The Importance of Keeping Your Liability Insurance Even in Tough Economic Times.

California Personal Injury Attorney Norman Gregory Fernandez discusses the importance of maintaining liability insurance in tough economic timesMy office has been swamped with accident victims who are not at fault in motorcycle, car, truck and other motor vehicle accidents, yet had no liability insurance at the time of the accident.

In California if you drive a motor vehicle such as a car, motorcycle, truck, etc., without basic liability insurance, you are precluded from recovering general damages such as pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, etc. (California Proposition 213)

In other words if you lose a leg, or become a quadriplegic, you will only be entitled to out of pocket expenses only if you drive without liability insurance. To add insult to injury, you could lose your license, have your car impounded, and face penalties from the State.

If you cannot afford liability insurance, there is a special program through the State of California to obtain cheap liability insurance. If you cannot get that, flat out don’t drive. It is not worth it.

My law firm is one of the few law firms that will represent accident victims throughout the State of California who did not have liability insurance at the time of the accident. We do not condone it, but we believe that everyone deserves a fair shake. We will do everything we can for you, even if you were an uninsured victim of a motor vehicle accident.

I am recommending that if you cannot afford liability insurance, you should use public transportation until you can. It is illegal to drive in the State of California without minimum liability insurance to cover you in case you are fault in an accident.

The flip side of the coin is that all California motorist should carry uninsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to what they would want to cover themselves for in case they are injured, to protect yourself from a person who is at fault in an accident against you, yet has no liability insurance.

Motorcycle riders should carry a minimum of $500,000.00, five hundred thousand dollars in uninsured motorist coverage because of the usually catastrophic injuries that result from motorcycle accidents.

By California Accident Attorney Norman Gregory Fernandez, Esq., © 2009

Share

Memorial Day 2009; Remember Those Who Have Given Their Lives So That We May Be Free.

Today, Memorial Day, is a holiday wherein we Americans pay tribute to those who what fallen in the service of the United States of America.

Today is more than a paid holiday off of work; it is more than a day to drink beer and have a picnic; it is more than a shopping day for sales at your local mall; it is supposed to be a solemn day of tribute and remembrance of those who have given their lives in the service of the United States of America.

As I write this in the year 2009, young Americans are still at war and fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, may god bless them and keep them safe.

I know it is very easy to worry about the economy, home foreclosures, raising gas prices, love, job, or lack thereof, you favorite TV show, the NBA playoffs, etc. However, remember this, young Americans, the best and the brightest, are now at this time on this very day, giving their all for all of our freedom.

Take a moment today to pray for them, take some time today to give silence as tribute for them, and above all, look at something beautiful today for them, those blessed souls who gave their lives for us, for they can no longer see.

By 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

2 Killed In Car Crash On I-5 near Sacramento, California

Sacramento California car accident atorneySACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Highway Patrol said two men died after one driver crossed a center divider and struck another vehicle traveling in the opposite direction.

Authorities said 38-year-old Albert Hu’s Toyota Camry crossed the divider on Interstate 5 at about 10:15 p.m. on Friday night near Sacramento.

His car hit a Honda Accord driven by 30-year-old Juan Carlos Reyes-Torres.

Both men died in the collision, and a passenger in Reyes-Torres’ car suffered minor injuries.

The CHP said witnesses reported that Hu’s car was driving recklessly before the crash, and authorities have not ruled out drugs or alcohol as a cause.

Sacramento Car Accident Attorney

Share

Representing Yourself in a California Personal Injury Case is Just Plain Dumb!

California Personal Injury Lawyer, Norman Gregory Fernandez, Esq.Recently I talked to a man who was rear ended in a car accident, and suffered injuries. He received medical treatment which totaled approximately $5,000.00. He stated that the insurance company told him to submit a demand, which he did. He then told me that the insurance company kept telling him to wait just a little longer, and that they would work it out, etc.

Well guess what, the man waited for two years and two days after the accident to call me for a consultation. He is basically shit out of luck; S.O.L. for short! You see you only have two years from the date of the injury to file a lawsuit. This is also known as the statute of limitations for filing a law suit in this type of case. Ignorance of this fact is no excuse for waiting.

