Who is at fault?

You’re driving down Beverly Blvd, La Brea, Pico, Robertson, whatever street it may be and CRASH. You are in an accident. Maybe you were rear ended, maybe it was a side swipe, a turning accident, or a head on collision. It’s not your fault. But are you sure? Maybe you are sure but the other driver has a different opinion? Now its time to whip out the trusty old dash cam footage.

The below video was taken from a dash camera from a vehicle in Texas. The original Reddit post can be found here.

The victim was driving within her lane, sees a wide-turning vehicle, and ultimately stops in an effort to avoid hitting / being hit. She did everything she could but the other car, traveling in the opposite direction, hits her head on. What’s worse is that the other driver comes out and blames the victim! That’s what we call chutzpah!

In another example, at the intersection of Olympic and Fairfax in Los Angeles:

The car with the dash cam is going straight, two cars in the opposite direction make a left turn in front of the dash-cam equipped vehicle. The third car decides to turn also and clearly would have been at fault if the accident had actually occurred.

To some people it is obvious that the turning vehicle has to wait for traffic to clear before initiating a turn (which is the law), but other people might say “we both had the green”.

California Vehicle Code Section 21801 (a) states: “The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left… shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety.”

Luckily the accident was avoided due to the at-fault party correcting her mistake.  The vigilant driver (of the dash-cam car) also slowed down fast enough and avoided a collision.

Clearly, in both of the above scenarios the dash-cam equipped vehicle driver is not at fault.

We highly recommend purchasing a dash cam video camera. They are fairly inexpensive and are worth every dollar when needed. The footage may very likely be admissible in court if you have the proper representation.

Without this camera footage, it would be “he said / she said”.

If you are involved in an accident, you must be represented by someone that knows how to obtain evidence, collect statements, and ultimately pursue your cause to the fullest possible extent. Please call Ari Friedman Law Offices to get your free case evaluation.

Ari Friedman
Personal Injury Lawyer – Car Accident Lawyer
Los Angeles
www.AFriedman.com

Motorcycle Accident Lawyer

When choosing a motorcycle accident lawyer, it is imperative that your lawyer can fully understand what you are going through. Attorney Ari Friedman has been riding motorcycles for over ten years and won’t be pushed around by insurance companies!

Motorcycle Accident Lawyer - Los Angeles

Pictured above: Personal Injury Attorney Ari Friedman Riding BMW GS1200

Motorcycle-Accident-Lawyer
Pictured above: Personal Injury Attorney Ari Friedman Riding Harley Davidson Heritage Softail

If you or someone you know has been involved in any type of motorcycle accident, contact the Friedman Law Offices today!

Ari Friedman
Personal Injury Lawyer – Motorcycle Accident Lawyer
Los Angeles
www.AFriedman.com

I Slipped And Fell. What Is My Remedy?

GAS STATION SLIP AND FALL CASE ANALYSIS

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff  was walking on Defendants’ property in order to pay for gasoline. Plaintiff tripped on a protruding piece of cement on Defendants’ property that was abutting a handicap ramp. Plaintiff tripped and fell face forward into the mini market’s cement wall. Plaintiff injured his shoulder, head, wrist, knees, back, neck, nose, lips, chest. As a result, Plaintiff received immediate emergency treatment and has been undergoing treatment since the accident with constant residual pain.

LIABILITY:

Plaintiff parked his car in order to pay for gasoline at the gas station window. After exiting his car, he walked toward the pay window and tripped on the abutting cement. The ramp had no railing that most handicap ramps have. There were no warning signs advising of the abutting cement. The cement ramp came to an abrupt point and is located in a place where people walk from their car to the market.

INJURIES:

After arriving at the emergency room, Plaintiff was examined and given medication for pain. Plaintiff underwent a series of CT scans and x-rays and was ultimately admitted to the hospital, where he stayed for almost a week. The x-ray at the hospital indicated a “humeral neck fracture”. Plaintiff’s shoulder was secured by a shoulder immobilizer.

Plaintiff was seen at the hospital by his primary care physician. Plaintiff had swelling from his shoulder through his forearm. The doctor advised Plaintiff that he must continue to wear the shoulder immobilizer.

Plaintiff followed up with the doctor  the following week and he re-examined Plaintiff and advised him that he should continue to wear the immobilizer for an additional four weeks. Plaintiff was referred to undergo physical therapy and began said therapy at a rehab facility.Plaintiff’s condition was only minimally improving. Plaintiff underwent physical therapy

RESIDUAL COMPLAINTS AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:

Plaintiff still experiences constant head pain, constant right shoulder pain that radiates to his back, and constant hip pain. Plaintiff experiences intermittent pain to both his knees. Plaintiff also still experiences almost constant pain in his neck.

