Blog

Bicycle-Mounted Camera Implicates Motorist in Accident

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:10:00 GMT

It would have been just another bicycle accident that resulted in a minor claim and little else, except for a handy little video camera that had been mounted on the bicycle. As a result of the camera footage however, the motorist involved in an accident in Berkeley last week, has been arrested and charged.

The accident occurred when the driver of an Acura Integer sideswiped two bicyclists. The bicyclists sustained non-life threatening injuries in the accident. Both riders had been wearing helmets at the time. They did not require hospitalization for their injuries. The bicycles were severely damaged.

What the motorist did not know was that one of the bicycles had a video camera mounted on the handlebar. This video camera clearly showed the Integer sideswiping the 2 bicyclists, causing the crash.

The bicyclist did the right thing by reporting the accident to the Berkeley Police Department. The police department began an investigation that will likely include the video footage. The bicyclists have also posted video footage of the accident on YouTube.

The driver of the Integer has now been arrested in connection with the accident. He has been booked on charges of felony hit-and-run. It turns out that he was also in violation of his probation, and he has been booked on those charges as well.

Often, California bicycle accident attorneys notice that bicyclist complaints about safety are not taken too seriously by police authorities. In fact this is one of the most frequent complaints by bicyclists - that law-enforcement officers frequently underrate their losses. Many officers do not take bicyclist concerns seriously, and offending motorists receive a mere slap on the wrist.

Brain-Machine Device Uses Natural Signals to Aid Movement in Paralyzed Muscles

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:15:00 GMT

New technology that is being developed at Northwestern University bypasses the injured spinal cord area, and uses natural electrical signals generated by the brain, to get paralyzed hands to move. The research has been conducted on monkeys, and researchers believe that in the future, the same technique could be used to help persons with a spinal cord injury, who have paralyzed arms and hands, to move these limbs.

What the researchers did was ‘eavesdrop’ on the natural electrical signals in the monkeys’ brains when the monkeys performed certain activities involving their hands. Then, the researchers tested whether these signals could be used to coax the monkeys’ limbs to move. They used anesthetics to induce paralysis in the monkeys’ hands, and then exposed the hands to the natural electrical signals that they had earlier analyzed.

The researchers found that the monkeys were able to use their hands to perform a number of activities, at the same level that they were able to before the paralysis. The researchers believe that this connection between signals from the brain and the ability to move muscles could someday be used to help persons with spinal cord injuries regain movement in their arms and limbs.

The implications for a person with a spinal cord injury are potentially huge. Currently, persons who have suffered a spinal injury and are unable to use their arms have very few options other than physical therapy, and some robotic aids to aid with movement. However, with this technology, persons may be able to experience levels of grip, strength and force that could help persons not only grasp objects, but also use their hands for more complex activities. Overall, that means a better quality of life for these patients.

California Police Crack Down Distracted Driving

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:54:00 GMT

Over the next few days, California drivers who text while driving are much more likely to be cited. Law enforcement agencies in California, including the California Highway Patrol, are increasing enforcement campaigns targeting distracted driving by motorists.

Such campaigns are being targeted at specific cities and counties. In San Diego for instance, the California Highway Patrol is conducting a zero-tolerance distracted driving enforcement campaign his week. The focus is on pulling over drivers who are using hand-held cell phones while driving. These initiatives are part of efforts to commemorate National Distracted Driving Awareness Month, which is being marked in the month of April.

Across the state, San Francisco car accident lawyers have found similar efforts being made by law enforcement agencies to increase awareness about distracted driving, and educate motorists about the risks of fines and penalties when they use cell phones and other texting devices while driving.

Last month, the California Office of Traffic Safety released a study which showed that since the law banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving went into effect, there has been a decline in the number of traffic accident fatalities in California. The ban went into effect in 2008, and since then, the fatality rate in California has declined by approximately 22%.

There are a number of studies which show that using a hand-held device while driving can dramatically increase the risks of an accident. For instance, a study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, which also happens to be one of the most widely cited studies to support bans on hand-held cell phones and texting devices while driving, found that a motorist’s risk of being involved in an accident increased by 4 times when he was texting compared to other activities.

