Category Archives: Courts

Questions to inquire about prior to hiring an Attorney or Lawyer

California Attorney at Law Norman Gregory Fernandez

California Attorney at Law Norman Gregory Fernandez

Chatsworth – California April 8, 2012

How can you know you have hired the ideal attorney for your legal matter? Exactly what are your legal rights when it comes to a given situation? Are you protected, guided properly, and will all the things involved in your matter be considered before decisions or actions are undertaken? Finding legal help right now can certainly be challenging, further, finding the right legal assistance can certainly be costly.

A part most typically associated with the initial challenge to locate a good attorney is a result of simply not understanding where to begin your actual search. Worse, the expense problem makes this process actually more daunting, presented with the probability of high retainer fees as well as hourly fees, and in the event that you will be looking out for your individual or your family’s needs, here are some thoughts to assist you.

A. Keep family as well as friends away from the legal advice area. I love the phrase “you don’t understand what you don’t understand.” Friends and family don’t understand what they don’t understand. Supplying you with imperfect or outright incorrect information and facts might be dangerous. Your circle of family and friends might be perfect for socializing and receiving everyday views on some things, but not for legal counsel. The majority of people do not know the actual law, how to legally resolve a legal matter, as well as the consequences of measures or omissions in the legal process.

Everyone has an opinion; however, when it comes to protecting you legally, in addition to guiding yourself, one’s family, or perhaps your business, you need more than a family member’s opinion. Family member’s advice may be well intended. But their advice may turn out to be very harmful to your legal case or issue. You should retain a completely independent attorney to deal with your actual legal issue, whether trivial or major, so you can actually obtain the proper legal guidance you need.

B. Stay far away from the ever increasing on-line document preparation solutions on the internet. These normally do not allow for a complete exchange of information and additionally may result in imperfect outcomes which may not fulfill ones actual needs. Documents produced in this manner might address your specifications. But if you have not really been asked proper inquiries, or if you don’t know everything involved, what is produced will be incomplete and could result in complications later because something crucial was not considered.

An example might be a simple Partnership Contract for the organization of a small business. Without terms within the Contract regarding what takes place if a Partner dies, you might have significant problems should that event arise. If you do not know to include a “death involving partner” provision in the contract, the actual on-line preparation service’s questionnaire may not either. Then, you might be devoid of an important part associated with the Contract, causing potential problems for you later on.

There is no way an online document preparation service can replace an experienced attorney.

Having an attorney can cost you more than using the on-line system, but the cost is well worth it. Just like you would never operate on yourself, you should never represent yourself. It is said that only a fool has himself for a client.

C. Find an attorney with a specialization or concentration within the area of law in which you need advice or legal assistance. Attorneys specialize similarly to doctors. You wouldn’t speak to a foot doctor about heart problems or a pediatrician about your aging parent’s memory difficulties. As plainly obvious as these examples appear, you actually might be undertaking the legal equivalent by talking to the incorrect attorney. Find an attorney that practices in the area you need help in.

D. When searching for an attorney, request family and friends (now is the time to involve them) if they know someone good. Go to your computer or smart phone and use the internet to search for a lawyer. For example to find a biker lawyer, type into the search engine “Biker Lawyer,” or if you are looking for a car accident attorney in Chatsworth, California, type in “car accident lawyer in Chatsworth, California. The more specific you type in your search the better.

A word of caution, major search engines like Google, Bing, and Yahoo usually reserve the first 3 spots on the top of the search engine results for sponsored listings or paid advertisements. This means that the first three results on any search you do are paid advertisements. Further, all of the listings on the right hand part of the screen are usually also paid listings and paid advertisements.

There are also major directories that pop up in the search results that contain nothing but attorneys and lawyers who pay for listings.

Just because a lawyer pays for a sponsored listing or advertisement, does not mean they are the best attorney for you. As a matter of fact I recommend that you stay away from the hacks that pay for sponsored listings or advertisements all over the search engines.

Instead you want to find attorneys who are experienced and who you can speak to. A fancy ad does not make a good lawyer.

Yes, attorneys can certainly be expensive. Ask the attorney before you hire him or her how they will charge you. Ask for an estimate of the actual total costs that will most likely be involved. Ask if the lawyer will allow a few minutes for a free of charge consultation. Ask the attorney about their experience. Notice if you get through to the lawyer or if staff members block your actual access. There is nothing wrong with staff addressing your routine questions, however if you want to talk to the actual attorney, you should be allowed to do so.

Types of Fees.

Flat fees tend to be routine for “one-time” legal services, such as representation in a courtroom for a traffic or certain criminal offenses, as well as for the preparation of papers, such as a contract or perhaps a will.

Hourly fees are normal for matters which will entail continuing services, including representation in a divorce or child custody matter, or for business lawsuits. Often attorneys may ask for a “retainer” in advance; this allows them to acquire their fee while they do the work, and it safeguards them in case you decide to not pay them. As the retainer is used up, the lawyer will ask for another retainer.

Contingency fees are often charged for personal injury matters, such as automobile accident cases, or slip and falls, wherein the attorney will receive a percentage of the total recovery when, and only if there is a recovery for you.

