If convicted, he could face up to seven years prison time.

Police received a 911 call regarding an assault at the San Rafael Transit Center Sunday morning, according to San Rafael Police.

Witnesses claimed that the suspect was going to disembark fromthe Route 70 bus from San Francisco, when he abruptly turned and hit another passenger with a hammer. The head of the hammer flew off upon impact.

The bus driver intervened and the suspect then fled the bus and pounded the windows from the outside, and shattered it.

Officer Timothy Horvath descended upon the scene and arrested the man. The 39-year-old victim was taken to Marin General Hosspital and treated for head wounds and released. The victim did not know his assailant. There were no other injuries.

If you or your loved one are victims on public transportation, you have legal recourse. Call an attorney now.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The degree of injury depends on the strength of the electrical current, the length of exposure, the person’s state of health, and the speed and adequacy of treatment. The human body is a good conductor of electricity, and direct contact with electrical current can be fatal. Sometimes the injuries from an electrical accident are easily visible, such as a large burn injury or a charred limb. Other times, the visible electrical burns are minimal. But we can’t see with the naked eye the tremendous damage the electricity may have done to the heart, muscles, bodily organs, or the brain. The victim of an electrical accident may suffer lifelong physical and mental injuries.

There are three main forms of electrical current (not including lightning): (1) low-voltage alternating current (household current); (2) high-voltage alternating current; and (3) high-voltage direct current (industrial power plants and lightning). High-voltage electrical current tends to cause much more serious injuries than low-voltage electrical current. Electrical current that does not enter the body cause a burn to the skin or a mild shock. Serious injuries occur when the electrical current enters the body, passes through organs, and exits from another location.

Each category may be subclassified depending on whether the victim required cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The electrical current may result in injury or death by affecting the electrical conduction of muscles and nerves, causing severe abnormal rhythms in the heart and brain, or by producing internal and external electrical burns both by heating (thermal burns) and by poration (producing holes in cell membranes) of the cellular membranes.

Electrical current passing through the brain—whether low-voltage or high-voltage circuits—produces unconsciousness instantly and directly because of its effects on the brain’s neurons. Alternating current (AC) can produce the serious and often deadly condition of ventricular fibrillation of the left ventricle of the heart if the path of the current includes going through the chest. This may occur when the current flows from arm to arm, arm to leg, or head to arm or leg.

If the electrical current has caused the heart to go into left ventricular fibrillation, it is critical that CPR be administered immediately or that a defibrillator machine be used to shock the heart back into normal rhythm. If a person who has been in contact with an electrical current that has caused his or her heart to go into left ventricular fibrillation, if appropriate life-saving measures are not taken in the first four to five minutes, the victim will die. If emergency medical technicians or CPR has been timely and successfully administered, the victim may completely recover, usually with no apparent injury. However, even if the victim is resuscitated, prolonged cardiac and/or respiratory arrest carries with it an increasing probability of permanent brain injury, persistent vegetative states, and brain death.

Low-voltage electrical injury with cardiac and/or respiratory arrest usually results in death at the scene of the accident. Low-voltage electrical injury without cardiac and/or respiratory arrest is most often encountered in children who bite extension cords. The burns of the child’s mouth are often severe and require extensive plastic surgery. However, damage to the infant’s internal organs is infrequent.

High-voltage alternating current electrical injuries generally do not result in cardiac and/or respiratory arrest, but have extensive injuries from burns and are at risk of acute and chronic problems. Electrical injuries from high-voltage circuits generally are much worse than they appear in the emergency room. The sizes of the entrance and exit wounds do not correlate with the extent of internal injury. For example, serious internal injuries can occur with small entrance and exit wounds. Conversely, large skin burns may occur without internal injury.

Direct current (DC) electrical injuries are generally observed in electrical train circuits, and are often the result of risk-taking behavior by young males.

The power company or other owner, installer, or maintainer of high-voltage wires has a legal obligation (a “duty”) to maintain its highly charged high tension wires at a height that does not endanger the normal use of the highway for travel or other proper purpose. Maintaining a highly-charged wire uninsulated where it could be touched by a hand reaching out to it from an upstairs window is negligence.

It is not necessary to come into direct contact with a high-voltage line to suffer an electrical burn. Electricity has the ability to “jump” up to ten feet; therefore people and equipment should keep at least ten feet away from high-voltage electrical lines. Because of the danger of electrocution in placing a boom within ten feet of a high-voltage line is not generally known or obvious, the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer must affix a warning on the equipment that warns of the danger in bringing the boom closer than ten feet or in direct contact with such power lines. Section 385(b) of the California Penal Code makes it a misdemeanor for any person, either personally or through an employee, to move any tool or equipment within six feet of a high-voltage overhead line.

Electrocution, by definition, is fatal, the cause attributed to electric shock. A wrongful death from electrocution can occur when a person comes in contact with an electrical circuit, such as a high-voltage power line. It can also come from improper insulation of the power line, cutting through an underground cable, or improper wiring which inadvertently electrifies a water source. The risk of electrical injury is greater in electrical workers, construction workers, boating, golfing, and children exposed to electrical outlets, cords, or devices.

Electrical accident injuries vary with the voltage of the conductor. The most dangerous conductors are the electric utility transmission lines, with very high voltage, sometimes over 100,000 volts. At such a high voltage, you do not have to actually come in contact with the conductor to be electrocuted. If you get close to such a high-voltage line, the electricity will arc over to complete the deadly circuit.

