Miscellaneous News

WEST L..A. / UCLA WATER TRUNKLINE BREAK CAUSES LOSS OF MORE THAN 20 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER AND SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE, BUT FORTUNATELY NO LOSS OF LIFE

August 1, 2014 | by Robert Walch

While early reports indicated the water loss was 8-10 million gallons of water, updated reports put the loss at in excess of 20 million gallons of drinkable water.

The water loss increased significantly because the L.A. DWP could not simply turn off the broken trunkline. Instead, first it had to find the right valves then turn them off slowly to prevent too much sudden pressure causing more breaks. Then, it was reported some valves would not completely close, causing thousands of gallons of additional drinking water to be wasted every hour. Thursday morning, July 31, 2014, it was reported that the valves finally were completely closed so repair work could commence.

Clearly the damage to land, structures, including famous Pauley Pavilion at UCLA, and hundreds of water logged cars and other vehicles parked in the flooded UCLA underground parking structures will be in the millions of dollars, and the loss of so much drinking water during our Los Angeles water drought is immeasurable.

Earthquake Hits off the Coast of Chile – No current threat to California

April 1, 2014 | by Robert Walch

According to CNN, a magnitude 8.2 earthquake struck today off of the coast of Chile. It is not presently known if there are any earthquake related injuries or fatalities. There is, however, a threat of a tsunami striking the Chilean coast. As of now, reports from the Los Angeles Times indicate that there is not currently a tsunami threat for California.

Recently, after a long period of time without noticeable earthquakes in Los Angeles, there have been numerous earthquakes that have rattled our area. Fortunately, none have been as powerful as the 1994 earthquake, which caused massive earthquake damage and many injuries and deaths in Los Angeles.

We wish to remind our readers, including our personal injury clients, to make sure they are protected by earthquake insurance, in case another “big one” hits the Los Angeles area. Not only that, it is very important to have bottled water and canned food in case of shortages and power outages. This was a major problem after the 1994 Northridge earthquake.

Concussions – Traumatic Brain Injuries – NFL

January 29, 2014 | by Robert Walch

According to ESPN, former National Football League running back, Jahvid Best, who played for the Detroit Lions, has filed a personal injury lawsuit against the NFL, Riddell and Easton-Bell Sports, for the concussions that he sustained while playing football, which ended his professional football playing career.

It will be particularly interesting to see what information is gained through litigation against Riddell and Easton, who make the helmets that the NFL players wear. Have these companies been withholding relevant concussion information from consumers? Can football helmets be made in a way that, when used properly, including helmet to helmet hits (which are part of football), the players wearing the helmets do not suffer concussions? Is there a better helmet that could have been designed and used that is not being used so that teams can save money? Hopefully the litigation process will divulge this information.

It is understandable if some people see this lawsuit and do not believe the suit has merits. Some may argue that Mr. Best knew full well the risks of playing football before he agreed to be paid a lot of money to play. However, more and more information keeps emerging about the damages of a concussion. It is very important for people to remember that a concussion is a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is a serious injury that cannot be taken lightly. If certain companies intentionally withheld safety information, including the damaging effects of concussions, from users of the products the companies manufactured, or if the league did not disclose the risks and dangers of concussions to its players, we can understand why there would be personal injury liability on those parties.

Google Glass – Traffic Citations? Potential for Injury Liability?

January 17, 2014 | by Robert Walch

A woman in Temecula, California, who was wearing Google Glass eye-wear while driving, was found not guilty of distracted driving, according to the Los Angeles Times, after she was issued a ticket by California Highway Patrol. In this particular case, the judge determined that officers would have to be able to prove that the driver of the vehicle actually had the Google Glass turned on, rather than just on the driver’s head, to possibly prove the driver was distracted.

This driver was charged under California Vehicle Code Section 27602, which was written to prevent drivers from looking at a video type of screen while driving. Here, the argument would be that the Google Glass device does not provide any distraction when simply worn, but not turned on.