Understanding how fees will be charged and collected is an integral part associated with the attorney selection process. Possessing this information will enable you to compare attorneys and then make an informed decision. Note that the least expensive attorney is not always the best. Per hour fees tend to increase with the attorney’s degree of experience. My advice is to take your time with a selection and ask questions. Shelling out money for legal matters may not be fun, but the results should be better than not hiring an attorney to safeguard you, and will most likely in the end save you money.

Norman Gregory Fernandez is an attorney at law licensed throughout the great State of California, and has been practicing law since 1997. He represents personal injury victims and routinely fights insurance companies and big businesses that won’t accept total responsibility for the harms and losses that they cause. He can be reached anytime by calling 800-816-1Law (800-816-1529), via email, or through his website. He’s also available to talk to your group about numerous legal topics.

If you or your family have been the victim of a truck crash, car crash, or other motor vehicle accident in Oxnard or anywhere in California call us for a free consultation at 800-816-1529 x. 1, or go to http://www.thepersonalinjury.com.

California Personal Injury Attorney Website

Share

A California Traffic Study finds a Decline in Cell Phone Related Accidents

woman on cell phone while driving

Notwithstanding California's cell phone use while driving ban, people are still violating the law

We have seen a lot of debate about the success of California’s controversial ban on the use of cell phones while driving. However, a new study by a state agency confirms that these particular laws have been accountable for decreasing the amount of accidents caused by the use of cellular phones.

According to the report from the California Office of Traffic Safety, the number of traffic accidents involving cell phone use while driving in California dropped by 32% after the laws were implemented. The report says that during the two years following the time when cell phone laws came to be, there were approximately 53 fatalities a result of drivers who had been using cellular phones while driving. In the two years before the law was implemented, greater than 100 fatalities were caused by drivers using cell phones while driving.

The research tracked the success of the cellular phone while driving ban. According to Sen. Joe Simitian, Democrat-Palo Alto, who authored the bill which made it an offense to drive an automobile or other motor vehicle while using a hand-held cellular phone, the state has made substantial progress in reducing the number of motorists who use cellular phones while driving.

Safety agencies such as the Governors Highway Safety Association have much praise for the way California has managed to implement its anti-distracted driving laws. A number of other states have similar laws against the usage of hand-held cell phones while driving. However, in those states, these laws have experienced a limited effect, primarily because of absence of aggressive enforcement.

In California, however, law-enforcement is aggressively enforcing these laws, which means that cell phone use while driving has dropped, although penalties for these particular offenses remain low. The penalty for driving with a hand-held cell phone is $20. This past year, there was an attempt to pass legislation that would increase the fines substantially for using a cellular phone while driving, violations. However, the proposal was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown. California Car accident attorneys, and Motorcycle Accident Lawyers such as me have strongly supported any proposal to increase the fines for persons found using a hand-held cell phone while driving.

Progress against distracted driving is going to take years. Sen. Simitian compares California’s war against distracted driving with the war against drunk driving and also the campaign to get additional motorists to buckle up while driving. Progress in these initiatives did not come overnight. After aggressive enforcement, we’re able to see a decrease in cell phone use while driving.

Notwithstanding the State report showing a decrease in cell phone usage, I myself personally see people holding cell phones up to their ears while driving, in violation of the law, all of the time.

It upsets me because I know that these people are not only violating the law, but they are accidents waiting to happen.

It is my practice to subpoena all cell phone records of persons involved in a car, truck, or other motor vehicle accident when I am doing a case against them for one of my personal injury clients. The cops may not have caught you, but I will.

California Car, Truck, Motorcycle Vehicle Accident Attorney Website

Share

An incident involving Lindsay Lohan hitting a man with her car could threaten her probation

Lindsay Lohan in Court with her attorney

Lindsay Lohan in Court with her attorney

Lindsay Lohan’s probation may very well be threatened by an accusation that she hit a man with her car outside a Hollywood club early Wednesday morning, if the individual files a police report and she is actually found to have fled the scene.

The incident occurred shortly before 1 a.m. at a parking lot in the 6500 block of Hollywood Boulevard, said Officer Norma Eisenman. Lohan was surrounded by paparazzi and was trying to negotiate a U-turn in a parking area when her car allegedly brushed the leg of the man, reportedly a manager in a nearby club.

The actress left the location but Eisenman said the department at this time doesn’t consider it a hit-and-run.

“We aren’t commenting until we’ve gathered all the facts,” Steve Honig, a spokesman for Lohan, said Wednesday.

Legal experts stated that police can only initiate a probe if the victim files a complaint.

“A hit-and-run is a violation of her probation,” they said. “She was ordered to obey all laws. Leaving the scene of an accident is a violation of Vehicle Code section 20002,” they said

According to the LAPD, the guy called police, who took down the information but didn’t make an official report because at that point he wasn’t deemed to be injured.

Officers did not contact Lohan, Eisenman said.

Lohan continues to be on probation since a 2007 conviction for driving under the influence. Since that time she has been found guilty of shoplifting and is also currently on probation for both offenses.

The 25-year-old actress has been sent to jail several times for violating the terms of probation. But in the last few months under a strict regime of community service at the morgue and counseling, a judge has praised her behavior and may take her off supervised probation later this month.