Over 20 percent of electrical injuries and electrocutions happen in the workpace. Injuries and deaths due to contact with electricity are more common among construction workers than any other group. Electrocution is one of the top-five leading causes of death in the construction industry. The accident may happen when the metal ladder, crane, scaffold, front-end loader, or conveyor they are using comes in contact with overhead power lines. The injured worker or the family of a deceased worker are usually entitled to receive worker’ compensation benefits for their injuries or their loved one’s death, but such benefits are usually insufficient to fully compensate the injured worker or the surviving family of a deceased worker for their losses.

Hence, when a construction worker has been electrocuted in an on-the-job accident, it is critical to determine whether someone other than the employer or a coworker was responsible for the accident. For instance, if the worker is using a defective drill that causes an electrical injury, it may be possible to sue the manufacturer, supplier, and retailer of the faulty drill without having to worry about limits on the amount of your recovery. If the injured or deceased worker was employed by a subcontractor, it may be possible to bring a negligence suit against the prime general contractor or another subcontractor if their or their employees’ carelessness created the dangerous condition that caused the electrical injuries or electrocution.

Construction workers can suffer an electrical injury or be electrocuted by a live wire above or beneath the ground, from various types of equipment they work with, coming into contact with electrical outlets, or the electric circuitry of a building may be faulty. Electrical burns and electrocution are risks that employees in many different sectors of the job market must deal with on a daily basis.

Consumers can suffer an electrical injury or be electrocuted by a defective product, a live power line, defective and dangerous household large appliances, and faulty and dangerous wiring and/or outlets in the home or apartment. Consumer products that we use every day without a thought can be the cause of an electrical injury, such as hair dryers, curling irons, microwave ovens, power tools, even vacuum cleaners with faulty or exposed wires.

Electric current can cause injury in three main ways:

• Cardiac arrest due to the electrical effect on the heart;

• Muscle, nerve, and tissue destruction from a current passing through the body;

• Thermal burns from contact with the electrical source.

  Symptoms of electrical accidents include:

• Unconsciousness, confusion, vertigo

• Bone Fractures

• Heart arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats, particularly ventricular fibrillation)

• Cardiac arrest (stopping of the heart from beating)

• Chest pain

• Kidney failure

• Fainting

• Headache

• Impaired swallowing, vision, or hearing

• Muscle contraction

• Muscular pain

• Numbness or tingling in the face, trunk, or arms and legs

• Respiratory distress or complete stopping of breathing

• Seizures

• Skin burns

There are two main safety standards concerning electric power and its wiring: (1) the National Electric Code, which sets minimum requirements for safe electricity inside of buildings, such as homes, businesses, and industrial locations, and (2) the National Electric Safety Code, which sets the minimum standards for safe electricity in the power lines and power transmission outside of buildings.

Severe trauma from the electrical and thermal mechanisms of injury can result in the need for victims to undergo multiple surgeries, including amputations. Other treatment for electrical injuries include heart monitoring (to detect abnormal heart rhythms, especially ventricular fibrillation), intravenous fluids, burn care measures, treatment of fractures, pain medication, and surgery for electrical burns. Disability from electrical injury can be related to the patient’s loss of physical abilities and/or the occurrence of neurological, psychological, and psychiatric injuries.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an electrical accident, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. You only have a limited time to sue, and that time is shortened if the wrongdoer is a public entity, such as in cases where the offender was the state, or a county or city. If the person who injured you was a public employee, it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident. An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf.

It is also important to contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible after the accident, as the law firm may want to send its own investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused or contributed to the accident, especially before there are any changes to the condition. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

An experienced personal injury law firm can also help with seeing to it that you obtain appropriate and thorough medical care for your physical, emotional, and psychological injuries suffered as a result of the accident. They can also do everything possible to ensure that you obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, and all of your other injuries and damages.

Call now and talk to a lawyer for free:  888.222.8286

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

There are two broad types of construction site accidents: (1) accidents involving the construction workers themselves, and (2) accidents involving bystanders and passers-by.

Construction workers ordinarily cannot sue their own employers or coworkers for injuries they receive on the job, but instead are entitled to collect worker’s compensation benefits. These benefits are deemed the injured worker’s “exclusive remedy,” and worker’s compensation benefits are payable to the injured worker even if the employer or coworker who caused the injury or accident was not legally at fault (negligent). In fact, worker’s compensation benefits are available to the injured worker even where it was his or her own carelessness that caused the injury.  However, an injured worker can receive compensation for injuries caused by another party other than his/her employer.  

In most cases, however, worker’s compensation benefits usually are insufficient to compensate the injured employee (or the spouse and children of a worker killed in an on-the-job accident), as worker’s compensation benefits are considerably less than the monetary damages that the injured worker or his or her family could recover in a negligence lawsuit against a his or her employer or fellow employee if such person were careless (“negligent”) and caused the injured worker’s injuries.

There are several exceptions to the general rule that an injured party may not sue his or her employer or coworker for on-the-job injuries. The situations in which the injured worker can sue his or her employer directly include: where the employer does not have workers’ compensation insurance; where the employer removes or fails to install a “point of operation” safety guard on a power press; where the employer aggravates the employee’s injuries by fraudulently concealing the existence of the injury and its connection with the job; and where the employer deliberately injures the employee, that is, where the employer commits a “willful physical assault” on the employee.

