees for parking. The major factors affecting the deficit are:
• the projected increases in the cost of benefits including health, retirement, and other benefits, which add up to about $37 million over two years;
• an increase in incremental operating costs from capital projects, including TransLink, onboard video cameras, and NextMuni, adding up to $29 million over two years;
• economy-related decreases in income from fees and fines; and
• $42.2 the agency had in its funds this year that won't be available in coming years.

This meeting could be MUNI riders’ last chance to voice their opinion. And the meetings are sure to arouse anger among riders who are already feeling the burden of service cuts and fare hikes. Since there is no organization focused on making Muni better, it is up current MUNI riders to come together during scheduled meetings such as the one this Friday. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe riders can make a difference by voicing their opinions now, before the changes are approved and implemented.

Last week San Francisco Police Chief George Gascon promised to put in place significant crime reducing policies, including implementing crosswalk stings—like the ones recently conducted by the Ingleside Police Department. SFPD spokeperson Lt. Lynn Tomioka said that crosswalk stings are good way to educate drivers about being aware of the danger they pose to pedestrians. She also said that they want to see all stations become involved, not just the pilot station. Sting operations are the best way to reduce vehicle-pedestrian collisions. Some common reasons for pedestrian-auto crashes are:
• drivers do no yield to pedestrians,
• drivers run red lights or turning on red without stopping for pedestrians,
• and pedestrians crossing on red signals or jaywalking.

Back in November the San Francisco Examiner reported that the number of pedestrian fatalities in 2009 had reached 23. According to the report, nearly half of the traffic fatalities in San Francisco are pdedstrians—which is four times the national average. And a study by Transportation for America found that San Francisco ranks second for the highest percentage of traffic deaths among 10 metro areas. Motorists seem to have forgotten the law, a law that is so simple: if a pedestrian steps into the street in the path of a motorist, the motorist must stop and remain stopped until the pedestrian crosses. Easy. But motorists usually and inevidably have all kinds of excuses for breaking the law. Some may claim they did not see the pedestrian or the sun was in their eyes. Some claim they did not know the law requiring them to yield to pedestrians. But most of the time drivers are simply distracted by cell phones or are just caught up in different aspects of life. Here at the Brod Law Firm we suspect some motorists just don’t care. Just the other day, I saw a motorist quickly approach an intersection with no traffic signals and make eye contact with a pedestrian who entered the crosswalk. Then the motorist barrelled through the intersection and flipped off the pedestrian at the same time. Lovely. Drivers need to remember to always slow down for pedestrians, no matter what mood they are in. Most importantly, drivers should realize that automobiles are lethal weapons and not an extension of their egos or libidos—contrary to what the automobile industry would prefer us to believe.

It is no secret that obesity is an epidemic in this country and that not knowing the nutritional content of the foods we eat can lead to weight gain. Remember Jones v. Dineequity, the class action lawsuit brought against Applebee’s Restaurants for advertising inaccurate nutritional content of its Weight Watchers menu items? Well, it is becoming more and more obvious that people make better, healthier decisions when equipped with the right tools, such as accurate nutritional information. A new study from Seattle Children's Research Institute shows that parents pick healthier foods for their children if they understand more about the meals they are buying. In the study, parents were given a hypothetical fast food menu on which nutritional contents were displayed next to menu items. The study found that parents chose items that had fewer calories than what they would normally select and suggests that labeled menus can result in reducing the calories eaten at restaurants. New York has already adopted restaurant menu labeling regulations, and legislation that would require federal labeling standards, known as the Lean Act (H.R. 1398), is currently making its way through the legislative process.