If you or your family have been the victim of a truck crash, car crash, or other motor vehicle accident in Hollywood or anywhere in California call us for a free consultation at 800-816-1529 x. 1, or go to http://www.thepersonalinjury.com

Hollywood Car Accident Attorney Website

Share

Lawsuit seeks to block New Los Angeles Police Department Unlicensed Driver Policy

city of los angelesA lawsuit has been filed to try and block a new Los Angeles police policy that will let unlicensed drivers, including undocumented immigrants, skirt a mandatory 30-day impound rule after a traffic stop.

A group of civil rights attorneys filed the complaint on Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The complaint seeks to block enforcement of LAPD Chief Charlie Beck’s new policy to prevent “wasteful, unlawful and unconstitutional police policies.”

It names Beck, CHP Commissioner Joseph A. Farrow, the city of Los Angeles and also the state of California.

“The problem with the 30-day impound is it’s enforced against people with basically not much money,” said Donald W. Cook, an attorney who filed the complaint. “It really is a financial racket. It’s a Robin Hood in reverse.

“This isn’t regarding the state’s power to seize and take away from the street cars that cannot be left on the street for just about any number of reasons,” Cook said. “It’s about ability of the owner to obtain the car back less than Thirty days and in many cases immediately.”

Cook and his fellow colleagues have a similar case that’s pending in federal court.

Several cities, including L.A., produced motion recently to have that case dismissed, claiming the issues are already decided by an earlier appellate court ruling.

The judge could rule on the motion any day, Cook said.

No court date in the most recent case has been set.

LAPD spokesman Gus Villanueva said the department had not seen the complaint and could not comment.

The complaint argues the LAPD policy change illegally requires a mandatory 30-day impound of drivers stopped with an expired California driver’s license or even a foreign driving license.

It argues the department unlawfully prevents the owners of vehicles from getting their cars back before 30 days when another driver who is not the owner was to blame for any violation and impound.

The complaint also contends LAPD procedures for notifying vehicle owners of an impound deny alleged violators due process by not notifying them of any hearing date to contest an impound.

The city Police Commission a week ago approved a new policy that allowed offenders who have valid identification, car registration and proof of insurance to avoid a mandatory 30-day impound.

Under the policy, drivers who were at fault in an accident, or had prior convictions for driving unlicensed wouldn’t be eligible for a shortened impound.

Beck, who proposed the policy with the backing of immigrants’ rights groups and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, said last week the modification was an attempt to get rid of confusion by officers in the field over two conflicting laws regarding when to impound a car or truck as well as for how long.

He also said the policy discriminated against undocumented immigrants, who are unable to get driver licenses.

Two attorneys behind the lawsuit argued it did not go far enough, saying it does not curtail the high costs of getting a vehicle towed and impounded.

A 30-day impound costs about $1,500, as outlined by attorney Cynthia Anderson-Barker.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file police officers, challenges the plan. The union believes the law encourages more unlicensed drivers to be on the highway and jeopardizes public safety.

The LAPD impounded about 30,000 cars last year. About Eighty-five percent of such were for violations of the state vehicle code that mandates a 30-day impound.

A memo by the state Legislative Council, which provides legal counsel to state legislators, questioned its legality, even though the Los Angeles City Attorney said the law is legally defensible.
Da Steve Cooley sent a letter to the commission stating the plan violates state regulations and would make the city vulnerable to lawsuits.

The polarizing impound policy has taken place within a heated and emotional national debate over immigration.

“What I’m saying really is easy. We all have to cut off the magnets which are drawing individuals to come here illegally,” California Assemblyman Tim Donnelly said..

“We must stop rewarding people, giving them free college tuition – Hey incidentally, if you don’t possess a driver’s license we’ll make totally new classification. Hey, when you get your vehicle impounded we’ll clear that with another law.”

Beck acknowledged after the commission’s vote that the debate was “far from over,” but insisted the policy would still crack down on unlicensed drivers who are repeat offenders or cause accidents.

“This isn’t a free ride,” the chief said.

The commission’s vote isn’t automatically susceptible to review by the City Council, but the council could vote to take up the issue.

As a personal injury and car accident attorney who does many cases throughout the City of Los Angeles, and who follows the law, I for one am against the new Los Angeles Police Policy and think that State Law should be followed.

I see many accidents where one of the parties are unlicensed and should not be on the road. Also many hit and run accidents are done by persons with no license or persons whose license has become suspended.

To reward those who don’t follow the law and allow them to skirt the 30 day impound period, at least to me an accident attorney, is a threat to public safety and should not be done.

It is the Law of California that all drivers be licensed. If someone wants to drive without a license and endanger us all, they should be made to pay.

If you or your family have been the victim of a truck crash, car crash, or other motor vehicle accident in Los Angeles or anywhere in California call us for a free consultation at 800-816-1529 x. 1, or go to http://www.thepersonalinjury.com.

Los Angeles Car Accident Attorney Website

Share

Basic California Motor Vehicle Collision Information.

California Car Accident InformationVehicle collisions can and most often are traumatic. So much is happening, and you may not understand what you need to do. Save this article on your computer or in your vehicle just in case you find yourself in a vehicle collision.

You and Your Passengers Must Wear Seat Belts?