Patients at Risk from Poor Testing of Medical Devices

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 23:25:00 GMT

From lap-band gastric bands to hip implants, many of the defective products that California product liability attorneys come across are dangerous because they have not been tested adequately by federal agencies responsible for their safety. The federal Food and Drug Administration has very limited resources to test each and every medical device or implant that companies submit for approval. As a result, the agency either approves devices after the company files minimum paperwork, or allows devices to be approved if they are similar to ones already available in the market.

A new report by Consumer Reports investigates the safety of the medical devices that are increasingly used by so many Americans. From cardiac defibrillators and hip implants to vaginal surgical mesh, there is a much broader variety of medical devices available now than just a couple of decades ago. That means the Food and Drug Administration is bombarded with hundreds of applications for approvals of new medical devices.

In the case of low-risk devices, the agency simply allows companies to get these devices approved by paying a fee of $4,000 and submitting documentation. In the case of more complicated or high-risk devices, companies have the option of getting the device approved by pointing out similarities to devices already existing in the market.

That is how manufacturers of vaginal mesh got their devices approved. They showed successfully that the mesh was similar to mesh used in women back in the 50s to treat abdominal hernia. Today, thousands of women across the country are battling scarring, constant and chronic pain and other side effects from the use of vaginal mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse.

JetBlue Pilot’s Meltdown Indicates Need for Stricter Mental Health Screenings for Pilots

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:24:00 GMT

More than 130 passengers on a JetBlue flight had a traumatic experience recently, when their pilot suffered a nervous breakdown midflight, forcing the plane to make an emergency landing. Any California plane crash attorney would see this incident as a reminder of the lack of mental health evaluations for pilots, and the danger this poses for passengers.

The pilot on JetBlue Flight 191, which was its way from JFK Airport in New York to Las Vegas, suddenly began behaving erratically on the flight. He allegedly flew into a rage, and began flipping switches on and off in the cockpit. According to his copilot, he also showed signs of confusion and disorientation. Things got progressively worse from then on. He barged out of the cockpit, and began shouting incoherently.

By this time, passengers were completely traumatized. Fortunately, passengers were able to restrain the pilot, and the plane was diverted safely to Amarillo in Texas. At the time, there were 6 crew members and 131 passengers on the plane.

The pilot has been officially suspended, and investigations into his medical condition are going on. However, what this incident does indicate to me as a California plane crash lawyer is that it's time to pay closer attention to the manner in which the feds screen the mental health of the pilots in charge of transporting thousands of passengers every day.

There have been several cases involving mentally unstable pilots, who were placed in charge of planes with devastating results. In 1999, an apparently disturbed pilot crashed his EgyptAir plane into the Atlantic Ocean off Massachusetts, killing all 217 people on board. Investigations into a SilkAir crash in 1997 found that the plane had been crashed intentionally.

The Federal Aviation Administration does require that pilots get themselves a medical screening at least once a year. Once pilots cross the age of 40, they are required to get a medical screening twice a year. A separate mental health and psychiatric evaluation is not part of the checkup. However, a pilot who has suffered any kind of psychiatric illness over the past 12 months, or has taken treatment for any psychiatric disorders, is required to report this during his medical examination.

Considering the vast responsibility on pilots, who are often in charge of hundreds of passengers in a single plane, perhaps it's time to expand pilot medical checkup standards to include mandatory mental health screenings.

Feds Investigate Buses Due to Driveshaft Problems Linked to Accidents, Injuries

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:34:00 GMT

A driveshaft problem in several buses manufactured by Motor Coach Industries Inc. over the past 20 years has been linked to at least 2 accidents and 2 fatalities. More than 50 people have been injured in these accidents. Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has begun an investigation into the problem.

The investigation is expected to cover roughly 4,000 D-Series buses manufactured by Motor Coach Industries Inc. The buses have been manufactured since 1982 by Motor Coach Industries Inc., which is one of the biggest manufacturers of inter-city buses in North America.

The investigation is related to a complaint filed by a transportation company with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The transportation company FirstGroup America, which is the parent of Greyhound, found that several driveshafts in many of its buses failed. The company found that the loops that were supposed to keep these shafts in place were not functioning. Los Angeles bus accident lawyers first heard of the problem in March 2010.

This defect has resulted in at least 2 accidents. In both cases, the bus drivers lost control of the vehicles, and in both cases, several people were injured. The first accident occurred in March 2010, and involved an Americanos bus operated by Greyhound, which met with an accident on Interstate 37 near San Antonio. The bus veered while traveling, and then flipped over. The bus was on its way to the Mexican city of Matamoros at the time.

