San Francisco Injury Lawyer Blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

Between 1946 and 1964, 78 million babies were born in the U.S., creating a surge in population and a demographic bulge not seen before in the U.S. The babies of that generation, known as the baby boomer generation, grew up with rebellious and idealistic attitudes that promised to reshape society and the world. Boomers are expected to live longer than previous generations. By 2030, 20% of Americans will be over 65 and more than 35% will be over 50. Men are expected to live 22 years longer that previous generations, and women are expected to live 25 years longer. Now, as many of the first baby boomers are moving through their 60’s, one question remains: will baby boomers move through their next phase of life with health and vitality, or will they carry it out with the pain and disability associated with degenerative and chronic diseases? Evidence shows that many boomers are healthier both physically and mentally than their parents and are aging more slowly due to better eating habits and more exercise (just drive through Marin on sunny Saturday or Sunday and you will likely see many boomers on race bikes zip past you while you are sitting in traffic). But another scenario is that boomers could place a tremendous demand and burden on medicare, professional care givers, and family members if they become frail and dependent.

Whether at home or nursing home or care facility, potentially all aging persons will be exposed to some sort of abuse or neglect. Often, abuse and neglect of an elder in a nursing home or other type of care facility is profit driven. Even hospice care facilities have the same financial pressures as other elder care facilities and may sometimes neglect to offer a care rather than pay for expensive treatments related to a terminal diagnosis. Caregiver stress is also a risk factor for abuse and neglect. Family members who are thrown into the demands of daily care of an elder can feel frustration and anger. Professionally trained caregivers can experience the same intense frustration and anger as a family member who is not appropriately trained and may use physical force or neglect an elder person as a way of dealing with the situation that they feel they can’t manage.

Sometimes elders are subjected to a different kind of abuse, a malicious type of abuse known as financial abuse and it can range from scams created by salespeople, such as salespeople from drug companies, to misuse of elders funds by a care facility or family member. Financial abuse or exploitation includes taking money under false pretenses or denying an elderly person what is theirs either forced or without the older person’s knowledge. When this happens, it usually goes undiscovered until someone who cares about the older notices an unexplainable bill or funds missing from that persons account. Financial abuse is pervasive in the lives of the elderly because it can go on for long periods undetected or without ever being discovered. A person can die not knowing they were exploited for a profit or cheated by someone they trusted or loved. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we have a seen these kinds of cases first hand and have the experience and knowledge needed to help an abused elderly person or the family of an abused person.

Tomorrow San Francisco will be joining cities from 42 countries around the world to celebrate International Walk to School Day. International Walk to School Day aims to create safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists and to emphasize the importance of issues such as increasing physical activity among children, reducing traffic congestion and crime in neighborhoods, raising concern for the environment, and building connections between families and schools and the broader community. The biggest challenge facing any pedestrian safety campaign will be to re-educate a culture so centered around and dependent upon using their cars to transport them every place. The US department of Transportation reports:
• On average, 5,000 pedestrians are killed each year.
• 85,000 pedestrians are injured every year.
• In a typical 8-hour workday, 4-5 pedestrians are killed.
• 190 pedestrians are killed every two weeks.
• Everyday about 232 pedestrians are injured.
• Of pedestrians killed, 60 percent are working adults, 23 percent are elderly person aged 65 or older, and 17 percent are children up to the age of 20.
Ever since the introduction of freeways and the creation of zoning laws, Americans have been forced to center their lives around the automobile and automobile ownership. As a consequence, we have forgotten that we are all pedestrians at some point in the day. David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, says that “freeways literally have separated the suburbs from the city… and zoning codes separate homes from shops, shops from workplaces, workplaces from schools and schools from neighborhoods.” Here at the Brod Law Firm, we know it won’t be easy sensitizing drivers to the fact that pedestrians are legitimate road users or educating pedestrians on minimizing the risks to their safety, but campaigns such as Walk to School Day are a great way for communities, here and around the globe, to start moving toward their goals. According to Walkscore.com, San Francisco is the most walkable city in America. We may have the most walkable streets(i.e., the city is sectioned by neighborhoods that each have their own grocery stores, restaurants, movie theaters etc., and the entire city is small enough that you can walk from end to the other), but we have yet to prove if they are the most pedestrian friendly (i.e., pedestrians are often injured at dangerous intersections).

A horrible motor vehicle accident in May of 2007 changed the life of a young man, forever, requiring him to need permanent and constant medical attention. A Santa Clara jury found that two truck drivers were responsible for the accident, one of whom was talking on his cell phone at the time of the accident. The truck driver who the jury found to be 60 percent at fault, denied causing the accident, and even denied contributing to the cause of the accident. The jury awarded more than $49 million in damages.