Most drivers, no matter how carefully they drive, will be involved in one or more vehicle collision throughout their lifetime. The chances of you being killed or injured in a vehicle collision are greater than you may think. One person in three is going to be injured or killed. To increase your odds of surviving an accident, use your seat belts each and every time you are in a moving vehicle. Ensure you and your passengers wear both your lap and shoulder belt if the vehicle comes with both, whether or not the vehicle comes with air bags. Wear your seat belts each and every time you drive. It’s the law!

Children eight years and older, but under 16 years old must be properly secured by having an appropriate safety belt. Children under eight years old, who are less than 4 feet 9 inches tall, have to be properly secured in a child passenger restraint system which fits federal safety standards. However, children under eight years old, that are 4 feet 9 inches tall or taller, may be secured with an appropriate safety belt.

Here are a few additional techniques for using a child passenger restraint system:

The back seat is the safest place in the car for kids 12 years old or younger.

Children, who weigh to 20 lbs. up to age 1, must be secured in a child passenger restraint system secured to the back seat facing the back of the car. Children must not be placed facing forward or backward in the front passenger seat if the vehicle comes with an air bag. Your local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, or perhaps a child passenger safety (CPS) technician can check out proper installation of your child passenger restraint system.

Common Causes of Vehicle Collisions

A few of the common reasons for vehicle collisions are:

  • Unsafe speed
  • Driver distractions
  • Driving on the wrong side of the road
  • Improper turns
  • Violation of the right-of-way rules
  • Violation of stop signals and signs
  • Cellular telephone use

Choosing a Lane

When news stations report vehicle collisions, they refer to numbered traffic lanes. The left lane is the “Number.1 Lane.” The lane on the right of the “Number 1 Lane” is the “Number 2 Lane”, then the “Number 3 Lane”, etc.

For anyone who is made aware of a motor vehicle collision through the news or your GPS, avoid driving close to the collision or take another route, if possible. In the event you must drive near a collision scene, do not slow down or stop and look at the accident because you could cause another collision. Drive carefully and watch for people in the road. Always obey an order from a police officer or firefighter directing traffic at a vehicle collision scene, even if you must ignore normal traffic laws or signs to accomplish this.

When You See a Motor Vehicle Collision

Should you be the very first person at a vehicle collision scene, pull completely off the road, away from the collision. Emergency personnel have to be able to see the collision and stop next to it for quick access to injured persons.

Determine if someone is injured. Search the area for victims who may have been thrown from a vehicle. They can be hidden in tall grass or bushes.

Call 9-1-1. If another person stops to help, ask that person to call 9-1-1.

The individual calling 9-1-1 must be prepared to respond to questions and supply information, including the location of the emergency (cross streets, freeway on/off ramp information) and exactly how many people require assistance (is anyone bleeding, unconscious, or with no pulse).

Don’t hang up the phone! Allow the emergency dispatcher to hang up first.

If at all possible, use flares or emergency triangles. If you find a gasoline leak or fumes, don’t use the flares and don’t smoke!

Help anyone that isn’t already walking and talking. Do not move an injured person unless she or he is in a burning vehicle or perhaps in other danger. Moving someone incorrectly often makes an injury worse.

Move the automobile(s) involved out of the traffic lane if it’s not disabled. Turn off the ignition of wrecked vehicle(s). Don’t smoke! Fire is a great danger.

If you are Involved In A Collision?

In case you are involved in an automobile collision-STOP. If you don’t stop, you may be convicted of a “hit and run” and may be severely punished. Someone could be injured and require help. Call 9-1-1 immediately to report the collision to the police or CHP. You must show your driver license, vehicle registration card, proof of financial responsibility, and current address to the other driver or persons involved in the accident, or any peace officer. Evidence of financial responsibility is usually an insurance provider name and a policy number. If you do not have it, you will get a citation along with a $250 fine.

You must do the following:

Move your motor vehicle off the street or highway if no one is killed or injured. Should you not move your motor vehicle or have it taken off the road or highway, any peace officer or authorized personnel may have your motor vehicle removed and impounded. (CVC §§22651 and 22651.05)

Pull to the side of the road and stop in the event you kill or injure an animal. Look for the owner. In the event you can’t find the owner, call the nearest humane society, police, or CHP. Don’t attempt to move a wounded animal. Never leave an injured animal to die.

Try to look for the owner in the event you hit a parked vehicle or any other property. Identify yourself before you leave. In the event you can’t find the owner, leave a note with your name and address (and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle that you are driving) inside the vehicle or securely attached to it. Report the collision without delay to the police or, in unincorporated areas, to the CHP.

Report the collision in writing to the police or CHP without delay if anyone is killed or injured and law enforcement wasn’t present at the scene. In the event the driver of the vehicle involved in a collision is physically unable to report a collision to the police or CHP, any occupant inside vehicle at the time of the collision shall make the report on behalf of the driver.

You or your agent, broker, or legal representative should do the following:

Report the collision by completing a Report of Traffic Accident Occurring in California (SR 1) to the DMV within 10 days when there is in excess of $750 in damage to the property of any person, or anyone is injured (no matter how slightly) or killed.

How Much Insurance are you required to have?

You must be financially responsible for your actions whenever you drive as well as for all motorized vehicles you own. Most drivers decide to have an automobile liability insurance policy as evidence of financial responsibility. If you have a collision not protected by your insurance, your license will be suspended. When the driver involved in the collision is not identified, the owner of the motor vehicle involved will have his or her driver license suspended.