While Google Glass is only being used by a trial number of people at the moment, it is only a matter of time before the devices become more common and we will probably eventually see a Los Angeles car accident where a claim is made, possibly against Google, because of Google Glass distracting a driver. Without having too much knowledge of how Google Glass works, it appears to me that Google’s argument will be that drivers should not use the device while driving, just like drivers should not be texting or watching a DVD on a video monitor. Unless there is something about the Google Glass that encourages users to use it while driving, it is hard to imagine liability being placed on Google, when a user decides to use the product while driving.

California Medical Malpractice – Unfair Limits on Pain and Suffering

May 23, 2013 | by Robert Walch

In 1975, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (“MICRA”) was set into law in California. This law unfairly limits the amount of money that a victim of medical malpractice can receive for his or her pain and suffering to only $250,000. This amount has not gone up with inflation in 38 years and is the limit regardless of how severe the injury and malpractice. For example, if a doctor were to negligently remove the wrong leg of a patient, the pain and suffering of the crippled patient is limited to the same $250,000.

For the protection of California’s citizens, this law obviously needs to be changed. We urge our readers to vote in the poll on the website for the Los Angeles Business Journal, by clicking here. The poll is on the bottom right of the page, and we urge a “yes” vote, that the limit on California medical malpractice is unfair and far too low. As of the time of publishing this blog post, 92% of the votes in the poll favor raising the unfair limit on pain and suffering damages.

Newbury Park Wildfire Threatens Homes

May 3, 2013 | by Robert Walch

The “Springs Fire,” which has now burned over 10,000 acres, is threatening about 4,000 homes in Newbury Park California. The California brush fire has caused damage to at least 15 homes and other properties so far. As of now, the Newbury Park fire has not been contained and many residents have had to evacuate their homes.

Fortunately, no incidents of injury or death, to residents or firefighters, have been reported. As always, with a fire as massive as this one, the risk of fire and burn injuries is significant. Adding to the danger is the fact that the Santa Ana winds have been blowing particularly strong this week. Further, the lack of rain in the Los Angeles area this year heightens the risk of brush fires and makes it easier for the fire to spread.

According to CNN, the California fire started on Thursday morning in Camarillo, California, and traveled all the way to Pacific Coast Highway. Due to the fire, a 10 mile area of PCH was closed, just north of Malibu.

As of now, the cause of the Newbury Park brush fire remains unknown. Sometimes these fires are caused by arson, in which case the arsonist, if caught, can face serious criminal charges, including murder if any deaths result from the fire. If caught, the arsonist would also face civil liability for the fire damage caused to property.

TWO BOMBS EXPLODE AT BOSTON MARATHON – 3 KILLED, OVER 170 INJURED!!!

April 16, 2013 | by Robert Walch

Yesterday afternoon, Monday, April 15, 2013, two bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon, reportedly killing three and injuring more than 170. Some of those injured are critical, many reportedly losing limbs and suffering shrapnel and other serious injuries.

With over half a million present and twenty thousand runners from over 100 nations, the casualties certainly could have been far greater, but that is no comfort to those tragically affected by this horrific act of terrorism. Those responsible have not been arrested or identified, and presently there is no information whether those responsible are foreign or domestic. Regardless, this act, the first apparent successful act of terrorism against a city in the United States since Sept 11th, is one committed by cowards against innocent, defenseless people participating in what was to be a wonderful day of excitement, exercise and celebration.

Initially a 15 block area was closed off to assist investigators with the crime scene and this morning the Police Commissioner announced it has already been reduced to 12 blocks, with further reductions planned. Although the crime scene area is closed off, city official have stated there is a heavy police presence at public areas, such as Logan Airport, where traffic had been suspended, and city subway stations, and urged the public to come into Boston.

NO AMUSEMENT PARK LIABILITY FOR BUMPER CAR PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT

January 7, 2013 | by Robert Walch

The California Supreme Court has sided with Great America Amusement Park in an important bumper car accident case.

In a decision limiting liability of amusement parks for amusement park accidents to patrons, the California Supreme Court ruled on December 31, 2012, that the Great American Amusement Park is not liable for amusement park injuries suffered to a rider of a bumper car resulting from the inherent nature of the attraction.