The failure to take responsibility for an accident is perhaps one of the most overlooked reasons why the California courts are bogged down with cases. While the proponents of “tort reform”, mostly backed by insurance companies, blame California juries for large verdicts, little is heard about jury verdicts, large or otherwise, occurring in the face of a total failure to assume responsibility. Often, it is not the wrongdoer, or even their attorney, who make the decision to force an injured person to go through a trial in court to have justice served, but the defendant’s insurance company. The insurance industry spends a great deal of money to ensure that everyone is familiar with the term “frivolous lawsuits”, but rarely are cases where a “frivolous defense” is raised, brought to the public’s attention. Cases like the one in Santa Clara County should send a message to insurance companies and to those responsible for causing injuries to others. Don’t think your conduct can cause serious injury to someone and get away with it in Santa Clara County.

Apropos my last blog, there are two other projects underway in the City of San Francisco that focus on the safety and well-being of both its residents and visitors. One project, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 6, 2006 and appropriately called Better Streets, is a joint effort by several city agencies to improve the design of San Francisco's streets and sidewalks and was. Since that time, Better Streets has created a collection of street types which are a great improvement over our current automobile-centered street scheme and focus on the appropriate use of land (i.e. residential, commercial and industrial), the efficiency of street width and the street's role in the transportation system. The highlights and benefits that stand out most to us here at the Brod Law Firm are the ones that focus on safety, though there are many others--such as its support of neighborliness, civic interaction , community identity, and the enhancement of the quality of life for San Francisco’s residents and local businesses—and they are:
• The Design of sidewalks and medians, pedestrian safety and accessibility features, ways to mange storm water in the right-of –way, design and placement of streetscape elements such as street trees, lighting ,benches, and more
• Decreased likelihood of pedestrian/auto collisions injuries and fatalities
• Increased accessibility for all street users, create settings that make it safe and easy to be physically active and enhance the everyday quality of life for San Francisco Residents.
• Increased Space for public life, including safe useable public seating for neighborhood gathering, generous curb extensions for seating and landscaping , reclaiming of excess street space for public use, space for outdoor café and restaurant seating and merchant displays.
• The Integration of pedestrians with transit and available transit rider amenities at key stops.
• Safe convenient pedestrian routes to transit mutual features that benefit pedestrian safety and comfort and transit operations such as bus bulb outs and boarding islands.
• The promotion of public safety, an ‘eyes on the street ‘ approach that will enhance residents sense of safety and security from crime and violence.

The other project called the Valencia Streetscape Improvements Project spans from 15th Street to 19th Street and is intended to provide a safer, more inviting environment for its users. Back in 2004, the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) secured an Environmental Justice Grant from Caltrans to develop a Pedestrian Safety Plan for Valencia Street. The MTA held four meeting in 2004-2005 in the community, whereby the community expressed a strong desire to widen the sidewalks along Valencia Street and improve the streetscape. Then in spring 2006, MTA Planning and the Department of Public Work’s (CPW) Great Streets Program teamed up to create a collaborative vision for all users of Valencia Street. Eventually the project secured funding through a multi-year federal transportation bill, two federal Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) grants and local support. Last month the project began and will move block by block over the next nine months, during which time the Department of Public Works crews will: remove the striped center median, widen the sidewalk, add bulb-outs at some intersections and in the middle of some blocks, and add pedestrian scale lighting, art elements, bike racks (assuming the injunction mentioned in my last blog is lifted), and new street trees, widen Parking lanes to prevent dooring of bicyclists, and add curbside loading zones for trucks.
As we move into the future, a future concerned with global and environmental issues, we consider all these changes to our city’s streets—especially those concerned with safety-- critical not only for our city but for the all communities everywhere that want to create sustainable living environments . By redesigning our city around public transportation and creating walkable and bikeable streets, we can change our city into a safe, healthy, livable and affordable one, thereby providing an example to other cities here and around the globe interested in doing the same.