The minimum amount your insurance must cover in the state of California is:

$15,000 for a single death or injury.

$30,000 for death or injury to multiple people.

$5,000 for damage to property caused by one accident.

Reporting a traffic accident to DMV

If you have a collision, report it to the DMV using the SR 1 form. You or your insurance agent, broker, or legal representative must complete the SR 1 report and send it to the DMV within Ten days if a person is injured (regardless of how minor the injury) or killed or property damage is over $750. The SR 1 report is necessary in addition to every other report made to law enforcement, CHP, or your insurance company.

The SR 1 form is available at DMV field offices, at CHP offices, or online at www.dmv.ca.gov. The SR 1 form is necessary whether you caused the collision or not, and even if the collision occurred on private property.

Your driving privilege is going to be suspended if you don’t complete a SR 1 form or if you didn’t possess the proper insurance coverage at the time of the automobile collision.

Every vehicle collision reported to the DMV by law enforcement shows on the driving record unless the reporting officer says someone else was at fault. Unless there is a corresponding police report on file that indicates someone else was at fault, every vehicle collision reported by you or some other party in the collision will likely show on your driver record if:

Any vehicle or property involved has over $750 in damage, or

Anyone is injured or dies.

It does not matter who caused the vehicle collision. The law says DMV must keep this record.

California Motor Vehicle Accident Recap

The subsequent information can help you complete the SR 1 form (maintain it in your glove box). Avoid the use of this article instead of filing the SR 1 form.

Your insurance company name and policy number.

Time and date of the accident.

Location of the accident.

NOTE: You have to give your current address and show these documents to any peace officer and person(s) involved in the vehicle collision:

Your driver license.

Your vehicle registration card.

Evidence of financial responsibility which includes your insurance company name and policy number.

Other Party’s (Driver’s) Information:

Driver’s date of birth.

License number and state.

Driver’s name and address.

Vehicle license plate number and state.

Driver’s insurance company name.

Policy number and expiration date.

Policy holder’s name and address.

Vehicle owner’s name and address.

Injuries or property damage.

The Law Offices of Norman Gregory Fernandez & Associates handles car accident cases and other motor vehicle accident cases all over the state of California. You can read about these cases at http://www.thepersonalinjury.com . If you want to discuss your case, you may call us for a free consultation at 800-816-1529 x. 1.

California Car Accident Attorney Website

Share

Fleeing hit-run driver injures 5 people, 3 seriously in second crash; Maybe it is time to increase penalties.

Scene of Woodland Hills, CA Accident Caused by Fleeing Hit and Run Driver

Scene of Woodland Hills, CA Accident Caused by Fleeing Hit and Run Driver

WOODLAND HILLS, LOS ANGELES – California

A driver fleeing the scene of an accident ended up colliding with two other cars on Ventura Boulevard at Desoto Avenue in Woodland Hills on Saturday.

Police said the driver of a red convertible got into an accident on another portion of Ventura Boulevard. He then took off and continued eastbound, colliding with two other cars that were stopped at a light at Desoto Avenue at around 11:30 a.m.

Five people were injured, three of them critically.

The driver of the car involved in the original hit-and-run accident said the red convertible rear-ended him. He and his daughter were not injured.

This particular accident really hits home for me, because it happened right or I grew up.

I don’t know what’s going on lately but it seems to me that there is a marked increase of hit-and-run drivers, and people fleeing the scene of accidents that their in.

In this particular accident, five people were injured, three critically, because some idiot decided not to stop after they were in accident.

It seems to me if there were mandatory jail sentences for hit-and-run drivers, with sentences being much tougher for hit-and-run drivers, that the word would get out and more people would stop after they’re in a car accident.

Furthermore, I believe that drivers, who were convicted of hit-and-run driving, should lose their driver’s license privileges for the rest of their life. I think maybe with these types of stiff penalties, accidents like this would not happen, and more people would stop rather than flee the scene of an accident.

What do you think?

If you or your family have been the victim of a car crash, or other motor vehicle accident in Woodland Hills or anywhere in California call us for a free consultation at 800-816-1529 x. 1, or go to http://www.thepersonalinjury.com

Woodland Hills Car Accident Attorney Website

Share

California Cell Phone Hands Free Law means Hands Free!

A Biker and Motorcyclist worst nightmare!

A Biker and Motorcyclist worst nightmare!

As many of you know, or should know, on July 1, 2008, a California law took effect which bans the use of cell phones without a hands free device while driving. I wrote an article about it which you can read by clicking here.

Many people think that the law allows you to hold your phone and use the speaker phone function of the cell phone while driving, so long as you do not hold it to your head. Well guess what, you cannot.

Technically under the hands free law, you cannot hold your phone to even dial it while driving.

Now here is the kicker, the fine for the first offense is only around $25.00. However, by the time all of the extra add-on assessments and costs are added onto the ticket, you will be looking at a $160.00 ticket for the first offense.

A second offense will kick it up to over $300.00, and so forth.

I have been informed that the CHP alone is writing almost 10,000 cell phone tickets a month right now, this does not include all of the other law enforcement agencies.

Obviously cell phone violations have become a big cash cow for our broke State, but I think that it is ridicules to be assessing such major fines simply for holding a cell phone and talking on the speaker.