Two people were killed in that accident. Texas highway safety officials later blamed a broken drive shaft for the crash. Since then, testing has found that the driveshaft can fall off the bus and cause damage to brake lines and other systems.

Dateline: Air Travel; Passengers Legal Rights Revisited

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:44:00 GMT

Maybe no longer will the harassed air passenger be fully at the
Potential mercy of chip on shoulder Flight Attendants?
Another look at “Coffee, Tea or Handcuffs.”

The recent news brings us yet another tale of woe for some poor unfortunate airline passenger who happens to say the wrong thing, or in some way inadvertently find the bad side of a difficult Flight Attendant (F/A). This one involves a young woman enroute LA to Houston via Southwest Airlines, to visit her boyfriend. Presumably she wanted to look as nice as possible for him, and enroute was in the process of painting her nails while sitting properly in her seat. Not in the aisle; not standing, Heaven forbid, anywhere near the front lavatory, just by the locked and armored flight deck door; not indulging in any of the other extended list of No-No’s now extant on all fights.
According to the news accounts, a SW F/A approached her and told her to stop, citing the smell, and possible impact on other passengers, as a problem. Apparently the woman acquiesced, and put her paints away. Later, so as to not bother any other passengers, she went into the lavatory, where she would be alone, and with a ventilation system, to finish. When she exited the lavatory, she was immediately confronted by the same F/A, who had literally “stalked” her, and was in wait outside the door. Apparently, the F/A had nothing better to do, and had fixated on running down the painter.

One thing led to another, the matter escalated, words were exchanged, and somehow the report must have gotten to the captain, couched in terms that would suggest someone was verbally abusive, somehow challenged, or used bad words with the F/A. The inevitable then followed. When the plane reached the airport, passengers were told to stay in seats; presumably also told there was a “security issue” (that seems to be SOP for these Flight Attendant/Captain tag teams to get a passenger off the airplane and into the custody of police); authorities from airport police removed the woman nail painter (we are not told if in handcuffs or not, but again, that is fairly common in this drill).

She was “detained” (read jailed) for around ten hours, and then released when a judge ruled that no offense or crime had been committed. We are not told exactly how she managed after that, or if the airport where the plane was put down to remove her was her destination or not. There are lots of cases like that, where the airline, after getting the passenger taken off, endeavors to make it difficult or near impossible for the passenger to get a further booking to get home. In any event, that was the news up to that point. Southwest is quoted as saying it has “no comment” on the incident.

These sorts of episodes happen far more often than commonly thought. Not all of them, by far, make the news. Many of them try to find out if they have any legal recourse. Do they? In some cases they are removed in handcuffs, and treated as a suspected serious criminal, “detained” for some period of time, and more? In some cases, such removees have been publicly marched through airport terminals brimming with onlookers, as in the infamous “perp walk” photo opps that are often seen in the news. To the accompaniment of an airport PA announcement that “we have a security issue at Gate so and so, there may be a delay in that area….” Or something similar. Or to be held for several hours in an airport public area and openly and pointedly interrogated by obvious FBI and/or swat team types?

To understand all this in context, a brief overview of the law. Governments have always been concerned with potential threats to the safety of any form of transportation of people or goods, going back to long ago pirates and other threats to travel. So they have enacted various laws and treaties giving an air or sea carrier police-type powers for protection from real threats and authority to deal with passengers or cargo that might pose a real risk to the safety and orderly conduct of the voyage or flight.

In the United States, our Congress enacted what is now found in 49 US Code Section 44902(b), a short and simple grant of authority in aviation matters. The section provides that “the carrier” may “refuse to transport” any passenger if it “decides” that such “is or may be inimical” to safe conduct of the flight. Note the rather unique word Congress used to describe what the potential offender must portend: “inimical.” Not unruly, argumentative, possibly inebriated, or some other form of not so desirable behavior, but “inimical.” What does this mean?

According to the dictionary, it comes from the Latin, meaning “hostile” or “enemy”. “Carrier” in this context has been interpreted to mean Captain of the flight, the person in charge of the aircraft and the highest ranking agent of the carrier, i.e., the airline. So it is the Captain who must make the decision to transport or not. Once that captain so acts, the courts have, at least up to now, uniformly held that he/she, the airline, the captain, and any employees involved – as in the F/A who starts the whole process in motion – are immune from any civil recourse by the passenger. Unless the captain, and we underscore captain, as he/she is the only one who can make the decision to deplane a passenger, has acted “arbitrarily and capriciously.”