Recently, friends from Europe stayed with me and my family. During their time here they spent their days touring San Francisco by bicycle. I asked them if they felt San Francisco was as bike friendly city as most European cities. They said that they felt drivers were really aware of bicyclists and looked out for them. But they felt that bus drivers were not very considerate, if not hostile, toward bicyclists. I explained how cyclists have fought hard, with the help of the San Francisco Bike Coalition (SFBC), educating motorists as well as buses on being both cautious and vigilant as they share the road with cyclists. At the same time, I also explained how some bicyclists seem to have less interest in following the vehicle rules of the road and believe that red lights and stop signs are meant only for motorists. My friends agreed with me when I pointed out that there is a victim attitude among some bicyclists who feel --because buses are bigger, and can kill bicyclist, and most streets are not designed for bikes-- that they are at a disadvantage on the road and should make their own rules. Bus drivers who encounter bicyclists with the victim attitude usually end up developing the same victim mentality and, as a consequence, ignore the safety of all cyclists. One might think there may never be a middle ground for bus drivers and bicyclists. Every story has at least two sides, though. The bottom line is this: If either bicyclists or bus drivers make their own rules on the road, that can, and usually does, lead to dangerous situations. But buses and bicyclists can coexist as long as bus drivers and motorists act professionally and bicyclists follow the rules of the road. Each year there are more bicyclists on the road, and everyone on the roads would follow the laws of the road, as well as use a little courtesy, our streets will be far less dangerous.
Since cyclists will be increasingly populating the roads and asking for more space in the years to come, we need, now, more than ever, the creation education campaigns that foster safety and respect among cyclists as well as bike network improvement projects that keep our city streets a safe place for all. There is good news. The SFBC has spent years planning and appearing at public hearings in an effort to get the city to implement improvements for cyclists and motorists on the road called the SF Bike Plan. This summer, 3 years after a lawsuit and injunction that barred any improvements and the city’s Bike Plan, the SFBC is celebrating their biggest victory: on June 26th, 2009 the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency voted to adopt their bicycle plan. Once the injunction is lifted, the vote gives a green light for 45 new bike lanes throughout the city. The plan also includes the implementation of on-street bike parking corrals, experimental colored pavement treatments and thousands of new bike racks. Another bit a good news for the SFBC is Mayor Gavin Newsom’s recent announcement that he will implementing a package of trial improvements to market street beginning September 29th, modeled on Projects for Public Spaces –which is in partnership San Francisco Great Streets Project and SFBC. As we collectively move forward during these planned changes, go safely and considerately out there, people!

For the past 34 years, California has had a cap on the amount of non-economic damages that an injured person may recover in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Under the current law in California, if a doctor is supposed to repair a knee injury but amputates the leg due to being drunk, for example, the maximum amount of non-economic damages (pain and suffering) that can be recovered in a personal injury case is $250,000.00. If that person’s one passion in life was dancing, and a jury awards $500,000.00 in non-economic damages, the award gets reduced to $250,000.00. If that person had jogged every day to alleviate stress, keep their weight down and maintain a healthy heart rate, and a jury awards $650,000.00 in non-economic damages, the award gets reduced to $250,000.00. It is absurd to think that the value of $250,000.00 in 1975 is anywhere close to the value that same amount represents today, which essentially means that the maximum an injured person can recover, has steadily gone down in the State of California.

The cap on medical malpractice lawsuits was supposed to help both consumers and doctors by keeping insurance premiums from rising, which the insurance industry likes to blame on lawyers, juries, and our civil judicial system, in general. It is more than doubtful that health care premiums, as well as medical malpractice premiums for doctors, have consistently risen in California, despite this cap in medical malpractice lawsuits.

The constitutionality of the law that caps these damages was recently upheld in a California Court of Appeal decision, and the California Supreme Court refused to review the decision, which means that the cap will remain in place. The insurance industry is very powerful, has tremendous resources and influence, which is important to take into consideration whenever it sends out its claims of “tort reform” and “lawsuit abuse” in our system.

New research blames changes in cigarette design for fueling a certain type of lung cancer, according to an article put out by the associated press. In the article Dr. David Burns of the University of California says that “up to half of the nation’s lung cancer cases may be due to those practices.” Researchers conclude that it is riskier to smoke cigarettes today than it was a few decades ago. In the 1960’s there was a movement toward lower-tar cigarettes. Consequently, that movement changed cigarettes so that they contained less tar and more Nitrosamines, a type of carcinogen. Nitrosamines are a byproduct of tobacco processing and levels vary for a variety of reasons, one of which is curing techniques. The research states that while the nation’s total lung cancer cases have inched down as the numbers of smokers has dropped in recent years, the individual smoker’s risk of getting cancer is higher. The research shows that when smokers switched to the lower tar cigarettes, they began inhaling more deeply to get their nicotine jolt, which pushed cancer causing smoke deeper into their lungs.

Congress is currently debating the issue of whether the FDA should regulate tobacco. President Obama supports legislation that would allow the FDA powers over tobacco products. The Office Management and Budget states: “Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States and is a contributing factor to scores of diseases and conditions inflicting misery upon millions of our citizens…Further, Tobacco products—including nicotine and possibly after the study, menthol.” Under new proposed legislation, the FDA would have the power to decide such things as whether to set caps on certain chemicals in tobacco smoke. The FDA would also be given the power to approve or reject new tobacco products and to expand market restrictions and warning labels. Here at the Brod Law firm we see the issue as problematic. The problem with the FDA regulating cigarettes and having its name on warning/safety labels is that it will give the impression that the FDA is saying it is safe to use. Also, tobacco companies may try to protect themselves against any liability by claiming they are in compliance with FDA standards. But we do believe that any regulation is a start in the right direction and that it is better than no regulation at all. Any effort by the government to protect the public from product injury is always a good idea no matter how politically heated the subject.