Now as a motorcycle rider, nothing pisses me off more than seeing a cager with a cell phone to his ear, which in my opinion is blatantly illegal. I will usually blare my horn to get their attention.

Bottom line, in California, you cannot hold your cell phone while driving or you will get dinged. You must only use hands free.

Most cell phones these days allow you to voice dial through a Bluetooth device. That is probably the way to go.

By California Personal Injury Attorney Norman Gregory Fernandez, Esq., © April 5, 2011

Share

Toyota sued over deaths in horrendous California crash

Toyota Product Defect AttorneyLos Angeles – California

Relatives of a California state trooper and three family members whose fatal car wreck helped spark Toyota’s wide-ranging safety recall have sued the automaker for defects they say caused the vehicle to speed out of control and crash.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in San Diego Superior Court, was the latest in a wave of product-liability cases and other legal action brought against Toyota Motor Corp over complaints of sudden, unintended acceleration in its vehicles.

But the fiery August 28 crash near San Diego of a Lexus ES 350 sedan driven by off-duty California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor drew intense media attention and renewed government scrutiny of safety problems that led to the recall of some 8.5 million Toyota vehicles worldwide.

Toyota President Akio Toyoda, grandson of the company’s founder, extended his condolences to the Saylor family in an apology he delivered to a congressional hearing last week.

Saylor was driving his wife, their 13-year-old daughter, and his brother-in-law on a family outing when their car “began to accelerate on its own” and sped out of control despite Saylor’s attempts “to apply the brakes and otherwise do everything possible to stop” the car, the lawsuit says.

The car reached speeds of up to 120 miles per hour before it struck another vehicle, plowed through a fence, hit a berm and flew through the air, then rolled several times into a field and burst into flames.

The family’s final moments before impact were captured in the recording of a frantic 911-emergency cell phone call placed by Saylor’s brother-in-law, Christopher Lastrella, in which he is heard telling the dispatcher, “Our accelerator is stuck … We’re in trouble … there is no brakes.”

Others in the car are heard saying, “hold on” and “pray” as the call ended, the lawsuit said.

The suit names Toyota, its U.S. division and other corporate entities as defendants, along with the Lexus dealership where Saylor was given the doomed car as a “loaner vehicle” while his own Lexus was being serviced.

Although the suit makes no specific allegations as to the root cause of the unintended acceleration, it says the car in question “was defective when it left the control of each defendant” and that “adequate warnings of the danger were not given.” The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the parents of Saylor and his wife.

Toyota officials have said they do not comment on pending litigation.

San Diego County Sheriff’s investigators concluded the crash likely was caused by the gas pedal becoming stuck in an all-weather rubber floor mat designed for a larger vehicle but placed by the Lexus dealership in the sedan loaned to Saylor.

But the accident report said “other avenues of unintended acceleration could not be explored,” mechanical or electrical, due to catastrophic damage to the vehicle.

The report also revealed that another driver who had been loaned the same car a few days earlier told investigators the vehicle raced out of control on him when the gas pedal jammed in the floor mat, which he managed to free after placing the gear shift into neutral.

He complained to a dealership receptionist when he returned the car, the receptionist told investigators she alerted the detail specialist on duty, but the detailer claimed never to have received such a complaint, the report said.

Toyota has recalled more than 5 million vehicles in the United States for slipping floor mats. Another 2.2 million U.S. recall notices were issued for sticking accelerator pedals.

The Transportation Department has said that complaints of unintended acceleration in Toyota and Lexus vehicles are linked with more than 50 U.S. crash deaths under investigation over the past decade.

If you or your family have been the victim of a car crash in a Toyota due to sudden acceleration or other product defect anywhere in California call us for a free consultation at 800-816-1529 x. 1, or go to http://www.thepersonalinjury.com

Toyota Product Defect Attorney

Share

EZ Lube CEO arrested for Drunk Driving after Newport Beach, California Crash.

EZ Lube CEO in Drunk Driving AccidentNEWPORT BEACH – California

 A man arrested on suspicion of drunken driving after crashing twice within a city block is the chief executive officer of EZ Lube, an oil-change chain.

Mark David Goodman, 41, has not been charged with a crime since posting bail Tuesday afternoon.

Goodman, who was not injured, was arrested shortly after 5:30 a.m. Tuesday, after his 2009 Cadillac Escalade crashed into a psychic-reading business.

Goodman held senior executive positions at McDonald’s, Walmart and 1,200-store Save-A-Lot before joining EZ Lube recently.

On Tuesday, Goodman’s Escalade jumped a curb along East Coast Highway, knocking over a parking sign, and smashing straight into a knee-high brick planter at Directors Financial Group.

Goodman then apparently backed off the parking sign, and continued a block north, jumping the curb again, breaking another parking sign, scraping a palm tree, and continuing down a sidewalk before smashing into a bus stop bench and finally coming to a stop inside the Crystal Lotus, 3100 E. Coast Highway, in Corona del Mar.

Goodman did not return a call for comment.

Anita Marie Laurie, an EZ Lube spokeswoman, said, “I spoke to him and he said he’s just grateful that no one was injured.”

Goodman took his current job three months ago, when EZ Lube came out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

EZ Lube, a chain of 85 or so oil-change shops based in Southern California, ran into financial troubles after two investigations found evidence that the company routinely defrauded customers.