The LEAN Act would provide consumers dining out at chain restaurants with comprehensive nutritional labeling informationin menu items—such as fat, carbohydrate and sugar content, not just calorie content-- and allow them to make decisions suited for their specific health needs. The Lean Act is based on the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which provides consumers with comprehensive nutrition information in packed food items. Under the LEAN Act, restaurants would also be required to post statements on their menu boards indicating that the daily caloric intake is 2000 calories. Just as the NLEA has had a powerful effect on choices Americans make at the grocery store, the LEAN Act can provide millions consumers with the opportunity to create profound changes, in terms of health conscious choices, when dining out. Here at the Brod Law Firm we believe passing of the LEAN Act is an important step government can take to protect consumers from inadvertently hurting themselves when eating at restaurants. And considering the current debate over health care reform, the passing of this bill would be a means of preventive care for millions of Americans who want to take a proactive approach to their health.

This week the Bay Area has been slammed by a series of storms that are sweeping across California. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we have been wondering how drivers and cyclists are coping out there in the rain and wind. On their own bicycling and driving are innately dangerous – if you combine those with a storm and roads full of traffic, you have a recipe for injury accidents. We have helped many clients who have been injured while driving in hazardous conditions, and we have simple advice for both cars drivers and cyclist when it is raining: Keep your speed down, keep your distance, and drive defensively. At the same time, however, since cars are bigger and faster than bicycles and can turn into deadly weapens during wet weather, we do have more specific tips for drivers on how to drive in the rain.

On rainy days, you should remember that even a light layer of moisture on the roadway can cause a vehicle to hydroplane. And if you find yourself hydroplaning don't stomp of the brakes. This could send you into a spin. It is better to ease off the brakes and into a spin. If you drive through a puddle, or a series of puddles, you should gently tap your brake pedal. It is probably a good idea to tap the brakes several times until they respond safely and adequately. Tapping the breaks helps squeeze out any accumulated water that has built up in your braking system .
It is also important for you to slow your vehicle to match the speed of the majority of other vehicles on the roadway and drive on the outside lane, if possible. If it hasn't rained for a while, you should be extra careful. A lot of oils are excreted on to and into the road surface from trucks, cars, vans and motorcycles. This oil builds up and becomes very greasy and slick when it rains. You should also make sure no one is driving too fast from behind; if you see someone much faster than you, lightly tap your brakes a few times as a signal that you are going slower. But remember, if you are going a lot slower than the majority of the traffic, you may be rear-ended by a careless or distraced driver.
You should always plan ahead and make sure you have plenty of time to get to your destination. Keep in mind road conditions and choose alternative routes so you don't need to rush around in the rain. If the rain is coming down hard while you are driving, and the road is not visible to you, you might need to pull over until the weather lightens up-- be sure you pull far enough off the road so others who continue to drive will not hit you. Leave your flashers on and every few minutes tap your brakes so others will see your taillights. And never forget: that even if you doeverything right, not everyone drives safely or pays attention.

When the state of California took millions in transit aid to reduce its budget deficit, it severely hurt city transportation agencies—since most agencies are already strapped with their own deficit, including our MUNI. Last August, Genesis, a local group of public advocates, along with representatives from the other transportation advocate and agencies from accross the country, gathered in Chicago to speak out and call on Congress to stop the trend of transit service cuts, fare hikes, and operating budget shortages. During the press event, speakers described the dismal fiscal conditions of most of the major transit agencies around the country and offered solutions for how to get them out of the hole. They specifically referenced a report by Transportation for America titled “Stranded at the Station”. According to the report, in 2008, Americans took 10.7 billion transit trips, the highest since 1956. Advocates and community leaders say funding cuts have hurt people living in vulnerable demographics, as cuts to service make it difficult to get work, school or doctor appointments To that, the president of Genesis Reverend Scott Denman says this: “Our government says it is concerned about greenhouse gases, claims that government is by the people, for the people. Nonetheless, Federal policy currently encourages more cars on the road and less help for those who have no cars.”