Plaintiff is no longer able to perform the normal housework or errands which require carrying heavy items. Before the accident, Plaintiff, an elderly gentleman, was able to maintain his home without the need of anyone’s help. Due to the accident, Plaintiff was forced to hire a housekeeper. Plaintiff cannot accomplish simple household tasks such as making his bed or cleaning the bathroom.

APPLICABLE LAW:

An owner who conducts active operations on the premises must exercise ordinary care for the safety of everyone she knows, or should expect, to be on the property. Oettinger v Stewart, 24 C2d 133, 138 (1944).

CONCLUSION:

THIS CASE WAS SETTLED OUT OF COURT, AND THE CLIENT GOT THE MONEY THEY DESERVED!

Ari Friedman
Personal Injury Lawyer
Afriedman.com

 

Other Car Made an Unsafe Lane Change and Hit My Car – Am I at Fault?

UNSAFE LANE CHANGE CASE ANALYSIS

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff was a passenger on a Los Angeles County MTA bus proceeding home from work. As the bus was proceeding north on a highwawy, the bus driver struck another vehicle, a Hummer SUV. Plaintiff was standing towards the front of the bus as she was about to exit at the upcoming bus stop. Upon impact Plaintiff was thrown forward into a pole on the bus and was injured. The LAPD report indicated that the driver of the bus was at fault for this accident, in violation of California Vehicle Code §22107, unsafe lane change.

Rear-End Collision Photo

LIABILITY

Plaintiff  was a negligent-free passenger on the bus. Defendant and Cross-Defendant dispute which vehicle changed lanes causing the accident and subsequent injury to Plaintiff.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGES

Plaintiff sustained trauma to her head, neck, back, and left shoulder as a result of this collision. She was evaluated by a hospital and followed up with a doctor who reported that Plaintiff had severe headaches, pain in the neck, back, and shoulder. The docotor diagnosed Plaintiff with 1) post-traumatic cerebral syndrome, 2) post-traumatic cervical muscololigamentous sprain, 3) post-traumatic lumbosacral muscololigamentous sprain, and 4) post-traumatic left shoulder sprain. Physical therapy was prescribed as well as Celebrex for the pain.

Plaintiff sought physical therapy and received heat and ice pack therapy, ultrasound, joint mobilization, massage, and therapeutic exercise therapy. While some symptoms subsided at the completion of physical therapy, Plaintiff still continued to have pain and followed up with her doctor. He recommended another set of physical therapy sessions which Plaintiff underwent.

Car accident lawyer

RESIDUAL COMPLAINTS AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES

Plaintiff still suffers from intermittent neck pain radiating into her shoulder. She has trouble performing simple daily activities such as lifting bags of groceries or turning her head while driving.

CONCLUSION:

THIS CASE WAS SETTLED OUT OF COURT, AND THE CLIENT GOT THE MONEY THEY DESERVED!

Ari Friedman
Personal Injury Lawyer
Afriedman.com

Freeway Rear-End Collision

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff was driving a 2004 Porsche SUV eastbound on the 580 Freeway near Pleasanton, California in the number one lane. Defendant was driving a Toyota Prius behind plaintiff’s vehicle and rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle causing injury to plaintiffs. Plaintiff  number 2 was a passenger in plaintiff ‘s vehicle.

Freeway Collision Pic

LIABILITY

Defendant rear ended plaintiff and liability is not contested.

PROPERTY DAMAGE

Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained over $6,000 in property damage.

Freeway collision Pic2

MEDICAL BILLS TO DATE

Plaintiff incurred medical expenses in the sum of $43,497.53.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGES

Plaintiff suffered injuries to his right knee, neck, back, left shoulder, arm, and head as a result of this rear-end collision. Following the accident he sought treatment from a doctor. Plaintiff began a course of chiropractic therapy. X-rays were ordered, however, due to the increased pain, specifically in his right knee, the doctor referred plaintiff to another doctor for an orthopedic consultation.

Plaintiff underwent right knee Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, 2) arthroscopic chondroplasty, medial femoral condyle, impinging medial plica, and local synovitis in medial gutter. The doctor indicated that the surgery was successful. 

Prior to the accident, plaintiff was gainfully employed. As a result of plaintiff’s injury to his knee and per the recommendation of his doctor, plaintiff was required to miss seventeen days of work. 

CONCLUSION:

THIS CASE WAS SETTLED OUT OF COURT, AND THE CLIENT GOT THE MONEY THEY DESERVED!