However, as cases started to come to the courts, this Arbitrary and Capricious standard was essentially impossible to prove. Because this is how it worked: The courts held that the Flight Attendants were deemed the “eyes and ears of the captain;” he/she could only decide and act on the basis of what was relayed from the F/A. In almost all post -9/11 flight situations, the flight crew, captain and first officer, are required to stay in their locked and protected flight deck. They do not come out to see for themselves what is going on.

Consequently, any information upon which they are to base a decision to deplane a passenger, have police meet plane either at final destination, or indeed divert to an immediate landing, has to come from the F/A’s. Unfiltered. In other words, however, the F/A either perceives or chooses to describe the issue is what the captain is going to act on.

In effect, there would be an impossible burden of proof for the targeted passenger. It is the captain’s conduct that would be judged by the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, not the F/A’s. How could it be said that a veteran captain, relying on what appears to be a straight forward phone report from a presumably equally veteran F/A, could be said to be “arbitrary and capricious?” Less than completely diligent, perhaps, or maybe subject to some criticism for not following up, but no more?

So as here, the F/A got into it with the nail painting passenger. It does not matter what happened or who said what, it is what the F/A reports that counts. And the passenger has no way of knowing what is in that report, what is its tone, whether or not true, etc., and no chance to argue or defend the point. This has been the common pattern in all of the cases that have come to the courts involving these problems. From what we know here, the F/A involved is most likely to have said “captain, we have serious problem with the passenger in seat ___; he/she is being abusive and argumentative, and will not follow safety instructions….” Bang. That is all it takes. The captain makes an entry in the log; decision made; passenger is history at next landing. At least the rules did not allow the airline to throw them out in the air, as in walking the plank.

When the aggrieved, even in cases where it turns out to be clear and provable that is was the F/A was unreasonable, irrational, acting of racial or other ethnic bias, and was wrong, when the passenger then attempts to obtain some redress in court, they are met with essentially this decision by the judge:

“Federal law gives the captain the power to deplane any passenger who may be a potential problem with respect to flight order or safety (the word “inimical” is almost never mentioned; not sure how many people would know what it meant even if); the captain has to rely on and act on what information he gets from his cabin crew; they are the eyes and ears of the captain. Here captain ______ had a report of what clearly might have been a disruptive or even dangerous passenger, coming from a veteran flight attendant, whom he had reason to doubt of question. The captain has a limited time to act, and must act in regard to the conduct of the flight and the safety of passengers, crew and aircraft. In doing so, he and the airline are immune from any civil claim, unless it is established that he/she acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” and there is no evidence of that. What the F/A did or did not do, or whether his/her actions could be deemed arbitrary/capricious or otherwise, are not relevant to this inquiry. So, you may not have the deposition of the F/A taken to probe the reasons for what she did, or said you did, etc. That is not relevant. Nor may you take the deposition of the captain, since, as a matter of law I rule he/she did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, so there is no reason for anything further. Case dismissed.”

The essence of all this, of course is that the captain is protected if what the F/A tells him could be ground to invoke the kick off statute; and the F/A is protected because under the above judicial analysis, what he/she did is irrelevant. Only thing that counts is what was told the captain, and enormous deference is given to his/her decision.

Catch 22? You rang?

As can be seen, this scenario puts enormous power in the hands of a F/A. They in fact, make the determination as to who gets deplaned/handcuffed, and how soon. And we have seen a number of these cases where that power clearly was abused for whatever personal reasons or problems the F/A had at the time, but we had to advise the passenger that there was no legal recourse available to them.

But: the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals has just come down with a decision, Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F3d 858, that we hope, if followed elsewhere, will turn all this on its head and restore some reasonableness to the whole process. It is binding on all courts in the 9th Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court has denied review. This is a ruling in an international transportation case, a flight from Vancouver BC Canada to Las Vegas, Nevada, which is governed by a treaty called the Tokyo Convention. It contains a very similar rule the above discussed federal statute regarding deplaning and turning to police by the captain of potential problem/threat passengers. According to the 9th Circuit court, this was the first case under this Treaty to come before the courts the United States, and they had found but one other case, coming from the High Court in Israel.