An employee is barred from suing a fellow employee for injuries resulting from the fellow employee’s careless acts, unless the fellow employee was intoxicated at the time or the injuries are the result of the fellow employee’s “willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression.” A coworker can be held liable only if he or she had an intent to harm the injured employee. Where there is no evidence that the offending employee intended to harm his or her coworker, the injured worker can sue neither the employer nor the coworker. Thus, a flaring temper over the upkeep of an area of the workplace that led to a screaming fit between two employees, while unfortunate and unsettling, was not sufficient to state an act of aggression or assault outside the worker’s compensation system.

A “willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression” includes an intent to injure requirement. In one case, a supervisor held a gun to the employee’s head and threatened to blow his head off if the employee did not sign a termination notice and get off the hotel grounds. The Supreme Court of California determined that the very act of pulling a gun in the manner described and threatening to kill was intended to cause injury regardless of whether there was an intent to actually shoot. The Court stated that, under appropriate circumstances, clenching a fist or aiming a gun may be sufficient to convey a real, present, and apparent threat of physical injury. Although bodily contact is not necessary for a physical assault, the conduct must be the type that a reasonable person would perceive to be a real, present, and apparent threat of bodily harm.

A worker who suffers emotional or mental injuries that do not result in some type of physical injury or disability is not permitted to receive worker’s compensation benefits, nor is he or she permitted to sue his or her employer for such injuries. This may result in the inability of the injured employee to receive compensation for his or her emotional and mental injuries, resulting in a “wrong without a remedy.” The California Supreme Court has said of this result that “not every aggravation in normal employment life is compensable.”

Although the injured worker is generally prohibited from suing his or her own employer, the worker can sue others who have caused the harm. For instance, if another subcontractor’s employee’s carelessness (“negligence”) harms the worker, the injured worker can usually sue the other subcontractor without the restrictions on the amount of compensation that he or she would be able to recover under worker’s compensation benefits. (Of course, when an injured employee receives worker’s compensation benefits then sues another person for his or her injuries and collects a settlement or award of money, the worker’s compensation system ordinarily must be reimbursed for the money it paid.)

If the worker is a subcontractor or employee of a subcontractor and is injured by an unsafe condition on the construction site, the injured worker may be able to sue the prime general contractor for his or her injuries. The prime contractor has a legal obligation (“duty”) to ensure a safe workplace for all workers, whether they be the prime contractor’s own employees (who generally would be limited to receiving worker’s compensation benefits) or its subcontractors and their employees (who normally would not be limited to worker’s compensation if the injury resulted from the negligence of the prime contractor or one of its employees).

If the worker is injured because of a defective product—be it a faulty nail gun, ladder, blowtorch, etc.—the injured worker can sue the product’s manufacturer, distributor, and retailer in a product liability case without the workers’ compensation limitations on the amount of money the injured worker can receive. If the architect or engineer drew up defective plans that pose an unreasonable danger of injury or death to the construction workers, an injured worker may be able to sue the architect or engineer for his or her injuries and associated damages.

A prime contractor ordinarily is not liable for injuries caused by the carelessness (“negligence”) of its independent subcontractors, as the prime general contractor ordinarily lacks the right of control over the independent subcontractor’s employees. However, in some cases the general contractor (or owner) can be held liable for injuries to a subcontractor’s employees. For instance, a general contractor can be held responsible for the acts of an independent contractor and its employees where the general contractor retained control of the work or area involved; where the general contractor negligently hired, supervised, or retained an incompetent subcontractor; where the general contractor furnished the subcontractor with negligently designed or prepared plans or specifications; or where the general contractor provided the subcontractor with faulty equipment that injured the subcontractor’s employee. Also, if the task is highly dangerous and likely to cause serious injury, the prime contractor may have the duty to ensure that the work is carried out carefully and cannot delegate responsibility for the safe performance of the work to another.

Persons who are not working on the construction site (such as ordinary people who are walking or driving by the construction site) are entitled to sue the owner and contractor and/or subcontractor for their carelessness negligence that causes injury to them. For instance, if a pedestrian is walking on a public sidewalk adjacent to a construction site and is injured by flying debris coming from the construction site, he or she may be able to sue the owner and the contractor whose employee was responsible for the flying debris. Similarly, if a crane fails and falls to the ground, the injured persons may well be able to sue the owner/operator of the crane for negligence. If a bystander has been killed by a crane (or other industrial accident), his or her survivors (“heirs”) have the right to sue the owner and operator of the crane, and in many cases the crane’s manufacturer as well.

If a machine or piece equipment was defective and caused injury to the employee using it, in many cases the manufacturer and distributor of the product can also be held monetarily responsible (“liable”) for any and all expenses related to the accident under the laws of product liability. Likewise, if a bystander or passerby was injured or killed by a defective product used in construction, the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of the machine or piece of equipment can be held liable under the laws of products liability for the damages or deaths resulting from its defective and dangerous product.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an accident involving a construction site accident, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. The law firm will usually want to send an investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused or contributed to the accident before conditions change or the construction company repairs them. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

If the construction work that injured you or killed your loved one was being done by employees of a public entity, such as the state or a county or city or one of its agencies, it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident, so you must act quickly in obtaining competent legal representation. An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf.