Just last week, The Mercury News put out a special report on the devastating effects of service cuts on Bay Area residents who rely on public transportation. In the report a graphic depicts just how slow and expensive common regional commutes are on transit. What more will public transit agencies need to pay their bills? Here in San Francisco, Muni has raised fares twice in one fiscal year, increased parking rates and reconfigured service on its bus and train routes to deal with budget problems. If things do not change at the national level and state transit funding is not reinstated, then AC Transit and other regional transit operators will continue to be forced to cut service, raise fares, and continue to debase the transportation system— and consequently remove it as viable option for Bay Area residents. At this point, almost $22 million is still needed to close MUNI’s projected budget deficit, a dilemma that has forced the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), the agency that oversees Muni, to ask its commercial vendors to help ease the transit agency’s debt. The department is requesting that private businesses voluntarily reduce their contracts with the agency by a minimum of 3 percent for the next 2 ½ years. Judson True, spokesman for the agency, believes this will save the agency “several million dollars.”

Another way the (SFMTA) could have raised millions in annual revenue would have been by extending parking meter hours to Sundays and nights, but that recommendation was recently rejected by the mayor. What is truly sad about this crisis is that the people who depend on public transit most are paying higher fares for less service, as some routes have had parts cut or were completely eliminated. As pointed out above, some of the most vulnerable people are now faced with walking longer distances or drive their cars to reach their destinations. MUNI may also become less safe and clean in the future. The SFMTA announced last week that it is going to lay off 24 parking and control officers and four mechanics, 10 people who clean trains and buses and a few others. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we wonder if fewer people will ride MUNI due to all the cuts to service and safety—which may lead to a complete melt down of the system, traffic congestion (that is if those left stranded even own a car)and poorer air quality.

This headline caught our attention: “Teen charged with murder and vehicular manslaughter in death of 66-year-old Oakland woman”. On December 31st, a 17 year old stole a car and was chased by police. During the chase he lost control of the car and slammed into anther, killing a woman and injuring the other individuals in the car. This is a classic case of a robbery gone wrong. This kid, about to turn 18, will now face murder and vehicular manslaughter charges instead of theft charges. In a matter of seconds he went from car thief to murderer. Here at the Brod Law Firm, stories like this leave us wondering why individuals choose crime. We think peer pressure is a critical factor in the life of a teenager who turns to crime. Some teenagers feel lost and join gangs or cave into peer pressure in order to acquire sense of self and belonging. And adult criminals may claim that that hard economic times or difficult childhood forced them into a life of crime.

Hard economic times affect us all, and very few people have had perfect childhoods. However, some people respond to economic pressure by adapting to living with less and hard work. Others respond to adversity by striving to achieve more than what has been shown to them. With that said, sociological explanations for crime are often inadequate when trying to understand all the reasons why a person turns to crime. If such explanations were correct, then we are all potential criminals. Ultimately, it comes down to how each person chooses to deal with adversity, rather than just environmental factors. It is unjustified to assume that a person living in disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances has no other choice than to become live a life of crime. Usually, what lies in a criminal’s psychology is a mystery, a mystery that sometimes not even the most talented sociologist or psychiatrist can decipher or deconstruct. Not all children who grow up in difficult circumstances turn to crime and not all children from families that are stable and loving are law abiding. Here at the Brod Law Firm the personal injury story serves as an analogy to all of this, as our office is like a microcosm of society. We have heard and taken on enough heart- wrenching and tragic cases to feel assured that the individual who has been injured by the negligence of another, despite any compensation they receive, is responsible for how they cope with tragedy and choosing whether or not they move forward with a positive attitude. More often than not, we are inspired by the courage and positive attitudes our clients display during, what is for most, the most difficult time in their lives.

Legislation was introduced this month that would prohibit smoking in public spaces, spaces such as farmers’ markets, outdoor seating areas of restaurants, cafes and coffee shops, and common areas of multiunit housing complexes. Smoking would also be banned from entrances, exits, and windows and vents of all buildings, while waiting in lines at ATMs, theaters, athletic events, concert venues and cab stands. Smoking would be allowed at the curb of sidewalks, streets and alleys. And if there is no curb, then smoking would be prohibited within 15 feet of entrances or exits. Also, smoking would be allowed at least 20 feet from transit shelters, boarding areas and ticket lines. Under the legislation, smokers who break the rules would face a $100 fine for the first offence and up to $500 for multiple offenses. All of these provisions have been introduced to protect residents from second hand smoke.