In December 2007, EZ Lube agreed to a $5 million settlement with the Orange County district attorney to end legal action. The company paid $3 million toward the settlement, but declared bankruptcy in December 2008 before paying the rest.

EZ Lube is the latest stop for Goodman, who once ran U.S. strategy and operations for McDonald’s.

After McDonald’s, Goodman had stints as a top executive for two other companies.

For 14 months, Goodman was an executive vice president for marketing at Sam’s Club. Four months after he left, he got a job in April 2007 as chief operations officer for Save-A-Lot, where he stayed for 15 months.

Bottom line folks, do not drink and drive; you could kill someone and then end up in jail for a very long time.

Newport Beach Car Accident Attorney Website

Share

Tort Reform is a big Scam; Why Tort Reform will Hurt You and take away more of Your Freedom!

Tort Reform is a ScamWhen you hear the term “Tort Reform” realize they what you are really hearing is a call to take away your legal right to get compensation when you are injured due to the negligence of another, to protect big business, the insurance companies, the big pharmaceutical companies, and big medicine; as though they are not rich enough.

You will be the only one getting screwed with tort reform; mark my words.

 I hear a certain political party constantly preaching about tort reform this and tort reform that in a way to demonize personal injury attorneys as the fall guys for excessive costs of medical care, insurance, and everything else you can imagine.

You see they like to blame attorneys for taking on big business, the insurance companies, the big pharmaceutical companies, and big medicine, when they screw up and harm you.

Hell, 99.9% of the time, we are the only way you are going to be compensated when you are harmed due to the negligence of big business, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, or big insurance companies.

You don’t hear members of this political party telling you this do you?

One thing they don’t tell you is that since the 1970’s, there has already been a cap on general damages in medical malpractice cases of $250.000 in the State of California.

This means that if a doctor screws up and let’s say cuts out your only good kidney, or let’s say misdiagnosis an illness like cancer, you only get $250,000 for general damages in the State of California. Does this seem right to you? Hell no!

The laws of the State of California basically protect doctors from their negligence and the laws have done so since the 1970’s. States such as Texas have in the past couple of years, recently enacted their own tort reform laws. My understanding is that in Texas there is a $750.000 cap on general damages.

California is way behind the eight ball in this regard; we can only get $250,000 for general damages. It is time to either remove the cap in California or to increase it to reflect the inflation that has occurred since the 1970’s.

Look if you are the victim of medical malpractice, how much would the pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress be worth to you if let’s say a doctor screws up and cuts off the wrong leg, or even caused the death of a loved one?

Do you want some law to prevent you from recovering from your loss? This is tort reform. It is time to get educated folks and stop believing those talking heads who pocket big bucks from those who would save money with tort reform.

This is the essence of tort reform; it is taking away your legal rights, to protect a class of persons or corporations from the harm that they cause by limiting what you can get from them if they screw up your life.

You will see that one political party preaches about less government, and less regulation and intrusion, and they in the same breath will argue to regulate your legal right to obtain compensation as an individual when you are harmed. Who are they protecting? Big business, big medicine, insurance companies, everyone but you. These people are full of shit.

It does not matter what political party you are from when your life gets turned upside down in a personal injury case does it. In the end we are all the same; when we are sitting on our couch injured and hurting due to the negligence of another, all we want is to get better, to get compensated, and to get our lives back. Tort reform prevents this. This is what pundits do not tell you.

These are the same guys that are saying that providing medical coverage to millions of Americans, and prohibiting insurance companies from denying you coverage for pre-existing coverage is a bad thing. These guys are despicable.

It is time to expose the lies America. Tort reform is against your interest and your freedom as Americans.

This is another way to screw the little guy and protect those who are already making a fortune at your expense!

It is time to become educated folks. I am on the front lines of this fight on a daily basis. Any one of you could be sitting in my office looking for help for your personal injury case; you never know. What you should know is tort reform is bad for you; it is bad for all of us.

By California Personal Injury Attorney Norman Gregory Fernandez, Esq., © 2009

Share

Los Angeles County Superior Court to Close one Day Per Month!

California Personal Injury LawyerI am going to post the actual news release from the Los Angeles Superior Court, and then write some comments below. Here is the news release:

NEWS
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Responding to Fiscal Emergency, Los Angeles Superior Court to Close One Day Per Month Action Takes Effect Wednesday, July 15, 2009 Some Limited Services To Be Maintained

Los Angeles Superior Court
Los Angeles County
www.lasuperiorcourt.org
Contact: Public Information Office 213-974-5227
Public Information Officer: Allan Parachini

Responding to the deepening statewide financial crisis, the Los Angeles Superior Court announced today that it will shut down nearly all of its operations and furlough employees one Wednesday per month, beginning July 15, 2009.

Implementation of the furlough plan, however, may not be enough to avert employee layoffs and, eventually, closure of entire courthouses if the budget climate does not improve markedly by the beginning of the 2011-2012 fiscal year. The one-day per month Court closure is expected to save $18 million per year.

The Court faces an estimated budget shortfall of nearly $90 million for the coming fiscal year—nearly double the amount in the most recent budget crisis that erupted in 2002, which ultimately resulted in closure of 29 courtrooms and layoffs of more than 150 employees.