An experienced personal injury attorney can also help with seeing to it that you receive a thorough physical and mental examination and treatment for any injuries you may have sustained in the accident. An experienced personal injury law firm can see to it that you obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, vocational rehabilitation, lost earning capacity, costs of retraining you to do a different job if you are unable to return to return to your old job because of your injuries, if you are permanently disabled and unable to return to any kind of meaningful work, and all of your other injuries and damages, physical, emotional, and mental.  Call now and speak with a lawyer for free about your case 415.738.7672

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Metrolink has a much greater fatality rate than most larger systems in the country. While Metrolink’s ridership is the seventh-largest in the nation among commuter rail systems, it has the second-highest number of deaths, behind only New Jersey Transit, whose trains travel six times as many miles as Metrolink trains on a yearly basis and carry five times as many passengers. An analysis of the Federal Railroad Administration revealed that in one six-year period, 39 out of 61 passenger fatalities across the nation involved Metrolink trains. Metrolink disasters in Chatsworth in 2008 and Glendale in 2005 accounted for nearly all of the 39 deaths. From 1998 to 2008, Metrolink has had 99 fatalities—more than other commuter rail systems with nearly eight times the ridership.

There are many causes of Metrolink accidents: collisions with other Metrolink commuter trains or with freight trains they share the track with; inattentiveness of the engineer or conductor; failure to see or inadequate or inoperative signals warning of another train on the tracks; derailments due to poorly maintained tracks; faulty maintenance of the train; and non-compliance with safety standards.

Passengers are more likely to be killed or severely injured in a crash in which the Metrolink train is in “push” mode. In traditional “pull” mode, the locomotive engine is at the front of the cars. In push mode, the engine is at the rear and a “car cab” carrying passengers, with the engineer in a small area at the front, is in the lead. This cab car has earned the nickname “coffin car,” for its lack of protection in head-on collisions with other trains.

On a January morning in 2005, a man who claimed he was suicidal drove his Jeep Grand Cherokee onto the tracks in Glendale and doused the interior of the SUV with gasoline. At the last minute, however, the man changed his mind and jumped from the vehicle, leaving the gasoline-drenched SUV parked in the middle of the tracks. Moments later, a Metrolink commuter train being operated in “push” mode struck the SUV and derailed. The train hit a parked freight locomotive, then collided with another Metrolink commuter train traveling in the opposite direction. Because it was being operated in the “push” mode, this meant that a passenger car bore the brunt of the initial impact. The crash resulted in a total of 11 deaths and 180 people being injured. (The driver of the SUV was charged and convicted of 11 murders, and was sentenced to 11 life terms in prison.)

In June 2008, a California intermediate appellate court held that the injured victims could not base their lawsuit on Metrolink’s use of the push method, as that area of law is preempted by federal regulations, which does not prohibit the use of the push-pull system. The court concluded that federal regulations permit the use of an occupied cab car in the lead position of a “Tier I” commuter train. A Tier I commuter train is one that operates at speeds below 125 miles per hour. A Tier II commuter train operates at speeds from 125 to 150 miles per hour, but passengers on a Tier II commuter train cannot ride in the cab when it is the leading car.

On September 12, 2008, a Metrolink commuter train collided head-on with a Union Pacific freight train in Chatsworth, killing 25 people and injuring some 135 more. Unlike the deadly Glendale crash, in the Chatsworth crash the train was being pulled by a locomotive. Had it been in push mode, the number of deaths and serious injuries surely would have been considerably higher. According to Metrolink’s own spokesperson 24 hours after the accident, the engineer had failed to stop for a red light warning of another train on the same track ahead. (More than half of Metrolink’s system is single-track, which means it must be shared with freight trains, making the functioning and visibility of signal lights critical to the safe use of the tracks.) The train’s engineer was found allegedly to have been text-messaging young train enthusiasts some 22 seconds before the impact. The conductor aboard the Metrolink train allegedly said that he warned a supervisor about the engineer’s on-duty cell phone use months before the deadly wreck. Other evidence revealed that the engineer permitted unauthorized teenage train enthusiasts to ride in the locomotive, although that was not the case in the accident in question.

Metrolink has a duty to install and maintain its signal lights in good working order, and its conductors and engineers have a duty to obey them. In the Chatsworth incident, there is a dispute as to whether other signal lights were flashing yellow or red, indicating the presence of an oncoming train. The engineer allegedly failed to heed yellow and red signals. Because trains are heavy and difficult to stop quickly, the light system tells the engineer what to do two or three signals ahead. Besides allegedly running the red light, the engineer did not apply the brakes prior to the crash. After the accident, the Public Utilities Commission banned the use of cell phones by train engineers. The conductor of the Union Pacific freight train was himself texting while in the locomotive cab sitting next to the engineer, and he tested positive for marijuana.

Following the Chatsworth crash, Metrolink added a second person to its locomotive cabs, reduced speeds in restricted-speed zones, installed cameras, and began installing more visible signal bulbs. Adding a “second set of eyes” to the locomotives has been criticized on the basis that the two engineers could get into a conversation that would affect their concentration. In fact, two engineers were in a Metrolink train that ran a red signal and sideswiped a freight train several weeks after the deadly Chatsworth crash. In order to improve the structural integrity of its cars, Metrolink has ordered trailer and cab cars with new safety features.

The Amtrak Reform Accountability Act of 1997 limits the amount of damages that can be received by all injured passengers and heirs of deceased passengers to a total of $200 million. The legal validity or constitutionality of this limit has not yet been tested, but most likely will be scrutinized if the claims from the Chatsworth collision exceed $200 million. Note, however, that this limit does not apply to persons who were injured or killed who were not passengers on the train.

After the Chatsworth tragedy, the United States Congress approved the Rail Safety Improvement Act, which requires railway agencies to install, by the end of December 2015, a satellite-linked system that will automatically stop trains that run red lights. This is called a “positive train control,” and uses satellite-tracking devices to monitor the speed and location of trains and can automatically stop trains that bypass signals, exceed speed limits, or head toward an obstacle on the tracks. Metrolink is also looking at “automatic train stop” devices, a 1940s technology that would automatically stop a train that runs a signal. This is being considered as an interim step until positive train control can be installed. Also being considered by Metrolink as interim measures until the positive train control system is up and running are adding more inspectors, boosting random field tests, and reinforcing company rules.