Had the man called me one week before the statute of limitations expired, I might have taken the case and filed the requisite lawsuit for him. Unfortunately for him, it was too late. In this mans zeal to in his mind to get more money by not getting an attorney, he got nothing. Little did he know that in the vast majority of cases, a plaintiff in a personal injury case gets more money with an attorney, then without.

I recently spoke to a lady who also happened to work for an insurance company. She had a car accident and was still treating. She was told she may need surgery. The defendant insurance company offered her $7,000.00. She talked to some (moronic) friends at her insurance company who told her it was a good offer, and she took it. She signed a settlement and release of all claims, her case is over. She calls me after the fact to see if she can get out of it. The answer was no! She is stuck with her dumb decision.

I always ask myself why persons injured in a motor vehicle accident, slip and fall, dog bite, or other type of personal injury would not at least call a personal injury attorney like me to obtain at least a free consultation to find out what their rights are? If someone was very sick would they not go see a doctor? Sure they would. So why do people try to handle personal injury cases on their own. Don’t they realize it is the dumbest thing you can do? Don’t they realize that they may be entitled to untold thousands or more in compensation for their injuries? Don’t they realize that personal injury attorney’s such as myself charge nothing unless we recover money for you.

Now granted there are tons of personal injury attorney’s out there. In my opinion most are just settlement mills looking for the quick buck. Not me or my firm!

If you have a personal injury case in California, call me for a free consultation at 800-816-1529 ext. 1. If I can help you, I will. I  will fight to get you as much money as possible in your case.

Don’t be cheap, and don’t be dumb, retain an attorney to get more money than you will on your own. Don’t be like the fools above, instead of cutting out attorneys fees; they cut themselves totally out of any real settlement!

By California Personal Injury Lawyer Norman Gregory Fernandez, © 2009

Share

Suzuki Issues Urgent Recall For GSX-R1000 Motorcycles

Product Liability Attorney Norman Gregory Fernandez discusses the urgent recall of Suzuki GSX-R1000 motorcycles.Chatsworth, California –

American Suzuki Motor Corporation announced that an extraordinary safety defect in 2005 and 2006 GSX-R1000 model sport bikes has been causing cracking and breakage in the front wheel/fork assembly and behind and below the steering neck of the motorcycle. Frame fractures are serious safety defects that destabilize and otherwise adversely affect the handling and maneuvering characteristics of motorcycles so as to make it nearly impossible for even the most experienced and talented riders to avoid a catastrophic crash.

This is a urgent safety problem. If you have one of these motorcycles DO NOT RIDE IT. CALL YOUR LOCAL SUZUKI DEALER NOW. IF YOU HAVE BEEN INJURED DUE TO THIS DEFECT CALL US NOW AT 800-816-1529 EXT. 1.

The defect in the frame of the Suzuki GSX-R1000 sport bikes is so significant that it has caused the entire front steering assembly to completely separate from the body of the motorcycle while unsuspecting drivers were in the act of operating this dangerous machine! If you or a family member has sustained injury while operating one of these Suzuki sport bikes, call the our law office at (800) 816-1529 ext. 1, so that our experienced team of trial lawyers can help you pursue compensation for your harm.

Suzuki, perhaps unsurprisingly, has refused to take responsibility for manufacturing and selling such an incredibly defective sport bike. Suzuki Motor Corporation has instead attempted to point the finger at the purchasers and drivers of their motorcycles, claiming that the cracking and breaking of these frames is attributed to reckless drivers who engage in dangerous stunts and illegal driving activities which places an unusually high amount of stress on the frame of the motorcycle.

However, Suzuki has initiated a recall campaign as of late January, 2009, in which the company will either replace broken and cracked frames or retrofit affected bikes with a brace to minimize the potential for frame cracking and breakage. This massive recall covers more than 26,000 model year 2005 and 2006 GSX-R1000 motorcycles!