Under a plan approved last week by the Court’s judicial leadership, if the fiscal situation continues to deteriorate, the jobs of a quarter of the Court’s 5,400 employees could be eliminated within the next four years. There would be reductions in courthouses and courtrooms in operation throughout the county.

“We face a serious crisis with immediate impacts that can be blunted, but not avoided,” said Presiding Judge Charles W. (Tim) McCoy. “We learned from our experiences of 2002 through 2004. Over the intervening years, we have accumulated modest reserves that will enable us to soften the pain of these cuts for at least the first year of the new crisis. Unfortunately, we anticipate this difficult budget environment will remain with us for four years.

“We cannot allow denial, false hope or wishful thinking to cause us to drift through the crisis. We should expect things will grow increasingly difficult before they begin to get better. We must, and will, remain masters of our own destiny to the extent possible.”

“The public must realize that the state’s fiscal situation means we cannot actually solve the budget crisis we face” said John A. Clarke, the Court’s executive officer/clerk. “The best we can do is to minimize the pain these cuts will inflict. No one—most of all the Court—is happy about this.” McCoy noted that today’s announcement of the effective closure of the entire court one day a month comes on an Election Day on which voters are deciding the fates of six budget-related ballot propositions.

“Even if all of these measures pass, there would be no discernable, immediate improvement in the Court budget situation,” McCoy said. “We know that reducing and eliminating court services will cause all of our stakeholders—from customers with traffic tickets to lawyers with court dates—great inconvenience. Our objective is to give these constituencies as much time as possible to prepare for the furlough program when it begins on July 15. We know that every day of advance warning of these closures is important to our customers.”

State court leaders are also considering one-day-per-month furloughs and other steps to respond to the financial crisis. McCoy noted that the Los Angeles Superior Court plan is being implemented even though the Judicial Council of California has not yet announced any statewide court closure or furlough plan. “We are the largest and most complex court system in the United States,” McCoy said. “You cannot suddenly bring a system like ours to a halt. This must be orderly and planned and that takes time.”

Details of the Los Angeles Superior Court closure/furlough program include these:
–The court system will close on the third Wednesday of each month, affecting about 600 courtrooms and bench officers and more than 5,000 employees who work in 50 separate courthouse facilities.

–While most courthouses will be closed, some courthouses will necessarily continue to be open, with full security protection to serve the needs of county agencies like the District Attorney, Public Defender, Alternate Public Defender, Probation Department, City Attorney and Child Support Services Department, whose operations are located inside courthouses and are unaffected by the furlough. A few courthouses also house offices of the Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder, which will also be unaffected. These non-court operations see thousands of customers per day and employ hundreds of people.

–Clerk’s offices, juror services and nearly all courtrooms will be shut down. Drop boxes will be in place to serve customers wishing to file court papers. –Judges will work, beginning today, on adjusting their calendars to postpone or move all scheduled court dates on affected Wednesdays for the entire fiscal year.

–A few designated courtrooms will also be available to handle emergency matters. –The limited number of employees required to work on closure days will be furloughed on other days.

–Supplementing these steps, the Court has imposed a so-called system-wide “hard”—or mandatory—hiring freeze.
–The Court will make $16 million in other ongoing expenditure reductions, largely by cutting services and supplies, restricting travel and other means.

Today’s announcement responds to a fiscal analysis that projects Court deficits in Los Angeles to total $89.9 million in FY 2009-10, rising to $118.3 million in FY 2012-13. These shortfalls amount to about 10 percent of the Court’s operating budget of more than $900 million per year.

Because nearly half of the Court’s funding is for specific statutory purposes, discretion in how and where to make cuts is very limited. Nearly 86 percent of the Court budget is for personnel. If the current situation remains unchanged, by the end of FY 2012-13, as many as 1,300 jobs—or 25 percent of the workforce—could be eliminated. Should that occur, entire courthouses would have to be closed and Court services massively scaled back.

McCoy emphasized, however, that no specific decisions about facility closures have been made—either in terms of timing or when such shutdowns might occur. Such drastic steps are unlikely to become necessary in FY 2009-10, but could have to be addressed as soon as sometime in late FY 2010-11 or early in the following fiscal year.

Although the Court anticipates beginning the 2009-2010 fiscal year with as much as $90 million in reserves, the overall fiscal plan must spread use of this money over an expected four-year crisis period. Depleting the surplus quickly might avert some immediate effects of the crisis, but future years would see even more dire cuts. The bulk of the reserve balance will, however, be utilized in the first two years in an effort to limit adverse impacts on the court system beyond those presently contemplated and, at the end of two years, leaving the court with a small annual balance and a far more adverse situation likely ahead.

Additional details of the closure plan will be posted on Court’s Web site, www.lasuperiorcourt.org. This information will be updated continuously. Customers should continue to check the Web site regularly for new postings.
###

OP Ed Begins Here: I must say that this is a very bad situation. The Los Angeles Superior Court is the largest and most complex Court system in the nation. This could be the beginning of some very bad times if things do not change fast. One day a month does not sound like much, but as a California Attorney, I can tell you that this will delay cases for significant amounts of time, especially civil cases. I hope a solution can be found to this soon!

By California Personal Injury Attorney Norman Gregory Fernandez, Esq.

Share