Intersections where roads cross railroad tracks are a frequent site of Metrolink commuter train accidents. This is especially true where the intersection is unprotected, or has only a warning light and bells, but no crossing arm. When the crossing arm extends only to the middle of the street, motorists are often tempted to go around the arm and beat the train. For maximum security, crossing arms should be placed on both sides of the road to prevent this foreseeable practice. New technology at rail crossings could include state-of-the-art gating systems, advanced software that would allow trains to detect activity on the tracks ahead of them, and integration between trains and traffic signals at intersections they cross. In 2006, a Metrolink train slammed into a car drive by a 76-year-old woman, killing her instantly near the intersection of Buena Vista Street and San Fernando Road in Glendale. Metrolink officials said the woman was trying to beat the train, but her son contended that his mother was confused by the combination of traffic signals and railroad crossing lights in the area.

Because Metrolink offers to the general public to carry goods or persons for a fee, it is considered by law to be a “common carrier.” As a common carrier, Metrolink is required to use the “utmost due care and diligence” for the safe passage of and to prevent injuries to its passengers and can be held financially responsible (“liable”) for injuries resulting from even its slightest carelessness (“negligence”). Metrolink is bound to do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight that they can reasonable due under the circumstances. However, as to other vehicles and pedestrians not on a Metrolink train, or in the process of getting on or off, Metrolink owes them only the ordinary standard of safety (“due care”).

If a person is in the process of getting on or off a Metrolink car, he or she is considered a passenger even though the person may not be physically on the car. Metrolink’s duty to use the utmost care extends to the period during which a person is getting onto or off of the train. From that point on, Metrolink, as a common carrier, is required to use the utmost care and diligence for the safety of the passenger. Thus, if the Metrolink train pulls away from the station while a person is trying to get on, resulting in the person’s losing balance and falling or being dragged a ways and suffering injuries, Metrolink is liable, even though the person was not completely inside the train car and had not yet paid the fare at the time of the injury or death.

A person is considered a passenger until he or she has safely gotten off the Metrolink train in a relatively safe place. Metrolink’s responsibility to its passengers continues until the passengers have had sufficient time to get away from the train without injury. The Metrolink is legally responsible for any and all injuries a passenger suffers if the train starts pulling away from the station while the passenger is still in the process of getting off the bus, and is injured when he or she falls when the train starts moving again. Metrolink also has the obligation to keep its train platforms in a reasonably safe condition.

According to a September 20, 2008 article in the Los Angeles Times, the Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA), which includes the administration of Metrolink, receives billions of dollars to run light rail lines, subways, and buses across Los Angeles County, but Metrolink “operates on a relative shoestring.” Although the MTA has more than 9,750 full- and part-time employees and a budget of nearly $3.5 billion, Metrolink has a budget of only approximately $160 million, and employs only about 200 employees. It subcontracts with over 450 hundreds of others for items ranging from uniforms and internal audits as well as its train engineers and conductors and maintenance staffs. Its main subcontractors are Veolia Transportation and its subsidiary Connex Railroad. (Where an injury is due to the negligence of an employee of a subcontractor, then that employee’s employer—i.e., the subcontractor—can be sued in addition to Metrolink.) Metrolink has been criticized as being an underfunded agency run by small-town political leaders who have little or no expertise in rail or rail safety.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an accident involving Metrolink, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. Because Metrolink is a joint venture between five counties overseen by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident. An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf.

It is also important to contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible after the accident, as the law firm may want to send its own investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused or contributed to the accident, especially before Metrolink changes the condition. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

An experienced personal injury law firm can also help with seeing to it that you obtain appropriate and thorough medical care for your physical, emotional, and psychological injuries suffered as a result of the accident. They can also do everything possible to ensure that you obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, and all of your other injuries and damages.   Don’t delay any further, call now and speak wtih a lawyer for free 415.738.7672

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The three injured people were all traveling in the car and it is not clear whether anyone on the Muni bus was injured.  An investigation into the causes of this Muni bus crash is underway.  The driver of the Muni bus has been placed on “non-driving duty” until the results of the investigation are completed.

If you or someone you know has been involved in a Muni bus or Muni train accident, it is important that you speak to an attorney immediately about your case.  Call now and talk to a lawyer for FREE 415.738.7672

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Among its various duties, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for the planning, design, construction, maintenance, repair, and management of more than 45,000 miles of California’s highways and freeways. Caltrans and its predecessors have been active in moving the people and commerce of California for more than 100 years from a loosely connected web of footpaths and rutted wagon routes to the sophisticated system that today serves the transportation needs of more than 30 million residents.

Caltrans is legally responsible (“liable”) for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of its highways, freeways, and other roadways, if it could have anticipated (“reasonably foreseen”) that an accident could happen and a person injured. It is also necessary to prove that Caltrans had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient amount of time before the injury to take preventive measures.

Caltrans has “actual notice” of a dangerous condition if it has actual knowledge of the existence of the condition and knew or should have known of its dangerous character. “Constructive notice” means that the dangerous condition had existed long enough and was obvious enough that Caltrans, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous character.

In cases against Caltrans arising from the dangerous condition of a roadway, Caltrans can escape liability if it meets the criteria of the “design immunity” defense. In practice, if you were injured due to the fault of Caltrans, it is highly likely that Caltrans will assert the defense of design immunity in an attempt to defeat your claim.

