In California, close family members of people who die are entitled to pursue compensation through wrongful death claims when their loved ones’ deaths are caused by the negligent actions of others. In Green v. Healthcare Services, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. G057950, the appeals court considered whether a patient’s suicide at a treatment facility qualified as a superseding cause and should have prevented a finding of negligence against the defendant.[1]

Factual and procedural background

Jeffrey Green was a 33-year-old man who had struggled with opioid addiction since he was 16. He started by using Oxycontin and began taking high doses of methadone beginning at age 27. Greene called Lighthouse, residential, voluntary treatment and mental health facility for an intake interview. During the interview, he told the intake person that he wanted to live but not the way that he was. He also stated that he needed to get off of methadone. He also informed the intake person that his father had committed suicide a few years before but denied any suicidal ideations himself. Green signed a “no harm” contract upon his entry to the facility in which he agreed that he would not harm himself.

A marriage and family therapist intern, Andrew Jonas, completed an assessment of Green upon his entry into the facility. Green again denied any suicidal thoughts, and Jonas assessed him as having no risk of suicide or self-harm.

Green completed six days of detox and stated that he felt great. Before he was transferred from the detox unit to the rehabilitation unit, he was again assessed by Mirela Elena Casapu, another marriage and family therapist intern. She noted that Green seemed anxious and was exhibiting some symptoms of withdrawal. However, she also noted that he denied any suicidal ideations or thoughts of self-harm. Dr. Michael Bishara, the treating doctor at Lighthouse, decided to approve the transfer of Green from detox to rehabilitation.

After his transfer to rehabilitation, Green handed Casapu a note telling her his mother’s and brother’s phone numbers. In the note, he stated that he was doing great but was barely hanging on. The note also stated that if Green left the facility for Casapu to tell the police that he was suicidal. Casapu informed the program coordinator, program administrator, and the program director immediately about the note from Green. She also called Dr. Preet Joneja, the supervising psychologist. He instructed Casapu to assess Green and to call the psychiatric emergency team if needed.

Casapu spent one hour with Green administering a suicide risk assessment. She noted that he was experiencing severe withdrawal symptoms, seemed anxious, and reported that he had experienced suicidal thoughts in the past. He denied having any suicidal ideations and said that he had never attempted suicide before. She decided that he was not suicidal and did not call the psychiatric emergency team.

Dr. Joneja ordered Green to receive visual checks every 30 minutes from staff to ensure that he was okay. Casapu left the facility at 6 pm and stated that she had informed the oncoming staff to check on Green every 30 minutes. However, the staff did not note that Green had received visual checks in his chart.

Casapu’s assessment of Green finished at 5:30 pm. Green was subsequently seen pacing near the medication room. He was offered anxiety medication, which he declined three times. He then called his brother and told him that he was okay.

At 6:10, Chuck Richards, the executive director of the facility, spoke to Green. Green told him that he was excited about his transfer to rehabilitation and did not indicate anything to make Richards believe that he was suicidal. A support staff, David Fairweather, told Green at 6:25 that group therapy would be starting at 6:30. Green subsequently climbed onto the roof of the facility and jumped to his death at 6:39.

Barbara Green, David Green’s mother, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Healthcare Services, the parent company of Lighthouse. She alleged multiple causes of action, including negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, wrongful death, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Lighthouse filed a motion for nonsuit on the causes of action for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and negligent hiring and supervision, which the court granted. The case proceeded to a jury trial on the wrongful death and negligence claims.

At trial, Lighthouse asked the court to instruct the jury about the defense of superseding cause. The proposed jury instruction stated that Lighthouse argued that it was not responsible because Green’s suicide was a superseding cause of his death and the harm suffered by Barbara Green as a result. The trial court denied the proposed jury instruction and said that a superseding cause defense did not apply because Lighthouse was a cause of harm to Barbara Green.

Lighthouse also proposed some jury instructions about premises liability and the requirement that a property owner should have actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition on the property. The court denied those instructions after Barbara Green’s attorney said he would not argue those issues at trial. During his closing argument, Barbara Green’s attorney argued that it was dangerous to allow patients to have access to the roof, noting that Green had to go over a railing to get to the roof. He also stated that the CEO had told an accrediting body that Lighthouse could not barricade roof access at the direction of the fire department and told the jury that was untrue. Lighthouse’s counsel objected to the statement, but the court overruled the objection.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Barbara Green, finding that Lighthouse was 65% negligent, and David Green was 35% negligent. It awarded a gross verdict of $1.7 million for past damages and $2.2 million for future losses. Lighthouse filed a motion for a new trial, but the motion was denied. It then filed an appeal.

Issue: Whether the court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the superseding event defense and on premises liability?

On appeal, Lighthouse argued the court committed a prejudicial error by failing to instruct the jury on the superseding event defense and on the elements of premises liability. It argued that the court was wrong in concluding that Green’s suicide was not a superseding cause of his death and the resulting harm to his mother and that the court also erred by rejecting its instructions about premises liability.

Rule: A party can ask the court to give a nonargumentative jury instruction about each issue it intends to argue.

Either party to a trial can ask the court to give nonargumentative jury instructions about the theories they intend to argue at trial as long as they are correct statements of the law. However, a failure to give a requested instruction is not necessarily prejudicial.

Analysis

Drug rehab facilities can be found negligent when they fail to appropriately supervise patients within their facilities to prevent them from overdosing on drugs.[2] However, this case considered whether a facility could be found negligent when its failure to appropriately supervise a patient resulted in his suicide by jumping off the roof of the facility. The court evaluated the proposed jury instructions that had been submitted by Lighthouse. It noted that while either party can request the court to instruct the jury about the theories they intend to argue at trial, failing to give a proposed instruction can only result in a reversal when the omission results in a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that an error in instructions is a reversible error only when there is a substantial likelihood that it prejudicially affected the verdict.

The court started by considering the court’s refusal to instruct the jury about a superseding event. It first noted that as an affirmative defense, Lighthouse was required to assert it in the answer and did not do so. However, the court still decided to determine the issue on the merits. The court found that it was not waived since Barbara Green had notice based on the briefings in the case before trial.

The court still found that the trial court did not err by failing to give the superseding event instruction to the jury. Superseding events only include those that are extraordinary and unforeseeable by the defendant. In Green’s case, the court found that his risk of suicide was reasonably foreseeable based on his statements, and so it did not qualify as a superseding event.

The court then considered the proposed premises liability instruction. It noted that Barbara Green had not alleged a premises liability cause of action and that general negligence rather than premises liability was at issue in the case. It thus found that the trial court did not err by denying Lighthouse’s proposed premises liability instructions.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Lighthouse was ordered to pay Barbara Green’s costs on appeal.

Speak with an experienced Los Angeles wrongful death lawyer

If you have lost a close family member because of the negligent acts of staff in a treatment facility, you may have legal rights to recover compensation. Schedule a free consultation with a wrongful death attorney at the law firm of the Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC today by calling 866-966-5240.

Sources

[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2021/g057950.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2021-09-03-personal-injury-9eef7b56af&utm_content=text-case-read-more-5

[2] https://www.victimslawyer.com/blog/lawsuit-against-class-a-drug-rehab-facility-in-los-angeles-shows-legal-liability-for-untrained-staff/

The principal attorney and founder of the Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers APC, Steven M. Sweat has dedicated himself to pursuing justice for his clients throughout Los Angeles and California for the past 25 years. Mr. Sweat focuses his practice in the area of plaintiffs’ personal injury law and strongly believes that people who have sustained injuries because of the negligent or wrongful actions of others deserve to be fully compensated.

Mr. Sweat was recently named as a Super Lawyer for the 10th year in a row. Before an attorney can be named as a Super Lawyer, he or she must undergo a rigorous selection process. Attorneys cannot nominate themselves. Instead, Super Lawyers receive nominations from peers. Super Lawyers also conducts in-depth research on attorneys and relies on third-party feedback and managing attorney surveys. Before selection, nominees are evaluated on 12 different indicators, including experience, settlements and verdicts, representative cases, community service and pro bono work, and several others. Attorneys who earn the highest number of points are then compared to other attorneys in the same practice area before a final selection is made. Only 5% of all attorneys are named Super Lawyers. The fact that Mr. Sweat has been named as a Super Lawyer for 10 years in a row is a testament to his legal skills and dedication to his clients.

Before attending law school, Mr. Sweat first completed his undergraduate education at Florida State University, from where he graduated with his Bachelor of Science in 1992. He then moved to California and commenced his legal education at the California Western School of Law, from where he graduated with his Juris Doctor in 1995. While he was in law school, he served as the president of the International Law Society.

Following law school, Mr. Sweat was admitted to practice law before all of the state courts of California and before the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Central Districts of California. Through a combination of hard work, legal acumen, and ethics, Mr. Sweat has built a strong reputation as a dedicated and highly successful personal injury attorney who is willing to fight for his clients’ rights.

Mr. Sweat has garnered numerous awards and honors throughout his long career as an attorney. In addition to being named as a Super Lawyer for 10 years in a row, Mr. Sweat has also been named as a Lawyer of Distinction in 2019 by Lawyers of Distinction, which is a national legal organization that dedicates itself to recognizing attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the practice of law. He also received the Litigator Award from the Trial Lawyers Board of Regents in 2015, which is an award given to personal injury litigators who are recognized for being among the top 1% in their profession. In 2015, he was named to the Top 100 Trial Lawyers list by the National Trial Lawyers, which is a national organization that recognizes attorneys who have demonstrated a high degree of skill in recovering compensation for plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful death matters.

Actively involved in the legal community, Mr. Sweat is a member of multiple professional organizations. He is a member of the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum, which is an association that limits its membership to attorneys who have recovered compensation for their clients of multiple millions of dollars in a single case. Mr. Sweat is also a member of the National Association for Civil Justice, the Consumer Attorneys of America, the Consumer Attorneys of California, and the Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America. His memberships in different professional organizations allow him to network and continually build on his legal practice and knowledge through his interactions with his peers.

Mr. Sweat has recovered tens of millions of dollars on behalf of his clients over the past 25 years. Some of his representative verdicts and settlements include the following:

• 2007- $1 million settlement in a premises liability claim involving negligent security
• 2010 – $350,000 settlement in a premises liability claim involving negligent security
• 2011 – $350,00 settlement in a wrongful termination and disability discrimination claim
• 2012 – 1.3 million in a wrongful death claim involving a slip-and-fall accident in a retail store
• 2012 – $289,000 jury verdict in a bicycle accident involving a motor vehicle
• 2012 – $435,000 settlement in a motorcycle accident involving a motor vehicle
• 2014 – $57,325 jury verdict in a car accident case
• 2014 – $1.3 million settlement in a wrongful death claim involving inadequate maintenance of a strip mall
• 2016 – $1 million settlement in a wrongful death claim involving a motorcyclist who was struck in the HOV lane
• 2016 – $250,000+ jury verdict in a bicycle accident in which the cyclist was struck by a park ranger
• 2016 – $525,000 settlement in a bicycle accident in Glendale, CA
• 2017 – $1.5 million settlement in a civil sexual assault claim against a mental health facility in which a patient was assaulted
• 2019 – $1.1 million settlement in a wrongful death case involving a dog attack
• 2020 – $1 million+ settlement for a bicyclist who was struck by a car in Antelope, CA
• 2021 – Settlement of policy limits and umbrella coverage for a motorcyclist who was struck by a left-turning car

Mr. Sweat approaches every case as if it will head to trial. Even though he is successfully able to negotiate fair settlements for most of his clients, he always prepares his cases as if they will be tried before a jury. He works with investigators and experts to uncover relevant evidence to support his clients’ claims and presents the information to defense counsel and insurance companies in a way that helps them to understand the strength of his clients’ cases. This careful approach results in many successful settlements, and his reputation as a strong trial attorney also convinces many insurance companies and defense attorneys to settle his clients’ claims instead of risking a loss at trial.

Mr. Sweat represents people in all types of personal injury claims, including motor vehicle accidents, truck accidents, bus accidents, pedestrian accidents, premises liability matters, dog bites, and many others. He also represents employees in employment law claims, including discrimination, sexual harassment, wage and hour claims, and more. Mr. Sweat wants to help his clients find real solutions to the problems they are facing and does whatever he can to help to make them whole.

A published author, Mr. Sweat has written several newsletters and scholarly articles. He has written newsletters to provide information about cycling safety, auto safety, bicycle accident claims, and car accident claims. In 2018, his article, ‘Why Should I Hire a Personal Injury Attorney?’ was published in the National Law Review.

In addition to his dedication to his clients and his profession, Mr. Sweat is also dedicated to helping his community. He recognizes that not all people can afford to hire attorneys, and he regularly volunteers his services at the Christian Legal Aid of Los Angeles to provide legal help to those who are less fortunate. In 1996, Mr. Sweat’s volunteerism and dedication to his community were recognized. The San Diego Volunteer Lawyers Program gave him the Pro Bono Publico Award. Mr. Sweat’s many achievements, his strong reputation in the legal community, and his dedication to his clients all have combined to result in his ongoing honor of being named as a Super Lawyer year after year.

Trying to find a reputable personal injury attorney in Los Angeles can seem overwhelming. You might notice there are a large number of solo practitioners and law firms advertising their services as personal injury attorneys. You might have heard that checking online reviews from past clients can be a great way to narrow down your search. Reading about others’ experiences when working with an attorney can give you a general idea of what you might expect.

However, like any other product or service advertised online, legal websites and review sites might also include fake reviews to attract customers. This is especially troublesome when hiring an attorney because posting of fake reviews is actually a violation of the ethical rules governing lawyers in California (California Rule of Professional Conduct 4-100 prohibits untrue statements in advertisements) and is a clear sign that you may be hiring a dishonest and unethical injury lawyer. Knowing what to look for to help you identify law firms that publish fake reviews can help you to find an attorney and firm that you can trust. A good personal injury law firm will never post fake reviews to try to drive business. Here are some telltale signs that a Los Angeles personal injury law firm might be relying on fake reviews to sell their services.

1. Reviews that are generic

One sign that a law firm might be posting fake reviews is when the reviews they post sound generic. If the feedback that a reviewer leaves sounds like something that anyone could write, it might not be a real review. Some law firms outsource review-writing to third-party companies or content farms. These generally follow a template and contain very few details. If all of the reviews on an attorney’s site follow the same pattern and include little real information, the firm might be using fake reviews. If you suspect this has happened, try messaging one of the reviewers and ask for more information. People who write fake reviews are unlikely to respond. Many people who write real reviews are likelier to want to provide you with feedback to help you decide whether a firm’s services are right for you.

2. Reviewers with histories of suspicious reviews

Another telltale sign that a law firm might be posting fake reviews is when the reviewers have histories of leaving suspicious reviews. You can click on a reviewer’s avatar to see his or her profile. From the profile, you can see the other places they have reviewed on a map. If the reviewer has reviewed businesses all over the country, it is suspicious. For example, if a reviewer has reviewed a personal injury law firm in Los Angeles, a construction company in Missouri, and a chiropractor in Florida, he or she is likely writing reviews for hire instead of writing real reviews.

3. Use of too many personal pronouns

Fake reviewers try to write reviews in a way that sounds more credible. To make a review sound more realistic, many people who write fake reviews overuse personal pronouns, including I, me, mine, etc. Cornell University completed a study of online reviews and found that fake reviews are much likelier to include too many personal pronouns. People who write fake reviews are similarly more likely to use a lot of verbs while true reviewers use more nouns. You can ask the reviewer for more specific information if you suspect this might be the case.

4. Lack of photo or generic avatar

When people leave reviews on Google, they can choose to upload a photo or allow Google to use a blank photo. Most fake reviewers will either use the blank photo from Google or upload a generic avatar like a cartoon character. True reviewers are likelier to use a personal photo for their reviews. For example, if you take a look at this example from the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, you can see that the reviewer uploaded his photo. If you click on his photo, you will see a map of all of the businesses that he has reviewed and see that they are all located in the same general area of Los Angeles. The review itself does not use personal pronouns and instead discusses the reviewer’s experience while being represented by Steven M. Sweat. All of these are hallmarks of a real review rather than a fake review.

5. Generic names

Another sign that a law firm’s reviews might be fake is when the names of the reviewers are generic. Content farms and offshore companies that sell fake reviews tend to send out reviews in bulk using very generic names, including John or Jane Smith, Mike Jones, etc. If all of the reviews on an attorney’s website include very common names, it is a sign that the reviews might be fake. You should also look for obviously fake names or reviewers that only use strings of letters or numbers to post their reviews.

6. Suspicious timing of reviews

Pay attention to when a law firm’s reviews have been posted. If you see that the firm had a large number of reviews posted during a short time frame, this can indicate that the firm hired a web company to mount a targeted advertising campaign during that period. If most or all of a law firm’s reviews were posted around the same time, you should do more research before you believe its reviews.

7. Repeated phrases

Another thing to check for when you read the reviews left for a law firm is whether there are specific phrases that are repeated across multiple reviews by different reviewers. When a company wants to post fake reviews, it may ask the people writing them to include certain key phrases. Having multiple reviews with the same phrases is suspicious.

8. Poor grammar and spelling

While not everyone uses good spelling and grammar, seeing a bunch of reviews that all display a poor understanding of English grammar and spelling might indicate that the firm is posting fake reviews. This is because many firms that publish fake reviews outsource review-writing to content farms located overseas that hire writers who do not have a good understanding of the English language. Seeing a large number of reviews on a law firm’s website or Google page that include many instances of poor grammar and spelling might indicate that the reviews are not real.

9. Reviewers with histories of excellent reviews

Another thing to check when you see a review that rates a firm with a perfect five out of five is the reviewer’s history of reviews. If a reviewer has only left a slew of perfect reviews for a broad range of businesses, it might indicate that he or she has been hired to write positive reviews by multiple companies. You should also compare perfect reviews with those that fall in the middle range of three or four. In many cases, reviews that leave a rating of three or four will be more honest and include both the positives and negatives the reviewers experienced while being represented by a firm.

10. Setting the scene

A final indicator that a firm might be posting fake reviews is when its reviews include a lot of descriptors intended to set the scene rather than providing any real concrete details. For example, if a review raves on and on about the front-office decor when first entering a firm and little about the interaction that he or she had with the attorney, it is unlikely to be real. Look at the language and what is being described carefully. A good review should include information about the person’s case and how it was handled rather than what the ambiance of a law office is like.

11. Law firms with a large influx of reviews vs. those with a steady stream

A good way to find a law firm in Los Angeles that features real reviews is to look for a firm that has a few reviews that have trickled in over time. Law firms that have a history of reviews that have been posted by past clients generally demonstrate a trickle of reviews that are posted over time rather than a sudden influx of reviews.

Fake reviews online are a problem no matter what type of product or service you might be considering. When it comes to finding the right personal injury attorney in Los Angeles, fake reviews can be a real issue. Knowing how to identify firms that post fake reviews can help you to identify the ones to avoid. A law firm that is willing to post fake reviews to attract customers demonstrates that its attorneys may not be trustworthy. When you hire an attorney to represent you on your injury claim, it is critical to find someone you can trust and build a strong working relationship.

Does my personal injury attorney have a discipline record with the State Bar? This is a question that you should ask (among many others) when trying to decide who to hire to represent you on any matter. It is especially important to know if you are considering retaining a lawyer to represent you or your family in a personal injury or wrongful death case. Why? Oftentimes, attorneys with disciplinary records have been reprimanded for things like failing to adequately represent their client’s interests or improperly accounting for settlement funds in their attorney client trust account. While every lawyer is “innocent until proven guilty” by the system, a simple check can tell you whether the legal counsel you are considering hiring has prior or pending charges lodged against them.

How to check if the personal injury attorney I am considering has a disciplinary record with the State Bar of California?

Most states, including California, have State Bar Associations who are charged with making sure lawyers in that state are in compliance with the rules which govern the practice of law. Many of these State Bar Associations now have online resources and websites where clients can look up the lawyer they are considering hiring and see whether or not that attorney has a record of pending or prior discipline. The web address in California is as follows: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/ . When you go to this site, you will see a small box towards the upper right hand of the home page, which says, “Attorney Search”. Simply type in the name of the lawyer, and look towards the bottom of the page under the category entitled, “Actions Effecting Eligibility to Practice Law”. The page will also tell you a lot of useful information about the lawyer including their educational background, official address and phone number, and the date they were initially admitted to practice law in the State of California.

Example of Attorney State Bar Web Page of Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyer, Steven M. Sweat:

As an example, here is my web page with the California Bar: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/181867

Importance of doing a background check on an attorney prior to hiring them to represent you or your family in a personal injury or wrongful death claim in California:

Hiring an attorney to represent you after an injury or when a close family member is killed due to negligence or a wrongful act is a very grave and important decision. As I have blogged about in other posts, retaining an accident lawyer is not something that should be done based upon a 30 second T.V. advertisement or some other self-serving representation about being “the best” or “a fighter”. Researching the background of any law firm or lawyer should be an essential part of the process of selecting them. Personal injury claims will usually take several months at a minimum and years sometimes (at a maximum) to resolve. You need to know that your lawyer will be zealous in representing you over the long haul. You also need to know that your counselor will be honest in their dealings with you especially when it comes to accounting for settlement or judgment proceeds. While there are many ways to conduct this type of research, a quick trip to the State Bar of California website is a good start!

For more information or assistance with any personal injury claims questions in California including Los Angeles, give us a call, statewide toll free: 866-966-5240

Related Resources:

Changing Personal Injury Lawyers in California

Disclaimer: Nothing in this post or site should be considered a guarantee or warranty of the outcome of any legal matter.

Los Angeles personal injury lawyer reviews are one way to determine if the law firm you hire to assist you with your accident claim has a reputation in the community for quality legal representation related to bodily harm or wrongful death claims in and around the SoCal area. L.A. is the second largest metropolitan area in the country and it is estimated that Los Angeles County has a population slightly over 10 Million people which is a little more than a quarter of the entire populous of the State of California. California, in general, and Los Angeles, in particular, also have a glut of attorneys simply due to the number of law graduates and new lawyers admitted to the bar versus the number of available jobs (See stats here ). With so many attorneys to choose from, it is tough to decide. The best way is not to simply pick an injury attorney out of the yellow pages or from a television or radio ad, but, rather to do your homework and look at things like consumer and peer reviews of that personal injury law firms you are thinking about employing for your accident claim. Here are what some of these reviews have been for Los Angeles Injury Firm, Steven M. Sweat, APC:

• Google Business Reviews for Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC

Some examples from our Google Business Listing include the following:

“Despite having retired as a Registered Nurse, after my friend and I were rear injured In rush hour traffic, I immediately suffered from flashing lights in my eyes, pain and numbness & tingling in my body, I could not figure what to do or how to get help. Later, it was discovered I also suffered from a concussion from this accident because I forgot to pay my bills! I called Steve Sweat and his staff and they were ALWAYS THERE…responding in a timely manner to every pc, text, or email. He explained (clearly ) everything to me and what to expect. I felt like I was able to receive a complete and thorough examination and subsequently, the proper and correct treatment. Each and every medical staff that he referred me to was wonderful. I would rate the pain a 9/10 that I experienced for 6 months. Now I am completely pain free and independent from pain or anti-inflammatory pills. I have been financially compensated for all the pain and suffering I experienced. I am extremely appreciative of his help and would highly refer any of my friends or family to Mr. Steve Sweat.” from Babbs Burke (client represented on a motor vehicle accident that happened in Hollywood, CA)

“I sent an email outlining the details of my case to 10+ attorneys on a national holiday & Sweat was the only one whom called me personally to see if I was ok and ensure the proper course of action was being followed. I’m very pleased with his responsiveness, always I’m a timely fashion, answering any and all questions I’ve had. You won’t break a sweat if you go with Sweat” Carlton Ashe (freeway car accident involving a big rig truck in Southern California)

“Steven Sweat was very honest and sincere with his knowledge of personal injury cases like mine. He helped me get medical and physical therapy help even though I lost my previous insurance. He gave me great advice in settling my vehicle insurance claim. Finally, he even got me pain and suffering compensation in a timely way. He is a great comfort in time of need.” Cris Provins (motorcycle accident victim that was struck on the 10 freeway near Los Angeles)

“Mr Steven Sweat is an extraordinary attorney. I required his services while in a car accident. He was professional, skilled and produced a great outcome for me and my passenger. I highly recommend Steven Sweat to anyone that is in need of a great attorney. Thank you very much for all you did for us.” Sergio Yescas (client involved in a car accident in Los Angeles)

“I referred Steven to a friend in California, and he went above and beyond our expectations. He acknowledged my friend’s situation in a professional and sympathetic capacity. We couldn’t be more pleased. Thank you, Steven. You are a life-changer!” Kim Saeed of Los Angeles, CA.

• YELP Reviews for Steven M. Sweat, APC
• AVVO Attorney Rating Service Lawyer Review Examples:

“Great personal injury attorney!”

Steven helped me through a very difficult time following a car accident. I would highly recommend him to anyone looking for a quality injury lawyer.

Posted by: a Personal Injury client, 6 months ago.

Great Attorney!

“Overall Rating Excellent” “Trustworthy” “Responsive” “Knowledgeable” “Kept me informed” “This was the first time I had been in a car accident, and I had no idea what to do. I tried to deal with the insurance company, but they kept giving me the run around. Luckily, a friend of mine recommended Mr. Sweat. After I met with Mr. Sweat, everything went smoothly. Mr. Sweat took care of everything. He found a physical therapist right by my work that I did not even have to come out of pocket to pay! In fact, I never had to pay for anything. After concluding my physical therapy, I received a sizable check for my injuries. I know had I not hired Mr. Sweat, this would have never happened. I also know that I will never attempt to work with an insurance company again without the help of an attorney. Thanks for everything, Mr. Sweat!”

“Steve is both patient and professional. Both of those skills were handy while working with a difficult client like me. Steve took the time to go over my case in detail. I never knew a person could be so patient with me since I hired him. I am glad to have attorneys with people skills on my hands.”

• Other AVVO Reviews: Click here

• Google Plus Review Example: “Steven M. Sweat, APC is a highly regarded personal injury law firm in Los Angeles. Steven Sweat works hard as an attorney and gets excellent case results. I recommend all of our injury clients to Steven. Steven is a great person. He cares about your case. There are some people you have confidence in the moment you meet them. Steven is one of those people.” For more examples, click here .

Reviews of L.A. Attorneys Who Handle Bodily Injury Claims

Reviews are one among many methods of evaluation that a consumer in need of a L.A. lawyer that handles accident and injury claims can use to make a decision on retaining the attorney for their particular claim or the claim of a loved one or friend. Steven M. Sweat, APC has consistently received positive reviews and ratings from prior clients and fellow lawyers in the Los Angeles area that consistently refer personal injury clients to them. They have been named “Super Lawyers” in the field of tort law, “Top 100 Trial Attorneys”, “Lead Counsel”, “Superb” (perfect 10 out of 10 by AVVO rating system) and many other accolades. This is because they take treat each person they represent with dignity and respect. Every claim is taken on with a passion of a zealous legal advocate who is willing to go the extra mile and not rest until the best possible outcome is achieved. If this is the type of Los Angeles personal injury law attorney you are looking to hire, give us a call statewide toll free at 866-966-5240 or in the L.A. area at 310-592-0445.

Note: Nothing in this website including testimonials should be construed as a guarantee, warranty or promise as to the outcome of any future legal matter.

New laws important to California personal injury victims is something I thought I would review here at the first part of 2014. It is not every year that new statutes are passed in the Golden State that may affect persons making claims for injuries or wrongful death but, this year there are a few, important new laws as follows:

Texting and Driving Restriction Loophole Has Been Closed for Teens in CA

The statistics don’t lie. Teenagers and young adults are statistically more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle accident where the driver has been distracted from the use of a cell phone, smart phone or other mobile device. For this reason, California chose to enact greater restrictions on persons under 18 than older drivers in this area. The prior statute, enacted in 2007, banned any cell phone use (whether by voice commands, wireless, hands free or otherwise) by any teenage driver. However, as the law was amended in 2012, there appeared to be a loophole which may allow for voice texting by teens. Therefore, the CA state legislature made the language of the law more clear and now any talking, texting, or use of a cell phone or mobile device whether by voice commands or otherwise, is now against the law.

Adults Can Now Text and Drive So Long As it is Done Hands Free

What the California legislature did to protect drivers and passengers with barring hands free texts and emails for teens, it gave way to pressure and allowed these practices for adult drivers. AB 1571 (effective since January 1, 2013) now allows for persons over the age of 18 to send and receive text and emails, and prompt their electronic devices for commands so long as this is done by way of a hands free feature. (i.e. voice to text and voice commanding).

“A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or reada text-based communication, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, orlisten to a text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving.”

While many people lauded this new bill as a “victory for California commuters”, I think this is far from a foregone conclusion. Many studies have determined that any use of mobile electronic devices while operating a motor vehicle even by way of hands free features can cause significant enough distraction to the driver to cause auto accidents. Drivers in the Golden State should bear in mind that, while it is technically legal to use voice commands, if they are involved in a car crash while doing so, they will be held to a negligence standard (i.e. were they acting reasonably prudent at the time of the incident) as well as to all other provisions and prohibitions of the California Vehicle code including those prohibiting excessive speed, following too closely, improper lane changes and all other rules of the road when it comes to imposing civil liability for personal injuries or wrongful death that result.

California Cyclists Get A Three Foot Buffer from Passing Motorists

On a bright note, after years of lobbying by bicycle advocacy groups and several prior failed attempts, the CA state legislature passed into law a provision which requires a reasonable distance between a motor vehicle trying to pass a cyclist on any California roadway. I wrote an extensive post on my related blog California Accident Attorneys Blog, explaining the new law. (See here: http://www.californiaaccidentattorneysblog.com/2013/10/06/bicycle-riders-will-get-three-foot-buffer-passing-motorists-new-california-law/). While the law does state that three feet is a reasonable distance between a passing motorist and the biker, the law does have a caveat that a motorized mode of transportation may still pass with less than three feet so long as speed and distance are reduced to a reasonable amount given all roadway conditions.

I think this is a great victory for all those cyclists in California who have been the victim of cars, trucks and SUVs passing them in ways that run them completely off the road or clipping them and sending them out of control and headed for a bike crash. As a bicycle accident attorney, I can say that this is one of the most common scenarios I see as a proximate cause of cyclists being injured and killed every year in the Golden State. This will provide additional protection by way of a heightened standard of care for motorists who cause cycle accidents and I intend to use the law in prosecution of my claims for personal injury and wrongful death on behalf of cyclists and their families.

Additional Requirements for Psychotherapists to Report Threats of Gun Violence

In response to several high profile mass shootings (the most prominent of which is the Sandy Hook Elementary case), California now requires psychiatric care professionals to immediately report any threats of gun violence by patients. While I think that existing statutes and case law already required this for the most part, this does make an explicit rule. This may provide an additional legal basis to hold psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health care professionals civilly liable for personal injury or death caused be assailants known by them to have threatened such violence.

Broader Definition of Sexual Harassment

SB 292 was enacted to clarify that, with respect to a sexual harassment claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the harassing conduct need not be “motivated by sexual desire.” This provides a broader protection for persons subjected to harassment in the workplace.

More Protection for Riders in Limousines

SB 109 requires limo operators to equip limousines with at least two doors and one or two push-out windows to serve as emergency exits. The bill was, no doubt, prompted by the tragic incident near San Mateo, CA where a party of six women were trapped inside a limo that caught fire due to mechanical failure resulting in the deaths of several occupants. I’ve done several blogs about this terrible event one of which is here: http://sco.lt/8V8RYf Wrongful death claims are presently pending against the Limo Co. related to this incident.

Related Posts:

Car Accident and Injury Claims in California Bicycle Accident and Injury Claims in California

Los Angeles Personal Injury Magazine

http://www.koreanattorneylosangeles.com

While the site has just begun, my hope is to grow this as a great online resource full of good information for consumers to go to when they have been injured in any type of accident including car crashes, slip and fall mishaps, pedestrian injuries, and any other type of catastrophic event that causes bodily harm or wrongful death.

로스 앤젤레스 한국 개인 상해 변호사는 전례가 아니지만, 한인 사회를위한 품질 사고 변호사는 내 의견으로는, 너무 몇 가지 있습니다. 이 오렌지 카운티와 내륙 제국 등 로스 앤젤레스 지역은 어디 한국 자체보다 다른 세계에 한국의 높은 농도를 가지고있는 수치이다. 사실, 그것은 어딘가에 500,000 600,000 한국과 그 가족 사이에 남부 캘리포니아에 살고있는 것으로 추정된다. 이러한 이유로, 나는 사고 피해자에 대한 최대의 보상을 얻을 수있는 품질, 정직하고, 열심히 일하는 법률 회사에 대한 지역 사회의 큰 필요를 참조하십시오. 나는 나의 새로운 웹 사이트를 만든 이유입니다 :

Korean Personal Injury Attorney in Los Angeles, CA

사이트가 막 시작했지만, 내 희망은 그들이 자동차 충돌, 미끄러짐 및 추락 사고, 보행자 부상 등 사고의 모든 종류의 부상되었을 때 이동하는 소비자를위한 좋은 정보가 가득 큰 온라인 자원으로 성장하는 것입니다 부상이나 부당한 죽음을 일으키는 원인이 치명적인 사건의 다른 유형입니다.

As Californians, we have all seen the advertisements on television and the internet from lawyer referral services. I think the average California consumer does not realize, however, that they are seeing a referral service in all of these ads or even what a referral service is. I wanted to do a post explaining how many of these services work and why it is not a great way, in my opinion as a Los Angeles personal injury attorney, to choose and retain a lawyer.

What is a lawyer referral service?

In California, lawyer referral services come in two basic forms. The first type of service are the ones which are run by various non-profit bar associations like the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Attorneys pay fees to be included in the potential candidates for people looking for legal representation in various practice areas. The various attorney bar organizations have a screening process for candidates to be members.

The second category, which I loosely refer to as attorney referral services are those for profit organizations that simply allow attorneys to pay a fee to be a part of a rotation of lawyers to whom cases are referred from various television, new print, and internet ads. These have existed for decades and have become even more prolific in the last several years. Various examples include R.W. Lynch Company (owners of the “Injury Helpline” and various other spin offs such as “Injury Helpline Attorney”, “Car Accident Injury Helpline” and “Trucking Injury Helpline”); Walker Advertising Group (owners of 1-800-TheLaw2 and Los Defensores); Jacoby and Meyers and various other businesses. These services are for profit businesses that charge lawyers monthly fees to be a part of their network. Fees for these services can be upwards of 10,000 or more per month. The companies take a profit from these dues and use money to simply blanket the television and internet airwaves with advertising.

Why are lawyer referral services not the best way to hire a personal injury attorney?

Although the pre-screened bar association approved networks have some basis of “quality control” for selecting lawyers, they still are in the “business” of taking membership fees in and farming out cases in a fairly random order. The for profit referral companies simply provide client leads the highest bidder. Payment by attorneys to these businesses in higher amounts results in more direct referrals to the attorney. In my opinion, the ads for these types of “pay for play” services are completely misleading. These types of organizations are not run by attorneys but, rather by business persons interested in making a profit. Lawyers who choose to participate in these referral schemes do not possess any particular skill or training above and beyond other lawyers nor are they distinguished in their abilities in any way other than their ability to pay a fee to get cases. When a California consumer calls in response to one of these ads, they most often are not even speaking with a lawyer but, rather a marketing representative. The caller is then referred to whomever is at the “top of the rotation” at that particular moment.

What would be a much better way to retain a lawyer for an accident claim?

If you had a serious injury or illness, would you select your physician based upon a TV or internet ad that randomly refers a doctor simply based upon that doctor having paid the advertising service a fee? I think most Californians would answer, NO! Why then would you retain an attorney this way. The better process is to research the history, track record and results of a lawyer and make an informed, intelligent decision based upon real information. One great way to do this is to do what you are doing right now: Look the lawyer up online and read their actual website and not a “marketing piece”. Read about the types of cases they have handled, their results, testimonials from prior clients, etc. There are also many other objective measures of a lawyer’s reputation in the community. Two of these include: the AVVO Lawyer Rating system, which is based upon numerous factors such as an attorney’s level of experience, history with the California State Bar Association, publications and endorsements from clients and other lawyers in the community; the Super Lawyers rating system from Thomson Reuters news service, which picks the top 5 percent of lawyers in the state in any particular field based upon a vetting background investigation and nominations from peer attorneys. You can also look at endorsements on various online social media outlets such as LinkedIn where people can say what they really think about an attorney’s reputation.

For additional resources on Steven M. Sweat, APC and founding partner, Steven M. Sweat go to:

Super Lawyers Attorney Profile – Steven M. Sweat: Personal Injury Attorney, Southern California AVVO Superb Rated Attorney: Steven M. Sweat

En California, la función de un asistente legal es apoyar el trabajo de un abogado con licencia. Sólo los abogados están autorizados por la ley para dar consejos legales, preparar y firmar el papeleo para ser presentada en la corte, los honorarios establecidos para los servicios jurídicos, y para comparecer ante el tribunal en nombre de una persona lesionada. Si un paralegal intenta hacer cualquiera de estas cosas por su cuenta sin el consentimiento expreso de un abogado, que están involucrados en la práctica no autorizada de la ley, que es un delito en el estado de California.

Con respecto a las demandas por lesiones personales, es muy importante asegurarse de que usted está siendo representado por un abogado. Abogados en California están obligados a completar un máximo de siete años de la escuela universitaria y la ley y pasar un examen muy difícil de obtener su licencia para ejercer la abogacía. Paralegales, por otro lado, no tienen licencia y pueden simplemente

llamarse asistentes legales o preparadores de documentos o cualquier número de otras cosas sin tener que realizar ningún tipo de educación o capacitación formal. Esto significa que un paralegal puede proporcionarle una mala asesoría legal que puede afectar su capacidad para recuperar los daños máximos de dinero o de cualquier recuperación en absoluto por no seguir los procedimientos legales apropiados.

También es importante saber que sólo los abogados pueden presentar y procesar demandas en los tribunales en nombre de una persona lesionada. Mientras que muchas reclamaciones por lesiones personales pueden ser resueltos sin tener que presentar una demanda, la mayoría de las compañías de seguros no pagarán el máximo valor en una demanda a menos que se presente una demanda o se sabe que la persona que está representado por un abogado que podrían presentar tal demanda si bien oferta de liquidación no se realiza.

Muchos latinoamericanos son aprovechadas por los asistentes de abogados sin escrúpulos en los alrededores de Los Ángeles y otras partes de California cada año. A menudo, estas personas solicitan personas heridas en la escena del accidente o en su casa o en el hospital y tratar de fingir que son abogados. Es importante saber que hay, abogado de buena reputación no se solicita un cliente de esta manera, ya que es ilegal en California.

Las víctimas de accidentes de tráfico y otros reclamos por lesiones siempre debe asegurarse de que están hablando con un trato con un abogado de lesiones personales de confianza si quieren obtener el máximo beneficio de su demanda por lesiones. Nuestra oficina cuenta con abogados que están autorizados por el estado y también tenemos asistentes jurídicos que sean capaces de hablar español y comunicarse con los clientes para que entiendan el proceso y sepan que están recibiendo una representación de calidad para su demanda del accidente.

From The Date of The Accident to Filing a Lawsuit

Obviously, it is not a pleasant thing to be involved in a car, motorcycle or other type of accident but, if one happens, it usually follows this course:

• Accident Occurs: If there is more than $750 in property damages or anyone involved in the accident has sustained personal injuries, all parties involved are required to exchange insurance information and to file a report of accident (so called SR-1) with the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
• All accidents should be reported to your auto insurance carrier immediately to avoid any potential for denial of coverage due to a failure to promptly report the claim (a requirement in every insurance policy).
• PROMPT medical attention should be sought after the accident. Do not be afraid to go by ambulance to the Emergency Room, visit and urgent care facility, or go to your family doctor to be examined following any motor vehicle or other type of accident. Diagnostic studies such as X-rays, CT Scans and MRI s should be ordered and conducted if there is any indication potential fractures, torn cartilage or ligaments or head trauma such as a concussion. If any broken bones, tears or closed head injuries are diagnosed, it is important to follow up with a specialist such as an orthopedist or neurologist. The specialist can diagnose the extent of any major bone, ligament, cartilage, spinal cord injury or traumatic brain injury that may require any number of further treatments sometimes including surgery.
• The normal course of treatment for most auto injury cases is at least a few weeks up to several months of physical therapy for injuries that don’t involve major bone fissures, displacement, disk herniation or more serious conditions.
• Once the incident has been reported to DMV and your insurance carrier and you have sought prompt medical treatment for your injuries, it is important to seek the advice of a competent personal injury attorney AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Do not make recorded statements to the other party’s insurance carrier, sign any authorizations for release of confidential medical information and records, sign any “releases” or settlement agreements until you do so. Insurance companies are in business to try to minimize what they pay out on claims. They have experienced claims adjusters who are trained to get you to do and say things that will reduce the value of the claim and, quite possibly, even eliminate any right to recovery.
• Once you have retained a lawyer, they lawyer will usually wait until your course of medical treatment has been completed to determine exactly what the total treatment costs are and will be in the future. He or she should also determine what the total policy limits of coverage may be, investigate the facts regarding liability (which can include having an investigator speak with witnesses or other means) and obtain a full set of medical records and bills. At that time (usually between 2-6 months from the date of the accident), the lawyer will make a formal settlement demand and attempt to negotiate a settlement with the at fault party’s insurance company.

What If A Settlement Cannot Be Reached Without Filing a Lawsuit?

If the insurance carrier fails to respond or offers an amount of money that the client thinks is not reasonable based upon the advice and opinion of their attorney, a lawsuit is filed against the at fault party. Their insurance company assigns them legal counsel to defend the lawsuit. The process from there is as follows:

• Lawsuit is filed with the court. The party filing suit is called the “plaintiff” and the party(ies) being sued are “defendant(s)”.
• The defendant has 30 days from the date the lawsuit is served to file a response in writing (usually called and “Answer”).
• From there, the parties engage in “discovery” which can include written questions, oral question under oath in a deposition, and requests for documents. This can also include the defense requesting a medical examination by one or more of their doctors to determine what they believe to be the injuries.
• The parties usually participate in settlement discussion (between attorneys) after this discovery phase has been completed for the most part. This may be informal or it may be in a more “formal” proceeding such as a mediation ( a meeting between the parties with a third party neutral person — usually a retired judge or attorney not involved with the parties — where they try to formally present their positions and negotiate a settlement amount).
• If the parties are not able to agree on settlement, the case is set for a civil jury trial where 12 jurors are selected, evidence is presented and the jury makes a determination as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover and how much.