The California Supreme Court previously held in a case relating to sports (touch football) injuries: “In cases involving ‘primary assumption of risk’–where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties’ relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury–the doctrine continues to operate as a complete bar to the plaintiff’s recovery.” Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 296. The court now has extended this doctrine to recreational activities, limiting liability for injuries resulting from amusement park rides.

In a suit brought by Smriti Nalwa, due to her fracturing her wrist while trying to brace herself by putting her hand on the car’s dashboard in a head on bumper car collision, the California Supreme Court ruled 6 to 1 that her accident injury was caused by the collision with another bumper car, a normal part of the ride. According to the Los Angeles Times (AA1, January 1, 2013), the court stated, “A small degree of risk inevitably accompanies the thrill of speeding through loops, defying gravity or, in bumper cars, engaging in the mock violence of low-speed collisions. Those who voluntarily join in these activities also voluntarily take on their minor inherent risks.”

In analyzing the legal doctrine of assumption of the risk and recreational activities that inherently involve some risks, the court stated that riders assume some risks when voluntarily riding on bumper cars, specifically stating “[T]he primary assumption of risk doctrine is not limited to activities classified as sports, but applies as well to other recreational activities ‘involving an inherent risk of injury to voluntary participants . . . where the risk cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity.’ (Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 658.)”

Los Angeles to Las Vegas Train Should Ease Traffic and Reduce Car Accidents

November 27, 2012 | by Robert Walch

According to the Los Angeles Times, a company called Las Vegas Railway Express, will be set to operate a train route from Southern California to Las Vegas. The “X Train” will be for adults only and will be on refurbished trains traveling from Los Angeles to Las Vegas on Thursday and Friday afternoons, and back to Los Angeles on Sundays.

This new passenger train route, which will leave from Fullerton, California, will be expected to ease traffic for those commuters who still wish to drive to and from Las Vegas. It should also cause a reduction in the amount of Nevada and California car accidents that occur each year. The route is expected to begin operations for New Years Eve in 2013.

Many California residents are very familiar with the extreme traffic during peak travel hours on Interstate 15. This new passenger train route should hopefully reduce those traffic jams. Also, with less cars on the road, the amount of car accidents should also be reduced. On the other side of the argument, when there are fewer cars on the road, sometimes cars travel faster, leading to more serious car accident injuries.

The train ride is expected to cost $99 each way, and is meant to be an extension of the Las Vegas party atmosphere. Passengers will not have to worry about drinking and driving, or driving home in traffic with a rough Las Vegas hangover.

Consumer Protection – Vote NO on Propositions 32 & 33!

November 5, 2012 | by Robert Walch

Although we try to stay neutral on political issues, when ballot measures involve Consumer Protection issues, as some do on the November 6, 2012, ballot, we feel an obligation to offer some information to those who are interested.

Proposition 32, limiting political contributions (which if and when done fairly across the board to limit influence peddling – or as some might say “legal bribery”) would be great, but here it is promoted or supported by just one side (huge corporations and insurance companies) who unfairly want to limit campaign contributions by their adversaries without making those limits reciprocal or equal for both sides. Regardless of your position, this should be offensive. You might wonder when those with resources might similarly try to limit you!
As those against it wrote, “Before you vote on Prop. 32, answer two questions. Would billionaires pay to place this on the ballot unless they were getting exemptions! When’s the last time a proposition backed by special interests in California didn’t contain loopholes and exemptions?”
“Real estate developers, insurance companies and billionaire venture capitalists are just three groups EXEMPT from provisions of Proposition 32, while a union will no longer be able to contribute to candidates. In addition, huge corporate special interests can continue to spend unlimited money on politics.”

Where are the checks and balances? Where is the fairness? Who will be there to assist you when those with resources try to limit you or their opposition?

Proposition 33, which attempts to change current law to allow insurance companies to set rates based on whether the applicant-driver previously carried insurance with an insurance company, is simply a trick to charge some Californians more for auto insurance. Proposition 33 reportedly is funded 99% by one insurance company billionaire who claims he wants to save drivers money on their insurance. “When was the last time an insurance company executive spent $8 million on a ballot initiative to save you money?”