This case came before the 9th Circuit after the US District court judge dismissed out of hand the claim of several Egyptian passengers who were ejected from the flight which diverted to Reno for an emergency landing after the F/A reports to the captain, turned over to police, and arrested. Alaska argued for the same sort of interpretation the courts had given to the domestic 49 USC statute, including a high degree of deference to the captain and the application of the arbitrary and capricious standard.

Same sort of fact scenario here that we have seen in other cases. The passengers were Egyptian businessmen, some with their wives or companions, who were traveling in the First Class sections enroute to a business meeting in Las Vegas. As alleged by the complaints and affidavits filed with the court in support, which on a motion to dismiss of this type by the airline must be taken as true, one of the Egyptian passengers got up from his seat to stand in the aisle to stretch, stating that he had back and circulatory problems and needed to do this regularly. The F/A told him he was “too close” to the flight deck and would have to either sit down, or go back to the rear of 1st class and stand there. He did. A second F/A then, in a very hostile manner, according to several passenger affidavits, and told him he could not stand there; he was a “security risk.” It escalated from there, with one of the F/A’s finally demanding that all the Egyptians fill out “Unruly Passenger” form. This they did not care to do, and as it turns out, such was supposed to be filled out by the F/A, not the passenger.

According to the complaints and affidavits, another American passenger in First Class, an American, the F/A became more and more agitated, used a loud voice threatened them with “ I will show you what I can to you about being on this airplane,” or something similar. This was repeated several times. (Do not think for a minute that all veteran F/As are not keenly aware of the power they have under the rules above to make the final call on who goes and who stays.)

In what can only be called an historic court victory for the probably 95% of those evicted from flights for reasons Congress never had in mind, the 9th Circuit ruled that the “arbitrary and capricious” standard would not control, the captain’s deplane decision would not be given an unreviewed “high level of deference.” Rather the test would be whether or not the captain acted “reasonably.” This ordinarily is always a question fact, meaning a judicial inquiry is warranted, and indeed some or many cases would be allowed to be decided by juries. Again, the case here dealt with an international flight and an international treaty, but the reasoning and the language are persuasive and broad enough to apply to the domestic law as well.

The court was clearly troubled by situations where decisions were really being made, not by the carrier or captain, but by tenured, union protected, long term & now civil suit immune F/As who may or may not have behaved reasonably and objectively, and may or may not have had some personal axe to grind, or take a dislike to some particular passenger for whatever reason. As in maybe here, a “middle easterner?

The court noted that the captain had acted to detain, deplane and bring about the arrest of all the Egyptian passengers on the basis of two calls from the F/A, and nothing else. He had been told that “the situation was out of control” and “I have lost control of the First class cabin” and nothing more. No inquiry was made by either pilot as to what really was going on. No one looked through a thick acrylic
window (not a “peep hole”). The 9th circuit ruled that (A&C) is not the rule; there is nothing in the Tokyo Convention or in its drafting history that uses those terms: therefore the test has to be “reasonableness.” The captain must behave reasonably, and have a reasonable and sound basis to eject and/or cause the arrest of a passenger.

To that end, some effort must be made to determine the true situation in the cabin, even if the captain cannot leave the flight deck. As the court noted that “a jury could conclude that a reasonable captain should have tried to find out something about what was going on in the cabin before undertaking an emergency landing.” (Emphasis the Courts’)

The court pointed out in this case, the second call that had come from the F/A was: “I have lost control of the first class cabin!” With noises of loud voice(s) in the background, and a quick look through a special viewing device in the door, a wide angle view much wider and larger than a standard “peephole” could have readily verified to what extent if any, there was chaos in the first class cabin. According to all the Egyptian affidavits as well as the disinterested US passenger, there was nothing wrong at all; everyone in seats, quiet, trying to avoid the verbal abuse and tirades of the F/A as she waved the unruly passenger reports in the air.

The court ruled that under a reasonableness standard, the passengers had stated a case, and were entitled to a jury determination. “Reasonableness” is always a question of fact, and if the Egyptians and their expert - a high time senior captain from another airline that testified and was very critical of this captain for not following up, especially on a case with potential significant international repercussions (in fact the Republic of Egypt filed a brief in the appeal).