To succeed with a design immunity defense, Caltrans must prove three elements: (1) that the approved plan or design was a cause of the accident; (2) that an authorized governmental body, officer, or employee gave his or her discretionary approval to the plan or design before construction began; and (3) substantial evidence supports the reasonableness of the plan.

The “causal relationship” element requires proof that the alleged design defect was responsible for the accident, as opposed to some other independent cause. For instance, designing a curve so tightly that it is likely that traffic will run off the road while trying to negotiate the turn could be a cause of an accident occasioned thereby.

“Discretionary approval” simply means actual approval of the design in advance of construction by the legislative body or officer having the discretionary authority to approve or disapprove of the plan and design. A detailed plan drawn up by a competent engineering firm or registered civil engineer, and approved by the district and state officials in the exercise of their discretionary authority, is persuasive evidence of both elements of prior approval and reasonableness for purposes of the design immunity defense. However, design immunity is not a valid defense where the approved plan did not include the design feature that caused the accident. Also, where the approved plan includes some safety feature, such as the installation of guardrails along a steep, winding off-ramp, but the guardrails are not installed, Caltrans may be held liable for failing to install the safety feature as required by the plan.

The third element, that substantial evidence supports the reasonableness of the plan, is a question of law for the court to decide. “Substantial evidence” has been defined as “evidence of solid value which reasonably inspires confidence.” As long as reasonable minds can differ concerning whether a design should have been approved, then Caltrans must be granted immunity. Ordinarily, the opinion of a civil engineer as to the reasonableness of a design constitutes “any substantial evidence” sufficient to support Caltrans’ design immunity defense.

The issue is whether there is any reasonable basis on which a reasonable Caltrans official could initially have approved the design. As long as there is any substantial basis on which a Caltrans official could have decided the design was reasonable, it is irrelevant that a contrary opinion might have been offered. Where reasonable minds can differ concerning whether a design should have been approved, then Caltrans is granted immunity. The fact that on hindsight the advice may prove to have been flawed is not a basis for imposing liability on Caltrans.

Once Caltrans has established design immunity, it is incumbent upon the injured victim (through his or her attorney) to prove that there was a change in physical conditions since the original plan was designed, approved, and constructed that made the highway or freeway dangerous. Design immunity is not permanent; as one court stated, “The Legislature did not intend that public entities should be permitted to shut their eyes to the operation of a plan or design once it has been transferred from blueprint to blacktop.” Caltrans may not hide its head ostrich-like in the blueprints and ignore the actual operation of the plan. Once Caltrans has notice that the plan or design, under changed physical conditions, has produced a dangerous condition of public property, it must act reasonably to correct or alleviate the hazard.

To demonstrate the loss of design immunity, the injured person must prove three things: (1) that the plan or design has become dangerous because of a change in physical conditions; (2) Caltrans had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition thereby created; and (3) Caltrans had a reasonable time to obtain the funds and carry out the necessary remedial work to bring the property back into conformity with a reasonable design or plan, or Caltrans, unable to remedy the condition due to practical impossibility or lack of funds, had not reasonably attempted to provide adequate warnings.

Simply pointing out as a general proposition that considerable time has passed and that the traffic volume, size and type of vehicles using the road, and speed of traffic are greater now than they were when the design was originally approved is not enough to show a change in physical conditions. Data such as increased population, along with evidence of increased traffic volumes and an increased number of accidents only show that an area is becoming more urbanized; it does not show a significant physical change.

The issue often boils down to whether the injured victim can show an increase in accidents that is “statistically aberrant,” that is, unusual or excessive in some respect. For example, a change in condition was found where there was an increase in the volume of traffic and 13 accidents occurred in six months at an intersection, which accounted for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities in the city. In another case, an intersection averaged twice as many accidents as similar intersections in the state; in the 18 months preceding the accident in which the victim was injured, 47 accidents resulted in five deaths and 89 injuries. This was found to constitute a change in physical condition causing a dangerous condition, resulting in Caltrans losing its design immunity and being held financially responsible for the victim’s injuries.

Suppose you are driving down a highway or freeway where the opposing lanes of travel are separated by a grass or gravel median. Another car sideswipes your vehicle, causing you to lose control, cross the median strip, and run straight into oncoming traffic, resulting in serious injuries to you or the death of a loved one. You sue Caltrans claiming that, if the median had had a concrete barrier, guardrail, or other type of barrier, it would have prevented the accident, and your injuries from hitting the median barrier would have been much less severe than being hit by opposing traffic.

The requirement that Caltrans install a median barrier is not as simple as it may seem. Rather than simply install barriers on every median, the State has taken the more scientific approach set forth in “warrants,” which are guidelines for determining whether to install a median. Whether a median barrier should be constructed is based on the number of vehicles using the road each day (the average daily traffic, or ADT), the width of the median, and the number and types of accidents occurring at or near the site to identify freeway segments where the benefit of a barrier may outweigh the expected detriment.

A median barrier is not without its own dangers, however. Not only does the placement of a median barrier cut in half the recovery room for an out of control vehicle, it is also a fixed object that can cause serious injuries and/or fatalities when struck either directly or by deflecting the careening vehicle back into traffic. Analyses and comparisons of pre-barrier and post-barrier accident histories have consistently shown that the addition of a median barrier increases the median accident rate by an average of 30 percent on freeways and 50 percent on expressways. Cross-median accidents (i.e., those without a median barrier), however, tend to be more severe than other types of collisions, including hit-barrier accidents. Median barriers are a trade-off. They prevent nearly all cross-median accidents, but usually result in an overall increase in accidents and injuries. The challenge, therefore, is to balance the reduction of accident severity against a greater frequency of accidents and injuries.