In October 2003, a Jeep was rear-ended by a tractor trailer in Virginia, causing the Jeep to roll over several times. A passenger in the Jeep suffered brain damage as a result of the crash, and a Virginia jury awarded her $10.2 million dollars. The trucking firm that was a defendant in the case argued that the woman’s brain injuries were due to a previous incident, not the crash involving the Jeep. Although the jury awarded $10.2 million dollars, the matter was appealed, and the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the jury verdict.

It is 2009, nearly six years after this tragic event, and the injured woman is only now receiving closure to her ordeal, at least as far as it relates to the judicial process. Corporate defendants often do not take any responsibility, whatsoever, for the injuries they cause. Despite a jury of her peers finding that she was entitled to an award of damages, the corporate defendants in the Virginia case fought for years, undoubtedly spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. The “tort-reform” lobby, which is primarily funded by the insurance industry, puts massive efforts and spares no expense into labeling many lawsuits as “frivolous”. However, the public rarely hears about cases involving a “frivolous defenses”. There are many instances in which a corporate defendant or insurance company vigorously defends a claim (which results in a lawsuit), even though there is no good faith basis to do so, or even if it makes no sense from a financial basis. In many cases, the corporate defendant or insurance company will spend far more in defending a claim than the total amount sought by an injured person. The reason is to “send a message” to injured people that should they pursue their rights, it will be costly, time consuming, difficult, and will be fought tooth and nail. It is therefore very important to ensure that when an injured person in selecting a lawyer to help them, that the lawyer be prepared to vigorously fight for their rights.

With unemployment on the rise and the current economic downturn expected to stay with us in the New Year, there has been little to look forward to in 2009. However, there are several laws which will take effect on January 1st, laws that will protect workers, consumers and the environment and improve public safety and health access. Here in San Francisco, there will be some positive changes specific to the safety of our community. On January 1, fines will double for traffic violations on 19th and Van Ness Avenues—two of the busiest and most dangerous streets in San Francisco. Tickets will range from $137.00, for speeding, and $2, 750, for reckless driving. The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported each avenue, between 2003 and 2007, was the site of more than 500 collisions, a dozen of which involved pedestrians. And according to the examiner.com, 19th Avenue has been dubbed a death trap for walkers, serving 85,000 vehicles and 80,000 pedestrians each day, while Van Ness Avenue serves about 80,000 commuters each day. As part of his signing this bill, Schwarzenegger has pledged that public safety is his top priority, pointing out how critical it is to ensure the safety of everyone on our roadways. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we believe these new penalties will encourage drivers to pay attention and slow down, which should, in turn, begin to put an end to the loss of innocent lives. For we have seen enough wrongful death, car accident and motorcycle accident suits-- which have been the result of careless driving on these two roads-- not to take note of the importance of this new, and long overdue, law.

Text messaging is the new way millions of Americans communicate. The American Medical Association (AMA) voted this month to advocate for state legislation prohibiting the use of hand held devices used to text message while driving. An AMA board member, Peter Carmel says that texting while driving takes the driver’s attention off the roads, which leads to accidents. Here at the Brod Law Firm, we feel that fact is an obvious one, one that pretty much goes without saying. However, when Peter Carmel stated that text messaging while driving causes a 400 percent increase in time spent with eyes off the road, we felt that fact is a less obvious one, is one that all drivers should be aware of—mostly because it means our roads that much more unsafe while we share the road with texting drivers. Currently, seven states, California included, have bans on text messaging while driving because of the risk to public safety. The AMA says it will continue to support additional states in the mission to ban text messaging by motorists. We applaud the AMA and their efforts to keep the public safe from injury, as we know all too well of the inherent dangers that exist for drivers, and how a catastrophic or death related accident can happen in a split second after a driver takes their eyes off the road.

After we read the news regarding the AMA’s efforts to ban texting while driving, we felt it is not only drivers who text while driving that pose a health risk. We thought: what about walking and texting? While we support raising public awareness regarding issues of safety and text messaging while driving, we also feel it is important that public awareness is raised regarding pedestrian safety and texting while walking. Over the past year we have come across many articles relating to pedestrians being injured while texting. The American College of Emergency physicians issued alerts regarding these types of accidents . Most injuries related to texting and walking are minor, such as head injuries from bumping into poles or sprained ankles from twisting as they stepped off a curb. Some injuries, however, are quite serious or even deadly. For example, according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, a San Francisco woman was killed earlier this year when she stepped off the curb while texting. We believe the message here is very clear: when you are mobile, please keep your eyes on where you are going, not on a hand-held device. Also, don’t underestimate how safe you feel while driving or walking. And lastly, accidents can occur out of nowhere --so the more alert you are while you are mobile, the better chance you have of not injuring yourself.