The importance of this holding cannot be overstated regarding passenger rights. No longer is the captain automatically protected and immunity granted because some F/A decides some passenger is a problem, or for whatever reason develops issues with him or her. No longer will the aggrieved passenger be denied an opportunity to depose and cross examine the reporting F/A to see what might have been going on in his or her life that would provide a reason for trouble. And possibly to have a jury decide if the airline actions were unreasonable and to determine any damages suffered there from.

While this decision only directly affects federal case in the 9th Circuit in International flights (The Tokyo Convention applies only to those); the reasoning behind the decision would clearly be applicable to the US domestic statute in 49 USC, cited above. As with the Tokyo Convention, that statute nowhere mentions or requires the employment of an “Arbitrary and Capricious” standard. As noted, it uses the word “determines” with respect to what the air carrier thought the captain must do. It seems most likely that even in any future domestic case, the federal courts, at least in the 9th Circuit, will employ the same analysis; whatever goes into that “determination” must be reasonable in the light of all the circumstances, and that, for sure is a question of fact for a court and jury. No longer the exclusive and unreviewable province of a Flight Attendant.

As noted, it is interesting to note that the United States Supreme Court denied the air carrier’s Petition for Review on this case, so the Eids decision stands. Not binding on other circuits, but we hope persuasive authority in this area of the law that has already seen too much abuse by overzealous and otherwise difficult Flight Attendants

Coffee, tea or handcuffs?” May be replaced by “Coffee, tea or a real day in court?” If it turns out I am unreasonable and arbitrary, and I take it out on you, sir? “ Have a nice flight.”

Road Safety Improvements Can Reduce California Senior Drivers’ Accident Risks

Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:55:00 GMT

In 2010, approximately 390 fatal traffic accidents in California involved at least one driver aged above 65 years. San Francisco car accident attorneys have noted that in the same year, there were a total of 219 senior motorists killed in accidents. Across the country, and especially in California, senior drivers seem to have a skewed accident fatality rate that does not correspond with their relatively modest vehicle mileage share.

California has seen a burgeoning population of senior motorists lately. These motorists are healthier, more agile and independent. Most senior drivers prefer to drive themselves around, rather than rely on public transportation that is not geared to meet their needs. Unfortunately, a large population of senior drivers driving themselves around translates into a higher risk of accidents.

Impaired vision, reduced hearing, slower reflexes, and poor coordination - these are some of the physical effects of aging that California personal lawyers find can affect a person's driving abilities. However, according to a new study, the risk of accidents involving senior drivers could be reduced using simple steps that make it easier for senior drivers to spot accident hazards.

For instance, California could reduce senior driver-related accidents by investing in signage that is clearer and brighter, and comes with large lettering, that is easy to read. Brighter streetlights, especially at intersections could also help seniors avoid accident risks. According to some studies, simple steps like increasing pavement width from 4 inches to 6 inches can help reduce accidents caused by lane departures. Widening of left turn lanes, adding left turn lanes, increasing the length of merger lanes, adding rumble strips, and making curves less sharp and easy to navigate can also reduce accident risks involving senior drivers.

A large population of aging motorists doesn't necessarily have to mean disaster on the roads. Smart and carefully thought-out investments in road safety can mean a driving environment that is much safer for senior motorists.

Children in Carpools at High Risk of Injuries in Accidents

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:07:00 GMT

Children, whose parents are part of a carpool, may be at a much higher risk of suffering injuries in accidents, because parents’ rules about booster seats become lax when they're part of a carpool.

That information comes from a new study, which has just been published in the Journal of Pediatrics. The study's authors say that parents, who would otherwise never drive a car without making sure that their child is buckled in safely in a booster seat, tend to let these rules fly out the window when they are part of a carpool group. The main reasons for this are lack of time and overcrowding. Parents, who are picking up children on their way to school, may not take the time to restrain children individually in their seats.

However, San Francisco car accident lawyers believe that these practices are extremely dangerous. Automobile accidents are the major cause of death for children below the age of 15. Every year, hundreds of lives are saved in accidents because children are safely restrained in booster seats.

In California, new laws require a child to be in a booster seat until the age of eight, or until the child reaches 4'9" in height. Those laws have been passed because children of this age group could suffer severe and even fatal injuries to internal organs, if they have been restrained in seatbelts.