When a highway or freeway design is properly approved and built without a median barrier, the State monitors it annually to determine whether subsequent placement of a median barrier may result in a safety benefit. Each year, through its “Median Barrier Monitoring System,” the State reviews the entire State highway system and identifies those locations that meet the accident warrant (guidelines) and the volume-of-traffic/width-of-median warrant. The State then notifies each district of the road segments in their area that met either warrant based on data collection the previous year. The district engineers conduct detailed reviews and field investigations and recommend to the State whether or not a barrier should be installed at the identified locations. The State reviews the district recommendations for statewide uniformity and availability of funding and makes a final decision with the district regarding installation of a median barrier at the identified locations.

It usually takes several years between the decision to install a median barrier and completion of the project. This delay is the result of statutory time constraints imposed on the state by the Public Contracts Code, as well as the practical amount of time required to plan, design, budget, fund, advertise, award, and construct the project. However, in many cases a good argument can be made that Caltrans could and should have installed a temporary barrier prior to the accident in question.

The California Government Code generally relieves Caltrans from liability for injuries arising from the failure to provide traffic or warning signals, signs, markings, or devices. However, liability may exist for failure to provide such a sign, signal, or device where the condition constitutes a “trap” to a person using the highway or freeway with due care. The failure to post a warning sign, install traffic signals, or take some other measures is required where there is a dangerous condition that endangers the safe movement of traffic, and the dangerous condition was not reasonably apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person using due care for his or her own safety.

For example, in one case, a motorist was driving down a desert road, did not see a stop sign, and continued forward and hit an embankment, suffering serious injuries. The intersection was a “T”-style intersection, and despite the fact that there had been eight traffic accidents at the same intersection in the 21 months before the man’s accident, Caltrans failed to put up proper signs warning that the road ended. The jury found that Caltrans was negligent in failing to erect proper warning signs and awarded the seriously injured man, who was rendered bedridden as a result of the injuries, over $10 million.

In another case, Caltrans was held liable for injuries resulting from its failure to post a warning sign of an impending intersection. The evidence showed that Caltrans had once posted such a warning sign, but that it had been missing for four years before the accident and Caltrans failed to replace it, even though it had a number of opportunities to do so. The jury found that a properly placed warning sign could have prevented the accident.

Caltrans must also maintain the vegetation and shrubbery surrounding traffic control and regulatory signs so that they do not obscure the signs, and must replace a missing or broken sign within a reasonable amount of time after getting actual or constructive notice that it is missing or broken.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an accident involving the design, construction, repair, or maintenance of a highway or freeway under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. Because Caltrans is a division of the State of California (i.e., a public entity), it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident. An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf.

It is also important to contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible after the accident, as the law firm may want to send its own investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused or contributed to the accident, especially before Caltrans changes the condition. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

An experienced personal injury law firm can also help with seeing to it that you obtain appropriate and thorough medical care for your physical, emotional, and psychological injuries suffered as a result of the accident. They can also do everything possible to ensure that you obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, and all of your other injuries and damages.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

As for the first type of accidents, with the number of drivers and cars on the road increasing every year, there has been an increase in construction work to fix old, worn-out roadway surfaces, overpasses, and the like, and to expand the roadway to accommodate the growing number of drivers by adding lanes to existing freeways, highways, and roadways. A public entity (that is, the state, a county, or a city) has a legal obligation (a “duty”) to design, construct, and maintain its streets and highways in a reasonably safe condition for travel by the public.

Road construction accidents can result from a failure to post necessary warning signs, orange traffic cones, and other signage or systems warning of upcoming construction. The construction work may result in debris being thrown onto the roadway’s surface, where it strikes a car and causes injury or poses a hazard to traffic, such as causing oncoming traffic to swerve suddenly and violently at the last moment to avoid the debris. Accidents involving road construction and repair are particularly high at night, when it is less visible, but most construction is done because of the reduced traffic.

As for the second type of road construction accidents, dangerous conditions on improperly designed roadways lead to a number of serious injuries and deaths each year. The dangerous condition may be a sharp curve that is not properly graded, the lack of a guardrail at a freeway on- or off-ramp, the lack of a median barrier separating opposing lanes of traffic, and the lack of traffic signals or signs warning of a dangerous condition that would not be apparent to a person exercising due care for his or her own safety are just a few examples of conditions that cause or enhance injuries.

A public entity—such as the state, a city, or a county—is legally responsible (“liable”) for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of its property, including its roadways, if it could have anticipated (“reasonably foreseen”) that an accident could happen and a person injured, and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient amount of time before the injury to take preventive measures. “Constructive notice” means that the dangerous condition had existed long enough that the public body should have known of it, such as from a previous accident or complaint.

In cases against a governmental body arising from the dangerous condition of a roadway, the public body can escape liability if it meets the criteria of the “design immunity” defense. This requires that the government body prove three elements: (1) that the approved plan or design was a cause of the accident; (2) that an authorized governmental body, officer, or employee gave his or her discretionary approval to the plan or design before construction began; and (3) substantial evidence supports the reasonableness of the plan. The first and second elements of the design immunity defense are questions of fact for the jury to decide; the third element, however, is a question of law for the court to decide.