Ari Friedman
Personal Injury Lawyer
Afriedman.com

Bicycle Accident Analysis – Am I at fault?

BICYCLE ACCIDENT ANALYSIS

Facts: A 19 year old was riding his bicycle on the sidewalk going eastbound when Defendant pulled out of a private driveway and struck the bicyclist.

bicycle-accident-lawyer

WHO IS AT FAULT?

            Plaintiff testified he was travelling between five and ten miles per hour prior to impact; he was “just coasting” and “cradling the brakes”. There were no pedestrians in the area. Plaintiff testified that he was careful to look out for cars coming out of driveways.

RELEVANT CALIFORNIA LAW:

The California vehicle code does not prohibit bicycle riders from riding on the sidewalk, on either side of the street.

21804.  (a) The driver of any vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from any public or private property, or from an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic, as defined in Section 620, approaching on the highway close enough to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that traffic until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety. Cal. Veh. Code Section 21804(a). Emphasis added.

As to the definition of “right of way”: Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instruction (CAC) 701 states”

“When the law requires a [driver/pedestrian] to “yield the right-of way” to [another/a] [vehicle/pedestrian], this means that the [driver/pedestrian] must let the [other] [vehicle/pedestrian] go first.

The only California Code dealing with bicycle operations on a sidewalk, merely allows local municipalities to maintain their own regulations:

“This chapter does not prevent local authorities, by ordinance, from regulating the registration of bicycles and the parking and operation of bicycles on pedestrian or bicycle facilities, provided such regulation is not in conflict with the provisions of this code”. Cal. Veh. Code Section 21206.

RELEVANT LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE:

This accident occurred within the City of Los Angeles. This fact is not disputed. The only applicable Los Angeles Municipal Code section states:

“No person shall ride, operate or use a bicycle, unicycle, skateboard, cart, wagon, wheelchair, rollerskates, or any other device moved exclusively by human power, on a sidewalk, bikeway or boardwalk in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”  L.A.M.C. Section 56.15

The above ordinance makes it clear that the only situation a bicycle is not allowed to operate on a sidewalk is when he is operating in a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. The legislators chose their words carefully. The code does not state that the requirement be “negligent riding” or “fast riding”, rather, the ordinance chose its words carefully and used very strong language indicating an intentional hazardous type of riding.

There is no evidence whatsoever supporting that Plaintiff was riding his bicycle in a negligent manner and surely not in a “wanton or willful disregard for the safety…”

Filing A Personal Injury Lawsuit: A Guide

Personal injury lawyer

     Personal injury lawsuit

When thinking of legal matter and the court system the first thing that comes to mind is of course the many hours to be spent in the courtrooms, and the personal injury lawyer who do not charge hourly, but who will be paid from the proceeds of your case. So, if you are someone who has sufficient cause to file a personal injury lawsuit against another person or company, then you might want to avoid some common pitfalls that a rookie might make.

Whatever your case may be, it goes without saying that one with an excellent personal injury lawyer is like a case half won. A good attorney will be able to influence the decisions of the judge and jury through brilliant cross-examinations. Given below are some steps that you can follow if you want to pursue a personal injury lawsuit in a court of law.

Hiring an attorney

The importance of an attorney has already been analyzed and explained. Yet, it is still an important part of filing a lawsuit, and to find an experienced attorney, you will have to break some sweat. Local or state bar associations will have references and qualifications of their attorneys, so it will be a good place to start your hunt for an attorney. One of the best ways is asking some of your friends who have had positive experiences with an injury lawyer.

Court processes

The court processes start with a formal complaint being filed. The court will allow some time for the defendant to offer answer the lawsuit, which needs to be properly “served”.

Statute of limitations

You will have to file a complaint within a certain time period which is ascertained by the statute of limitations laws. In California, the statute of limitations in injury cases is two years from the date of injury.

Evidence

References and qualifications

     Lawyers for personal injury cases

The burden of proving the case is on the plaintiff or the victim, who must prove with the help of sufficient evidence that the actions of the defendant were responsible for the injuries he or she had to suffer. Some of the items to be addressed: The plaintiff must also provide enough proof showing that the actions of the defendant and defendant only were responsible for the injuries that he or she had to suffer.

Intentional actions

IF an intentional tort is at issue, it is also up to the plaintiff to prove that the actions of the defendant were intentional and not the result of coincidence or an accident.

The bottom line

Court processes can drag on forever if you are not represented by an efficient injury attorney. As it is quite clear, it is up to the plaintiff to prove whose fault the accident was.