Seatbelts have been designed specifically for adult bodies, and can do little to protect children from injuries in an accident. In fact, they may do more harm than good. A booster seat can protect the child's body, by cushioning it. According to some studies, a child who is restrained in a booster seat is about 45% less likely to suffer injuries in a car accident, compared to a child wearing a seatbelt.

Legal Recourse for Airline Passengers Who Have Suffered TSA Abuses

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:08:00 GMT

Lawmakers are moving to protect airline passengers from the kind of outrageous treatment they receive when they enter airport security screenings. Those measures come as public opposition to the Transportation Security Administration's overbearing security protocols gather force.

Last week, I spoke to Lawyers.com about the legal options available to passengers who feel that they have been violated at these security screenings. There have been numerous incidents involving abuses by TSA personnel. As a California aviation accident attorney, I get my share of calls from people who believe that they have been violated by TSA officers at airline security.

Most complaints are related to intrusive pat downs. Unfortunately, options available to persons who want to avoid these pat downs are limited. If the airport has a scanner available, you can just use the scanner. However, if there is no scanner available at the airport, or if it is out of service for any reason, then you have no choice but to go through the humiliating pat down.

However, passengers who have tried to sue the federal administration over a pat down citing privacy invasions, have had less than complete luck. For one thing, the Transportation Security Administration is a federal agency, and is, therefore, immune from civil liability.

However, the full body scanners that are at airports could provide passengers with a viable claim. The body scanners are still fairly new, and there is very little information that is available about the kind of health risks involved with these scanners. There have been a lot of concerns about exposure to excessive radiation from the use of the scanners. In fact, the European Union has been so concerned about the health effects of the full body scanner that it has banned the use of certain x-ray scanners at security screenings at airports.

Poor Prosecution Rate Increases Risk of San Francisco Pedestrian Accidents

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:59:00 GMT

It’s not just unfriendly roads that increase the risk of accidents for pedestrians in San Francisco. It's also a lack of prosecutorial will to come down heavily on motor vehicle drivers who have been involved in serious or fatal accidents with pedestrians. In the year 2011, at least 13 people were killed in pedestrian accidents in San Francisco. However, San Francisco pedestrian accident lawyers have found that very few of those accidents resulted in prosecution of the motorist involved.

Out of those 13 pedestrian accidents this year, 12 accidents involved motor vehicles. Out of these 12, 11 drivers have not faced any criminal charges. However, District Attorney George Gascón has been talking about changing the situation.

Gascón, who took charge at his new position in January, has been showing signs that he intends to prosecute drivers whose negligence leads to pedestrian accidents. He filed misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter charges against a bicyclist who caused an accident resulting in a pedestrian death. Gascón has also announced that at least 3 motor vehicle drivers are likely to face charges in pedestrian accidents that occurred in 2011. At least one of those drivers caused the accident when he was driving with a leg cast.

According to a report by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the biggest cause of pedestrian accident injuries in 2008 was a failure by motorists to yield right-of-way to pedestrians. These failures accounted for about 41% of all pedestrian accident injury cases. This year alone, there have been several cases in which accidents have been traced to the driver's failure to yield to a pedestrian, but so far, no charges have been filed against these drivers. Gascón has announced that he will soon get to work on prosecuting dangerous drivers who place others at risk when they drive, but there is no indication of when this will be.

A lackluster attitude towards holding motorists responsible for pedestrian accidents criminally liable does contribute to an unsafe environment for pedestrians, because motorists don't believe they will be held responsible for their reckless driving.

Aviation Attorney Gerald Sterns Comments On The Tragic Maiming Of Model Lauren Scruggs

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 20:23:00 GMT

Lauren Scruggs is the 23 year old fashion model that was recently maimed by walking into the rotating propeller blades of the aircraft she just de-boarded. The plane was being piloted by a friend of hers and details of the indecent are not yet known. Aviation attorney, Gerald Sterns, commented on the dangers of private aviation and the amount of risk that is present. To view the full story click on the following link http://blogs.lawyers.com/2011/12/model-mangled-by-airplane-propeller-among-hundreds-injured-in-aviation/

Most Dangerous Intersections in San Francisco

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:23:00 GMT

ABC has conducted an analysis of the most dangerous intersections for bicyclists in the Bay Area. Many of these intersections, which see higher numbers of accidents involving bicycles and cars, are very familiar to San Francisco bicycle accident lawyers.

According to the report, there have been approximately 11,000 bicycle accidents across the Bay Area over the past four years, many of them occurring at these intersections.