The defense of design immunity is based upon the concept of separation of powers. In short, the judicial branch through a court or jury should not review the discretionary decisions of legislative or executive bodies. This avoids the danger of interference with the freedom of decision-making by those public officials in whom the function of making decisions has been vested. It also prevents a jury from reweighing the same facts considered by the governmental entity that approved the design. If there is any substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the approved design, design immunity applies. This is true even if the injured victim presents evidence of a design defect. Even if an expert witness for the injured victim, in hindsight, finds the design defective, that does not mean the design was unreasonably approved. As long as reasonable minds can different concerning whether a design should have been approved, then the governmental entity must be granted immunity.

The “causal relationship” element requires proof that the alleged design defect was responsible for the accident, as opposed to some other independent cause. The “discretionary approval” element simply means approval in advance of construction by the legislative body or officer exercising discretionary authority. Thus, design immunity is not a valid defense where design decisions were never made.

The third element, that substantial evidence supports the reasonableness of the plan, is a question of law for the court to decide. “Substantial evidence” has been defined as “evidence of solid value which reasonably inspires confidence.” Ordinarily, the opinion of a civil engineer as to the reasonableness of a design constitutes “any substantial evidence” sufficient to support a government body’s design immunity defense. The issue is whether there is any reasonable basis on which a reasonable public official could initially have approved the design. As long as there is any substantial basis on which a government official could have decided the design was reasonable, it is irrelevant that a contrary opinion might have been offered. A public entity’s reliance upon the advice of a competent engineer is generally sufficient to establish reasonable approval of the proffered design.

It is not necessary that the property be perfectly designed; only that it be given a design that is reasonable under the circumstances. By using a “reasonableness” standard, the Legislature intended that government officials be given extensive leeway in their decisions concerning public property. A governmental entity is entitled to rely on what is apparently competent advice in making legislative decisions. The fact that on hindsight the advice may prove to have been flawed is not a basis for imposing liability on the governmental entity.

Design immunity is not permanent but may be lost as a result of changed conditions that subsequently make the improvement dangerous. As one court stated, “The Legislature did not intend that public entities should be permitted to shut their eyes to the operation of a plan or design once it has been transferred from blueprint to blacktop.”

To demonstrate the loss of immunity design, the injured person must prove three things: (1) that the plan or design has become dangerous because of a change in physical conditions; (2) the public body had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition thereby created; and (3) the public entity had a reasonable time to obtain the funds and carry out the necessary remedial work to bring the property back into conformity with a reasonable design or plan, or the public entity, unable to remedy the condition due to practical impossibility or lack of funds, had not reasonably attempted to provide adequate warnings. All three elements of the loss of immunity design defense are questions of fact for the jury to decide.

A change in design or engineering standards does not constitute a change of condition leading to the loss of design immunity. Technological advances in design and engineering do not constitute a change in physical condition. That the public entity may have inspected and installed improvements at other locations under its control does not constitute a change in physical condition.

As for the issue of separation of powers, the questions involved in the loss of design immunity are not the identical questions considered by the government officers who adopted or approved the plan. Therefore, the Legislature would arguably not have had the same rationale for taking such questions away from a jury. Where experience has revealed the dangerous nature of a pubic improvement under changed physical conditions, the trier of fact (i.e., the jury) will not be simply reweighing the same technical data and policy criteria that went into the original plan or design. Rather, there will then be objective evidence arising from the actual operation of the plan, matters which could not have been contemplated by the governmental agency or employee who approved the design. Thus, no threat of undue interference with discretionary-making exists in this situation.

While increased traffic volume may constitute changed physical conditions, design immunity is not lost simply because the design is operating under such conditions. There must be evidence that the design—under changed physical conditions—has produced a dangerous condition of which the public entity is aware. “Dangerous condition” means a condition of property that creates a substantial risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used. For example, an improvement may come to constitute a dangerous condition if increased traffic at the site, coupled with an aberrant accident history, indicates its dangerousness.

When the government entity has notice that the plan or design, under changed physical conditions, has produced a dangerous condition of public property, it must act reasonably to correct or alleviate the hazard. The government entity has a reasonable time to finance and take remedial action or to provide adequate warning of the dangerous condition.

Section 830.8 of the California Government Code relieves a public entity from liability for injuries arising from the failure to provide traffic or warning signals, signs, markings, or devices. However, liability may exist for failure to provide such a signal or device where the condition constitutes a trap to a person using the street or highway with due care. The government body can be held liable for injuries caused the failure to have a signal, sign, etc., if a signal, sign, marking, or device was necessary to warn motorists and other users of the road of a dangerous condition which endangers the safe movement of traffic and which would not be reasonably apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person exercising due care for his or her own safety.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an accident involving the construction or design of a public road, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. Because the entity that owns, operates, or maintains the roadway is a public body, such as the state or a county or city, it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident. An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf.

It is also important to contact an experienced personal injury as soon as possible after the accident, as the attorney may want to send his or her investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused of contributed to the accident before conditions change or the pubic body repairs them. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

An experienced personal injury attorney can also help with seeing to it that you receive a thorough physical and mental examination and treatment for any injuries you receive in the accident. An experienced personal injury law firm can see to it that you obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, and all of your other injuries and damages.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The San Francisco police department is continuing its investigation since a Muni vehicle was involved in this crash.  Brand, who was transported to San Francisco General Hospital is in critical condition.

A complete investigation must be done in this tragic incident.  If you or a loved one has been seriously injured as a result of a pedestrian accident or an accident involving public transportation or a government entity, contact us now for a free legal consultation of your rights.  Don’t let insurance adjusters take advantage of you.  Let our team of lawyers fight for you.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites