When a new hand-held cell phone ban goes into effect tomorrow across California, it will signal the start of an experiment of sorts on the ability of the ban to reduce car accidents in the state. Road safety experts and high way traffic administrators will be looking to see if the hand-held ban is going to be as effective as Governor Schwarzenegger hopes it will be, at preventing car accidents in California.

The bill bans the use of hand held cell phones to talk or text message while driving. There’s no way of telling yet how this will affect the way injuries in car accidents are treated. The bill clearly calls for a ban on hand-held devices, and there is a fine of $20 on motorists who violate the ban. No one believes that the threat of the fine in itself will stop car accidents. However, the threat of being liable for damages and fatalities in a car accident caused by the use of a hand held cell phone by the driver who causes the accident could be enough motivation for drivers to switch to hands- free.

As we reported a while back, the potential for manslaughter charges being filed in cases where a driver’s use of hand-held device was seen as a contributing factor in the accident is very real. The real difference between then and now, when it comes to cell phone usage and car accidents, is this: in the past, attorneys had to prove that the cell phone usage was a very real factor that contributed to negligence. Now, the judge will have to inform the jury that using a hand-held cell phone in itself constitutes negligence. The repercussions for personal injury cases are still unclear, but all signs indicate that this is going to be a turning point of sorts both for road safety in the state as well as the issue of compensation for victims of car accidents.

The bill has more than its share of detractors who say that hand-held or hands- free makes no difference at all. Cell phone usage while driving inhibits concentration, slows down reflexes, and is overall just bad news for everybody on the streets, they claim. Banning only hand-held devices is a halfhearted measure, they say, that won’t have any long-term benefits.

Be that as it may, there’s no doubt that there’s something to be said for having both your hands free to make quick decisions while driving. That’s simply not possible when you have a hand holding a cell phone glued to your ear and the other on the wheel. On this very blog, we’ve covered car accidents that have occurred because the driver was too busy doing drug deals, conducting business or just plain gossiping on the phone when disaster struck.

At the very least, it’s a daring first step, and we should be proud of being in a state that has become one of the first to show the way.

The Reeves Law Group is a law firm with offices throughout California dedicated exclusively to the representation of personal injury victims, including victims of car accidents. Please visit our website at trlglaw.com. If you desire a free consultation on a personal injury matter, please call us at (800) 644-8000 or email us.

A massive crash involving three trucks closed down the I-880 Nimitz Freeway in San Leandro, California on Thursday.

According to news reports, the truck accident was actually set off by a passenger car, which suffered a tire failure, and veered off course. One truck, which belonged to Waste Management in Alameda, veered to avoid the car, and in doing so, went over the divider. It landed on a truck that was delivering caskets, and flattened it. That driver was killed instantly. The garbage truck then struck a tow truck. That truck also suffered extensive damage.

According to news reports, the area was a fiery scene with flames from the big rig explosion clouding the sky for hours after the truck accident. All northbound and southbound lanes were closed to traffic, until the wreckage could be hauled away.

As of now, the driver of the casket truck is reported to be dead. He worked for the Batesville Casket Company, and has not been identified. The garbage truck driver also was killed, and he has been identified as Victor Mercado of Oakland. Early reports were vague as to the reason for his flight over the divider, but later news reports confirmed that a car in his path had veered off course, sending him off tangent too.

Like in most other truck accidents, when there’s a big rig involved, damage is extensive, and the loss of life is severe. Truck accidents almost always have devastating results, and this has been no exception. For now, it’s still too early to ascertain if there were other factors that contributed to the garbage truck’s jackknifing through the divider. Was there speed involved for instance? A garbage truck is a monstrously heavy vehicle, and for it to go over so easily suggests a lack of control by the driver. Investigations are still underway, however, and in the coming days we might have more details about the truck accident.

Whenever there is a truck accident, there is always an element of destruction. The force of all those tens of thousands of pounds of weight is enough to flatten lesser vehicles. Occupants of these other vehicles have a very slim chance of escaping alive or with modest injuries. Most often, death is instant, and injuries are life threatening and debilitating. Public opinion is constantly against the presence of these monster vehicles on the same road as other smaller sized vehicles. The odds of surviving a collision with a big rig are stacked too heavily against smaller car owners. We have to find a way for big rigs to not be such a destructive presence on our highways.

The Reeves Law Group is a law firm with offices throughout California dedicated exclusively to the representation of personal injury victims, including victims of truck accidents. Please visit our website at trlglaw.com. If you desire a free consultation on a personal injury matter, please call us at (800) 644-8000 or email us.

There isn’t a settlement that could compensate for the loss of your two-year-old daughter. However, Audryana Gonzalez’s family will use the $1 million settlement they have just received to set up a trust for her older sister, who was at the scene of the bus accident and saw Audryana die.

The toddler was with her mother outside their home in Sanger, California, picking up her older sister from the school bus stop. As her sister alighted on the other side of the street from the house, little Audryana darted in front of the bus. She was killed instantly in the bus accident.

The family filed a lawsuit against the Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission for compensation for Audryana’s death. The crux of the lawsuit was that the bus accident would not have occurred if the older sister had been dropped off on the same side of the street as their house. Instead, she was dropped on the other side of the street, necessitating her mother and sister to cross the street to pick the girl up.

In fact, as part of he settlement, the Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission agreed to make sure a student enrolled in headstart would be dropped on the same side of the street as her home. In the absence of this, a driver would take the child across to the other side, and drop her at her doorstep. This new rule would be applicable to children below the eighth grade.

Attorneys for the family say this was the main reason the lawsuit was filed – so that parents of headstart students could be aware that they could insist that their children be dropped on the same side of the street. As the attorney for the Gonzalez says, it is the right of the parents to demand that their child be dropped on the same side of the street.

The Fresco County Economic Opportunities Commission was unprepared to admit any responsibility or share any blame for Audryana’s death. In fact, the settlement only came a few days before the case was due to go to trial. The family was first offered $250,000, and when they refused, the amount was raised by another three quarters of a million dollars.

Audryana’s death has brought an important issue to light. The headstart program provides for children from economically disadvantaged sections of society to receive special coaching to prepare them for learning by the time they get to age 6. Students who use these programs are entirely dependant on the system to get them to and from their schools safe and sound. It’s a tragedy when the system fails to take their safety concerns seriously. Audryana’s family deserves every cent of their settlement.

The Reeves Law Group is a law firm with offices throughout California dedicated exclusively to the representation of personal injury victims, including victims of bus accidents. Please visit our website at trlglaw.com. If you desire a free consultation on a personal injury matter, please call us at (800) 644-8000 or email us.

The need to be attentive at all times when behind the wheel was brought home in a tragic manner on Tuesday. Two men driving separate vehicles were killed in a car accident in Phelan, when one of the drivers strayed onto the wrong side of the road into the other’s path. Passengers in both cars have been taken to hospital with severe injuries.

The car accident involved a Chevrolet pickup and a Scion. The driver of the Scion, 18-year-old Paul Saravia, was eastbound on Phelan Road, while the Chevrolet was coming in the other direction. Suddenly, for no apparent reason, the Scion crossed the yellow line and drifted over into westbound traffic causing the car accident. The driver of the Chevrolet, 50-year-old Pascual Salazar, was killed, and so was Paul. The impact was so strong, it almost wiped out the front of the Scion. The passenger in the Chevy, an unidentified 17-year-old, has been airlifted to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, and has been listed as being under critical condition. Salazar’s passenger suffered severe head injuries and a broken femur, and has been admitted to Loma Linda University Medical Center.

Paul had just graduated, and was all set to go to college. There was no indication of alcohol or drugs playing a part in this car accident, and all four of the people affected were wearing seat bells. Paul was on his way back from Six Flags Magic Mountain with his friend when the accident occurred. If anything, this car accident brings home the dangers of inattention on the road for even a second.

We don’t know yet what caused Paul’s car to go off course and right into the Chevy. Any number of reasons could have caused the crash. A conversation on the cell phone, drowsiness, any kind of distraction on the road can be lethal when you’re on the freeway.

Now, there’s a young man who has been killed in the prime of his life. It’s easy to feel omnipotent when you’re 18 and on the road in a fast car. Accidents like this remind us of how much at risk we are on the street. We feel for the Salazar family too. They have lost a member of the family, with another in serious condition. There’s no indication that Salazar broke any traffic rules, or was negligent in any way, and yet, he paid with his life. With more and more people taking to the roads this summer, being acutely attentive on the road is more important than ever.

The Reeves Law Group is a law firm with offices throughout California dedicated exclusively to the representation of personal injury victims, including victims of car accidents. Please visit our website at trlglaw.com. If you desire a free consultation on a personal injury matter, please call us at (800) 644-8000 or email us.

In a curious turn of events, lawyers for a political activist who has been charged in a drunken driving accident resulting in four deaths, has made a bizarre claim. The attorney now alleges that Robert P. Vellanoweth, - although he had a blood alcohol level after the crash of 0.16 – was “not under the influence of alcohol”, and that the other driver in the case was the real culprit.

The drunk driving accident, which made headlines when it happened, involved Vellanoweth, a prominent figure in Sacramento Republican circles, in his Jeep Cherokee and a Chrysler Lebanon. In the Chrysler were 21-year-old Brizchelle Rice-Nash, who was driving the car, her 19-month-old son Kamal, her sister, 17-year-old Brittanya Rice-Nash, family friend 18-year-old Shanice Patrice Carter, and 18-year-old Tanish Jackson. When the two vehicles collided at 35th Avenue near South Land Park Drive, the impact almost completely destroyed the Chrysler. Of the passengers, only Tanish survived, with great bodily injury.

The hearings have just begun, and from the looks of it, any straw that floats by is being clutched at. Vellanoweth’s attorney has thrown out this absurd theory, if you can call it that, that his client wasn’t really drunk at the time of the accident. We don’t know whether it’s desperation that’s causing this joke of a defense. After all, a jury is not going to be inclined to feel very warm towards a well-connected man who managed to kill off four very young persons, including an infant, and entirely because of his arrogance in getting behind the wheel drunk.

Attorney Christopher Wing admits that his client had a blood alcohol level after the drunk driving accident of 0.16, and admitted that his client had had three martinis to drink during lunch. But for some odd reason, of which only he is aware at the moment, he actually told a stunned and packed courtroom that Vellanoweth was not at fault, he was not drunk and the fault of the accident was with the other driver, Brizchelle Rice-Nash. There are so many illogical elements to Wing’s opening statements we’re not sure whether to be amused or angry. For one, he admits that Vellanoweth was speeding at the time of the crash – in fact he uses the words “excessive speeding” – and then, turns right around and tells the courtroom that he (Vellanoweth) was, however, “not negligent.” We would be fascinated in knowing what would be truly “negligent” in the defense attorney’s eyes.

There is even more gibberish coming from the Vellanoweth defense table. One delightful tidbit was that Vellanoweth was actually drinking a non-alcoholic beverage they called a “Virgin Kamikaze”. Unless this beverage works to reduce the effects of alcohol that has just been consumed, we don’t see how this constitutes a defense.

On the other hand, this is a high profile drunk driving accident case, and one where the defendant has absolutely no sympathy from any quarters. There is a great amount of pressure to win, and maybe that’s the reason these wild theories are coming out. As the trial progresses, it will be interesting to see how the defense plans to flesh out these claims.

The Reeves Law Group is a law firm with offices throughout California dedicated exclusively to the representation of personal injury victims, including victims of drunk driving accidents. Please visit our website at trlglaw.com. If you desire a free consultation on a personal injury matter, please call us at (800) 644-8000 or email us.

Its not often you hear of bus accidents that have nothing to do with the state of the bus or the condition of the bus driver. This morning, a dump truck rammed into a bus in Chinatown in New York City, sending the bigger bus onto a sidewalk. At least one person has been reported dead in this truck accident.

The Fung Wah bus had its cargo doors open, and was stopping to pick up passengers, when the dump truck rammed into its rear. The impact was strong enough to send the bus careening off its path. It first struck a lamppost, and then a fire hydrant. The front of the bus smashed into the storefront of a building, which houses the United Commercial Bank.

A 57-year-old woman, who was standing waiting for the bus, was killed when the impact of the accident sent the bus off course. She was declared dead at the scene. She hasn’t been identified yet, but news reports say she’s Asian.

At least 4 people in the bus suffered serious injuries. The driver and two passengers were taken to Bellevue Hospital Center. A fourth person in the bus was also taken to the hospital with moderate injuries, and has been reported to be in stable condition. The driver of the dump truck, meanwhile, has also suffered injuries, and has been admitted to a hospital. A Breathalyzer test at the scene of the truck accident revealed that the driver was not intoxicated at the time of the pedestrian accident.

However, he does seem to have been very reckless here. According to eyewitness reports, the dump truck clipped at least three vans along the way as it began its journey from the Manhattan Bridge. Other eyewitness reports have confirmed that the dump truck was speeding as it came along. That there was just one casualty, and just a few injuries in this accident was the result of the good fortune of the people who were waiting to board the bus. According to reports, there were at least 20 of these people, and they all ran for safety when they saw the bus had been pushed in their direction by the impact.

From the impact of the truck accident, which sent a massive bus out of the road and onto the sidewalk, it’s obvious that the force of the impact must have been huge. This generally points to excessive speed. The police will no doubt want to question the dump truck driver, who has not yet been identified, when he recovers from his injuries.

The Reeves Law Group is a law firm with offices throughout California dedicated exclusively to the representation of personal injury victims, including victims of bus accidents. Please visit our website at trlglaw.com. If you desire a free consultation on a personal injury matter, please call us at (800) 644-8000 or email us.

The next generation of rollover-prone vehicles is grabbing headlines in much the same way as the beginnings of the SUV rollovers. This time, its ATVs manufactured by Yamaha under the brand name Rhino that are developing a reputation for maiming or killing people as they flip over with ease. As can be expected, action from the manufacturers is either too little or too flimsy to be of any effect.

Texan resident Ryan Rogers is suing the company for injuries sustained when his ATV rolled over on the passenger side. Rogers is the latest in a line of injured drivers and passengers, and victims’ families filing lawsuits, suing Yamaha for the defective design of its ATV that has shown a marked propensity for rolling over even at low speeds on flats surface.

The faults lie with the design of the ATV itself, with its top-heavy frame and narrow tires that make the risk of a rollover while making a turn highly possible. There is also no protection for the passengers legs in the event of a rollover accident, and in many cases, victims have had their legs crushed with the massive weight of the ATV bearing down on them. These design defects ensure that when a rollover accident does occur, which is more and more often these days, the chances is of injuries are massive. There’s little chance you would escape with negligible injuries if a person was driving and an ATV suddenly decides to flip over on top of them.

Yamaha seems to have taken a note out of Ford’s book when it comes to defending the safety of its ATVs. In September 2006, the company sent a letter to Rhino ATV owners that seemed to imply that blame for any rollover accidents involving their ATVs should be laid at the door of the drivers themselves. The company warned drivers to keep their hands and legs inside the vehicle at all times while driving, and announced the affixing of warning labels. Obviously, this failed to help. Yamaha failed to realize that a person in an ATV has a split second to react before the vehicle rolls over, and it’s next to impossible to keep your legs inside your ATV when it’s tipping over.

In August 2007, after new reports of fatal rollover accidents involving the Rhino, Yamaha announced that new vehicles would be fitted with doors to prevent passengers from falling out of the vehicle during a tip over.

Yamaha’s biggest defense is that its vehicles are safe when all road safety rules are followed. Wear a seatbelt, drive slowly and all should be fine, the company insists. However, ATV accidents have been reported even when drivers have worn seatbelts and driven at low speeds. There have even been reports of accidents when the ATV was being driven on a flat surface. As expected, the company has no explanation for these accidents.

The Reeves Law Group is a law firm with offices throughout California dedicated exclusively to the representation of personal injury victims, including victims of ATV and motorcycle accidents. Please visit our website at trlglaw.com. If you desire a free consultation on a personal injury matter, please call us at (800) 644-8000 or email us.

As a new hand-held cell phone-driving ban looms, lawmakers and auto safety experts aren’t counting on the $20 fine for a violation to cause any dramatic decrease in car accidents, but another more potent provision in the law may have that effect. A person who violates the car-cell phone ban could actually find himself embroiled in a civil lawsuit, or even face a jail term as a result if it leads to a car accident.

While most lawyers agree that a felony charge is probably not a possibility, there could definitely be manslaughter charges brought in. Other lawmakers are predicting that extraordinary circumstances where fatalities are caused in a car accident, and it can be proven conclusively that the cell phone use of the driver was the cause of the car accident, then felony charges are not exactly improbable at all. With these provisions, California, already a state with an aggressive track record when it comes to prosecuting even sober drivers in accidents, prepares to explore unfamiliar ground in liability.

There is enough to hope that the new law will do its part to promote safe driving, and reduce the number of injuries and fatalities that are caused by cell phone wielding motorists. Juries have been increasingly aggressive in awarding large settlements in car accidents where the driver was using a hand-held cell-phone. In 2003, a jury in Palmdale returned a $7.3 million verdict to a person who was injured in a car accident where the other driver was talking on his cell phone. There is an increasing sense that public perception in California at present is firmly against combining cell phones with driving. In fact, the combination of the two seems to evoking almost as much disgust in people as the mix of alcohol and cars.

The new law will also make it easier for people who have been injured in car accidents from a cell-phone use violation to claim compensation for the negligence of the other person. Whereas in the past, plaintiff’s attorneys had to prove that there was negligence in the use of cell phone, now, with this new law, judges will have no choice but to inform the jury that the cell phone use of the driver constitutes negligence, thereby qualifying for compensation. The impact on the fair treatment of car accident victims and justice for them is huge. For too long, victims have struggled to prove negligence, and drivers have gotten away with appalling behavior on the road, with little regard to other motorists’ safety.

When the law finally comes into force, motorists who prefer to have a cell phone glued to their ear will find themselves slapped with a $20 fee, a fine that can be expected to be higher in some counties. While some have argued that cell phone use–regardless of whether it is hand-held or hands-free – is a major safety issue, and that all cell phone use during driving should be banned, this law is still a first solid step towards enhanced road safety.

The Reeves Law Group is a law firm with offices throughout California dedicated exclusively to the representation of personal injury victims, including victims of car accidents. Please visit our website at trlglaw.com. If you desire a free consultation on a personal injury matter, please call us at (800) 644-8000 or email us.

You can understand the anguish that Joe De La Garza’s family feels – the decorated Vietnam veteran survived three days in the Vietnamese jungle without a scratch, but in 2006, the retired Marine was killed from a parrot fever infection just days after he purchased a parrot from a pet store.

63-year-old De la Garza was exposed to the infection when his daughter Amanda, purchased a small Australian parrot called a cockatiel from Corpus Christi’s PetSmart Store on September 30, 2006.

Unknown to the family, the bird had come to their house infected with a strain of parrot fever that is believed to be caused by a bacterium called Chlamydia psittaci. The parrot fever is also known as Psittacosis, and it is highly transmissible diseases that can, on occasion, be fatal.

According to Amanda, they had no reason to suspect the bird when both she and her father became ill, approximately 16 days after bringing the bird home. While Amanda had to be hospitalized and treated for her injuries, only barely managing to make a recovery, her father died soon after. The family insists that they had no reason to suspect anything until they received Joe’s autopsy report, which showed the presence of the Psittacosis bacterium.

The bird, which had also died, had to be taken for a necropsy, and it was found to be infected with Psittacosis. Now Joe’s family, including Amanda, Joe Jr., and Joe Sr.’s brother Michael are suing PetSmart to raise awareness about the disease and the possibility of bird-to-human transmission. Not too many people know of this disease and the possibility of cross-species infection, and it is this that is driving the family’s wrongful death lawsuit, they say. They have not considered monetary compensation at this point in time.

The wrongful death lawsuit urges PetSmart to stop selling cockatiels and other similar exotic birds because of the risk of infection and transmission. An animal supplier, Rainbow Exotics Inc., has also been named in the lawsuit. A recent PETA undercover exposé of Rainbow Exotics showed despicably filthy and inhumane conditions in which the animals and birds were kept. PETA officials also found another parrot, which had wasted away to death a week before.

PetSmart continues to deny any wrongdoing on their part, and insist that they will fight the wrongful death lawsuit. So far, they have not acted to remove cockatiels and other similar parrots from their shelves. One wonders why the pet store chain is so reluctant to admit that there may be hygiene problems and infection control issues in its supply and delivery chain. As recently as March, the company had to suspend bird sales after a psittacosis outbreak. In 2006, there had been an epidemic of psittacosis, and a number of birds had to pulled off the company’s stores in Texas. Could it be that the company knows it could very well be held liable for compensation to the De La Garza family if proved that they have had infection problems with their bird species? And although PetSmart continues to insist that they have never heard of bird-to-human infections, it’s hard to believe that people involved in selling birds and animals for a living had no idea of such cross-infection possibilities.

The Reeves Law Group is a law firm with offices throughout California dedicated exclusively to the representation of personal injury victims, including families of victims of wrongful death. Please visit our website at trlglaw.com. If you desire a free consultation on a personal injury matter, please call us at (800) 644-8000 or email us.

Trust the San Francisco Municipal railway authorities to get to the cause of the train accident with lightning speed. Nearly three days after a Muni train rear-ended another train stopped at a red light, injuring at least a dozen passengers, there is still no word on why the train accident occurred. The Muni authorities have been safely sticking to their standard “all investigations are underway” and “we are committed to the safety of our passenger” lines. This is all very reassuring, but when one of your trains has managed to slam into another one, causing some very severe injuries to passengers, you should be able to come right out and admit what happened, instead of hiding behind inanities.

The train accident occurred at about 2 pm on Saturday; a three-car T-third train that was going westbound on King’s Street rear-ended a two car-N-Judah train. The impact was strong enough to damage both cars, especially the N-Judah train, which had its rear smashed completely. People in the two trains were thrown to the floor, and many of them were rushed to the hospital. Injuries ranged from moderate to very severe.

So far, no one is quite sure how two trains managed to crash in the middle of the day, in perfect weather. Witnesses who were at the scene of the train accident say that there was no warning that anything was about to happen. A loud crash was the only sign that something had gone wrong.

Both train drivers were injured, and were rushed to a hospital. The driver of the T-Third train that rear ended the other train is reported to have at least four years of experience at the controls.

This much is clear. The maximum speed limit for trains in that area is 3 mph, and so far, there has been no confirmation that the T-Third train was speeding at the time of the train accident. There was one reliable witness to the crash – a street supervisor who was assigned the duty of keeping all trains on his watch moving ahead smoothly and on schedule. Not surprisingly, considering the veil of secrecy that seems to be surrounding this train accident, Muni officials have refused to confirm whether the supervisor tried to warn the train operators in the moments before the crash.

It’s alarming that 3 days after a disastrous train accident, we are still nowhere close to having even an outline of the causes of the accident. In the meantime, the thousands of passengers who depend on these trains for transportation are still going about their jobs, taking Muni trains to and from their homes, offices and the rest of their lives. They deserve to know what the cause of the train accident was. If the operator was speeding, if the supervisor was not observant enough, if there were other factors involved – they deserve to be told, and quickly.

The Reeves Law Group is a law firm with offices throughout California dedicated exclusively to the representation of personal injury victims, including victims of train accidents. Please visit our website at trlglaw.com. If you desire a free consultation on a personal injury matter, please call us at (800) 644-8000 or email us.