No one will deny that secondhand smoke is harmful . A recent report put out by the Institute of Medicine has confirmed that exposure to secondhand smoke is a significant cause of heart attacks among nonsmokers and that relatively brief exposure to second hand smoke can cause acute coronary events. And the CDC declares that, in addition to protecting people from secondhand smoke, smoke-free laws also help decrease cigarette consumption rates. If the ban passes, the tobacco industry and some businesses will probably challenge the ban, over fears of losing customers.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe smoking bans are good for both smokers and non-smokers. But we wonder, if the legislation passes--and it probably will, as public support, awareness and implementation of similar bans is on the rise in cities around the globe-- how city officials will enforce the law? Will heavy fines be enough of a deterrent? We are guessing that enforcement will be driven by complaints made to the police (it is hard to imagine health officials hiring smoking patrols). More than likely, though, the pesky cigarette and smoker will be gone by the time they receive a call or before they have a chance to respond. So it seems a more formalized system of enforcement would still be needed, especially with provisions that have specific distance requirements, such as 20 feet from a bus shelter. What if a smoker is smoking 20 feet and one inch from a bus shelter or only 19 feet? How will anyone know the difference? Will the police start carrying measuring tapes? Plus, there are no guarantees that smoke will completely dissipate once it has lingered up to a distance of 20 feet. Smoke that lingers toward a bus shelter from 19 feet away will not know, under the new law, it is only allowed one more foot. And besides, everyone knows smoke does not have feelings or care if it breaks the law.

Within the month Toyota will begin a massive recall on 4.26 million cars and trucks going back to the 2002 model year due to faulty gas pedals. Toyota claims that the gas pedal design makes them vulnerable to being trapped by floor mats and that the recall aims to reduce the vehicles risk of accelerating out of control. According to the Los Angeles Times, the action follows widespread reports of runaway Toyota and Lexus vehicles. They also reported that sudden acceleration incidents involving Toyota-made cars and trucks have claimed 19 lives since the 2002 model year, which federal officials say is more than all other manufacturers combined, and that at least 1,000 incidents of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles, documented in consumer complaints, have occurred within the last eight years. Toyota said it will cut off about three-quarters of an inch from the bottom of the pedal to reduce the risk of the mat snagging and jamming the gas pedal, replace all-weather rubber floor mats and replace thick padding under the carpeting of certain models with thinner pads to allow more clearance between the pedal and floor . And as an additional precaution, Toyota said most of the software in the vehicle’s engine control system would be modified so that the brake overrides the accelerator if both pedals are pressed at the same time.

For decades, auto makers, not just Toyota, have blamed sudden acceleration on the drivers, denying the fault lies with the cars. We all know how dreadful it feels to have the tables turned on us after someone has harmed us; surely this is how survivors of sudden acceleration feel when they are told by auto makers that they are inadvertently at fault. Since the introduction of electronics into auto design in the 1970’s, electronics control almost every auto function, thus changing the relationship between car and driver. This invention has created the possibility of sudden acceleration and other random electrical faults that are impossible to trace, unlike older, non-electrical engines whose defects were mechanical in nature and could be verified by physical inspection. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we are glad to see the truth about the phenomenon of sudden acceleration beginning to emerge, and we believe this recall will result in fewer injury accidents for Toyota owners.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is back in the spotlight. Recent testing by Consumer Reports of canned foods found that most of the 19 name-brand foods they tested contained measurable levels of (BPA). BPA has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and is restricted in Canada and some U. S. States and municipalities because it has been linked to a wide range of health effects. It turns out BPA is also used to line the inside of canned goods so the metal does not interact with the food and deteriorate. A different report put out by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, back in May, found that participants who drank for a week from polycarbonate bottles, including baby bottles, showed a two-thirds increase in their urine of BPA, suggesting that drinking containers made with BPA release the chemical into the container’s contents-- enough to be measured in urine. The results also showed that the participants’ urinary BPA concentrations increased 69% after drinking from the polycarbonate bottles.
Federal guidelines currently put the daily limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight---based on experiments done in the 1980’s. But scientific evidence confirms that BPA at lower doses can be dangerous. Environmentcalifornia.org researchers found that BPA at low doses is associated with developmental problems, lower sperm count, breast and prostate cancers, diabetes and obesity, heart disease, Down Syndrome, behavioral changes, and miscarriage. According to a FOX News report, Dr Urvashi Rangan, the director of Technical Policy, at Consumers Union, a nonprofit publisher of Consumer reports, said,” The lack of any safety margin between the levels that cause harm in animals and those that people could potentially ingest from canned foods has been inadequately addressed by the FDA to date.” The good news is that efforts to bring about change are being made. The Consumers Union recently sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, requesting that the agency act this year to ban the use of BPA in food and beverage-content materials. And the FDA is expected to reassess the safety of BPA and issue its findings by the end this month. Currently, bills are pending in Congress that would ban the use PBA in all food and beverage containers. Here at the Brod Law Firm we would like to see a day when the FDA imposes stricter regulations not just on BPA, but on all toxic substances. All of us born under the nuclear and DDT age have been exposed far too long to too many toxins--such as radiation, pesticides, as well as medications and vaccines--that, now, it’s time for a change.

Here at the Brod Law Firm, we are big fans of Streetfilms.org, the video segment of the Livable Streets Initiative. Streetfilms produce short on-line videos, covering a range of topics from traffic calming in Paris to Sunday Streets in Bogata, also known as Ciclovia (an event after which San Francisco modeled its Sundaystreets). There is also video posted on Streetsblog that capture street confrontations, such as that between a New York City driver with a serious case of road rage and a pedicab simply trying to make his way through the congested city streets. We find all their videos entertaining and educational, giving us insight, while also keeping us in loop, into how our city compares to other cities in terms of the different ways a city can transform its streets into safe and sustainable places, for both vehicles and non-vehicles, as well as livable, vibrant places for social interaction.
The video on traffic calming in Paris we found especially interesting and inspiring. Some examples of their traffic calming strategies are: curbs are removed so that bikes, pedistrians and cars coexist; on the wider roads, bikes share lanes with buses and taxis; some crosswalks are raised, and cobblestone streets and neckdowns are implemented to slow oncomoing or turning traffic. Street calming is a powerful tool for changing behavior and improving safety, as it forces vehicles and cyclists and pedestrians to tolerate each other. And it is not just Paris, other cities, like Copenhagen, Demark, have been implemented extensive traffic calming techniques. Some cities go further to promote non-vehicle transportation, such as Curitiba, Brazil, where, on Rua XV de Novembro (15th of November Street), all vehicle traffic is blocked and only pedestrians are allowed.
Whenever we take on a new case where a cyclist or pedestrian has been injured by a vehicle, we are reminded that these accidents only reinforce San Francisco’s need for street transformation and street calming. In order for San Francisco to maintain a competitive edge in the global economy and its status as a world class city, it must implement, through education and marketing, strategies that place people over cars and reduce the convenience of driving a car. Advertising campaigns that show the burdens of owning a car in the city often outweigh the benefits can be an effective impetus for change. And we need not look to cities overseas for inspiration; cities here in the U.S., like Portland and Cincinnati, have done an excellent job developing and implementing techniques for traffic calming. If they can do it, then San Francisco can do it. These traffic calming techniques would not only benefit pedestrians and cyclists here in our beautiful city, they would also benefit the entire planet by reducing green house gas emissions.