• Obtain the information of all persons involved including names, addresses, telephone numbers, driver’s license numbers, Vehicle Identification Numbers of both parties and witnesses.
• Examine Automobile Insurance Policy coverages including: medical payments, rental, collision, and uninsured motorist coverage for my client and bodily injury and liability coverage for any drivers at fault.
• Look at Health Insurance coverage for my client.
• Determine if there are any “excess” or “umbrella” policies that may pay above the base amount in the auto insurance.
• Obtain employment payroll and earnings records.
• Get all hospital and other medical records via a HIPAA compliant authorization request for both the treatment and any pertinent medical history.
• Examine auto repair estimates and bills and valuation summaries in case of a total loss.
• Photograph the damaged vehicles, the scene of the incident, the injuries (including a photographic history).
• If possible, obtain video coverage of the incident from local news and internet sources.
• Obtain as much information from the client as to how this has affected their ability to conduct their daily life at home, at work and otherwise.
• Obtain California Department of Motor Vehicle records as follows: Traffic Accident Report (SR-1 Form), Registered Ownership records (CA DMV Form INF 70R/1), Evidence of “Financial Responsibility” (i.e. auto insurance coverage) of the drivers and owners and or a certificate of no insurance (CA DMV Form SR-19), driver’s license information and record of citations and prior accidents regarding any potential parties at fault (CA DMV Form INF 70D/1).
• If a company vehicle is involved, the California Secretary of State‘s records should be reviewed as to company status (i.e. corporations, partnerships, dba (doing business as), etc.).

Why is it important to gather at least this much, basic information regarding an accident claim?

While the above list is certainly not everything an accident attorney may need to evaluate the claim depending upon the case, it is certainly a baseline from which to work. Competent legal counsel familiar with negligence claims know that it is only after this information is obtained that certain matters can be determined such as the following:

• What are the extent of the injuries and is this affected by any pre-existing medical conditions.
• What is the total amount of insurance coverage from all sources that the wounded party might seek to pay for costs of treatment both present and future.
• How does the photographic depiction of the injuries, the property damage and the site of occurrence bolster the arguments for damages.
• What should be a fair amount for “general damages” for pain, suffering, anxiety, emotional distress and disruption of lifestyle.
• Who are all the potential defendants or parties against whom a claim may be presented.

What does it mean to apportion responsibility for an injury causing incident?

Prior to the concept of “comparative negligence” was a concept of “contributory negligence“, which was that, if the plaintiff (person harmed bringing a complaint for money damages) was at fault more than the defendant (person or persons against whom the civil petition is brought), then they received nothing. This rule was abolished in California by the seminal case of Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, 810 [119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226] , where the court concluded that the “all-or-nothing” rule of contributory negligence should be abandoned in favor of a rule that assesses liability in proportion to fault. What this means is that the injured person may still receive compensation even if they are partially culpable.

Why is this concept important for the afflicted party?

There are very few calamities that are 100 percent the fault of one party or another. Scenarios such as rear end collisions while a person is stopped, intentional acts like assault or abuse and other instances are the exception to this rule. However, the legal cause of most mishaps can be attributed to both the person aggrieved and the person who was responsible in some way for causing the incident. The law provides for a person to still be compensated even if they “contributed” in some way to their own misfortune so long as there are one or more other persons or entities that also were responsible for the cataclysm causing bodily harm.

What are some common examples of multiple party fault?

• Auto v. Pedestrian or Bicycle Rider: The California Vehicle code requires all drivers of motorized vehicles to yield the right of way to pedestrians at marked or unmarked crosswalks and allows bikes to share the road. It also states, however, that the pedestrian or bicyclist has a duty not to enter the path of a moving car or truck. Oftentimes, this is a case of some fault on the person walking or biking within or near a roadway but, as much or more liability on the part of the driver that strikes them. The walker, jogger or pedal pusher may still receive payment for such an incident.
• Motorcycle v. Car or Truck: A common example here is splitting lanes. This is not illegal to do under the laws of the Golden state. However, it may reduce the liability of a motor vehicle operator if it can be shown that this or other conduct contributed to the crash. This doesn’t mean, though, that the auto or truck driver gets off “Scott Free”.
• Not wearing a seat belt: Obviously, it is not wise to drive without a proper lap and shoulder safety harness locked in place. However, if one fails to do so and is injured by another party due to some type of equally or worse unreasonable behavior (such as violation of speed laws, running red lights, DUI, etc.) the victim of the mishap may still receive money damages. These damages may be reduced by the fault for not using a seat belt but, may not be eliminated.

The Human and Economic Costs of Car Crashes infographic

The following are links to various state and federal legal websites which contain information on statutes and case law as well as public safety resources.

California State Government and Law Links

• California Department of Motor Vehicles
• California Courts – Home Page
• California Judicial Council Forms

Federal Government Judicial Links

• United States Constitution
• Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Automotive Safety

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• www.safercar.gov/

What Are the Major Causes of Railway Accidents?

How do major rail carriers such as Metrolink, Amtrak, BART and other rail lines get involved in accidents with other vehicle or pedestrians? Some examples of train accidents include derailments, rear end collisions, crashing into automobiles, and fires on the train. How do things like this happen? There are a number of different factors that can contribute to a train accident. One major cause of train accidents is operator negligence. An operator that has not been trained properly is drowsy, impaired or distracted while operating a train can result in disaster. Equipment on the train and lack of inspections can also lead to train accidents. Finally, factors that don’t include the actual train itself – such as defects in railroad tracks or lack of railroad crossing signals – can result in a horrible accident. If you feel one of these reasons resulted in your accident in San Diego contact a lawyer.

Injuries Caused by Train Mishaps

Train accidents can result in a number of tragic things, including but not limited to:

* Bone Fractures * Brain Injury * Lacerations * Trauma * Spinal Cord Injury * Death

Not all accidents that occur are necessarily the fault of someone else. However, it has been reported that many train accidents that occur could have been prevented if proper precautions were followed and someone was not negligent. If you are located anywhere in California, including San Diego, and you are unsure whether or not the accident you or your loved one was involved in was due to the negligence of another, is imperative to contact a lawyer. An attorney will examine the facts of the case and help figure out what type of compensation to which they may be entitled.