The most dangerous intersections are.

Telegraph Avenue and 42nd St. in Oakland
Mendocino and Pacific Avenue in Santa Rosa
Monument Boulevard and Detroit Avenue in Concorde
College Avenue and Russell Boulevard in Berkeley
Sir Francis Drake Blvd., and Baywood Canyon Road in Fairfax

These intersections are very often the scene of collisions involving cars and bicycles, many of them ending with fatalities. The MTA has limited funds available for a major overhaul of engineering work to make these intersections safer for bicycles. For now, the agency is concentrating on increasing bicycle safety awareness among the public. Drivers must know that they share the road with bicycles, and must look out for bicyclists. Motorists must look out for bicycles especially closely near intersections, because many accidents in California occur at intersections. Bicyclists are especially easy to miss when they are in a vehicle’s blind spots or during night time.

The need to protect bicyclists from such accidents is even stronger, because most collisions that involve a car and a bicycle end with the bicyclist suffering serious injuries, or even death. There is almost nothing preventing a bicyclist from devastating or fatal injuries in an accident. Even a bicyclist wearing a helmet may be at risk of suffering a brain injury that can leave him seriously impaired for the rest of his life, or dead.

Study Finds Hybrids Safer for Occupants Than Conventional Vehicles

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:20:00 GMT

You can add crash protection to the list of reasons to buy a hybrid vehicle. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Highway Loss Data Institute finds that hybrid vehicles protect occupants in a crash much better than non-hybrid vehicles do.

Researchers analyzed more than 25 combinations of hybrid-conventional vehicles as part of the study. They found a substantially lower risk of injuries involving occupants of hybrid vehicles. The reason for this is that these vehicles are much heavier than conventional vehicles. A hybrid vehicle weighs about 10% more than a nonhybrid vehicle. This additional mass gives these cars a distant advantage in accidents. As a result, these vehicles offer approximately 25% greater protection in the event of an accident, compared to non-hybrid vehicles.

This increased crash protection in hybrid vehicles is definitely good news for San Francisco car accident lawyers, considering the popularity of hybrid vehicles in San Francisco and around California. For a long time, drivers had to choose between fuel efficiency and environmental impact before buying a car. Environment-friendly cars were lighter, smaller and therefore, less safe than conventional vehicles. However, as the Highway Loss Data Institute study shows, that isn't true any longer.

The Highway Loss Data Institute findings coincide with other findings by the Insurance Industry for Highway Safety. The studies have found that a vehicle’s size and weight does impact the risk or severity of injuries in accidents. One recent study found that driver death rates dropped with an increase in vehicle weight. In fact, the Insurance Institute’s studies into hybrid and conventional vehicle crash protection rates is allowing researchers to examine more closely how vehicle mass affects the risk of injuries accidents.

Identification with Car Encourages Aggressive Driving, Leads to Accidents

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:42:00 GMT

According to a study conducted by a Temple University professor, persons who exhibit aggressive driving practices have specific personality and psychological traits. Persons, who identify strongly with their cars and think of their vehicles as an extension of their own self-identity, are more prone to aggressive driving.

The researchers conducted a study to try to understand the mind of an aggressive driver. They based their findings on two studies that were conducted in Israel. In the first study, researchers collected data from 134 surveys, and in the second study, they introduced certain factors like risk attraction, into this data.

The researchers found some intriguing results:

Persons, who identified strongly with their cars, were much more likely to be territorial and aggressive while driving.
Drivers with compulsive tendencies, or those who faced severe time pressures, may also be more susceptible to aggressive driving.
Further, aggressive drivers often tend to be young drivers, who do not yet have a fully developed self-identity, and could be trying to compensate. Additionally, young people tend to be overconfident, which can lead to aggressiveness and rashness while driving.

Aggressive driving can mean a variety of different behaviors to a San Francisco car accident lawyer, from speeding and ignoring traffic laws to tailgating and changing lanes frequently. In short, these are driving practices that are insensitive to the safety of other drivers, and significantly increase the risk of an accident. Aggressive driving as a factor in auto accidents is much more common than we know. In fact, these practices are linked to two thirds of all fatal accidents, and more than one third of all accidents that end injuries.

However, until now little research has been done into what drives motorists to such driving practices. In fact, this is believed to be the first study to delve into the psyche of an aggressive motorist.