If you own or ride one of these Suzuki sport bikes, you should have already received a notification letter from Suzuki explaining the possible safety defects in the frame and requesting you to return your motorcycle to a Suzuki dealership as soon as possible. Suzuki also asked its individual dealerships to attempt to personally contact customers and inform them of the recall initiative. It is of the utmost importance for all owners of a recalled sport bike to trailer the motorcycle to a Suzuki retailer before any future operation of the bike is undertaken.

A word to the wise: Do not be fooled! The frames of the recalled GSX-R1000’s may have cracks that are so faint they are not visible to the naked eye. Even the slightest of hairline cracks can lead to partial or total separation of the frame while driving. Furthermore, frames that are currently defect free may, at any moment, sustain a crack or break which can cause you and your bike to become painfully familiar with the asphalt.

Under the rules governing this recall, Suzuki must abide by guidelines approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for inspecting and remedying the dangerous sport bikes. Specifically, if Suzuki does detect any sort of crack or breakage anywhere in the frame, the company must replace the frame with a new frame that is equipped with a reinforcement brace. In the event that Suzuki does not detect any damage to the frame, a reinforcement brace must be attached to the current bike frame using bolts and epoxy adhesive. In order to provide for the safety of yourself and others, it is critical that owners of 2005 and 2006 model year GSX-R1000’s take immediate action in response to Suzuki’s recall campaign!

Suzuki claims that the reinforcement brace is made of lightweight, slender aluminum that will not affect the appearance, handling or performance of your motorcycle. Additionally, the company is providing a five-year warranty covering the frame and brace, effective as of the date of the brace installation.

If you own a motorcycle that is covered by this recall initiative, the inspection and appropriate repair or replacement will be done free of charge. However, Suzuki has noted some forms of service and repair that will not be covered under the recall. For example, customers will have to shoulder the cost of repairs attributable to crashes or other similar incidents caused by the safety defect.

If a family member has died or you or a family member has been njured while operating a Suzuki GSX-R1000 sport bike, my law firm, The Law Offices of Norman Gregory Fernandez can see to it that your legal needs are fully and carefully represented, so that you can get the compensation you are entitled to. You may call our hotline at 800-816-1529 ext. 1 for a free consultation now.
Visit the links listed below to view the Suzuki Customer Notice and Consumer Affairs Information regarding Suzuki’s recall campaign.

http://www.suzukicycles.com/Recalls/pdf/GS_GSX_GSXR_192_WebsiteLetter.pdf

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/recalls04/2009/suzuki_gsx.html

By Defective Motorcycle Personal Injury Attorney

Share

Two Car Accident’s Caused By a Possible Drunk Driver

Castaic California car accident atorneyCastaic – California

Two traffic accidents involving five vehicles on the Interstate 5 early Saturday morning led to an arrest on suspicion of DUI, the transportation of four people to the hospital and lane closures, said California Highway Patrol Officer Ben Ellis.

A sedan and a tractor trailer collided on the southbound I-5 just south of Templin Highway near Castaic at 6:03 a.m., Ellis said.

About two minutes later, the first accident led to a second collision involving a pick-up truck, an SUV, another sedan and tractor trailer already at the site, according to Ellis.

Officers arrested the male driver of the sedan in the first collision on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. The suspect was injured in the second collision because he stepped out of his vehicle after the first collision, Ellis said.

The suspect was transported to Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, along with the driver of the second sedan and two passengers in that vehicle, Ellis said.

CHP officers shut down the third and fourth lanes for about an hour. The first and second lanes were closed only five to 10 minutes after the crash.

Authorities still do not know what directly caused the accident.

“We’re still investigating at this point,” Ellis said.

Castaic Car Accident Attorney

Share

Federal Hearing Regarding Chatsworth California Metrolink Disaster Confirms Engineer Warned About Cell Phone Use!

NTSB federal panel hears Connex Railroad testimony about fatal Chatsworth, California Metrolink train crash.

Los Angeles, CA

The National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) www.ntsb.gov heard testimony in Washington D.C., on Tuesday, regarding the conduct of the engineer who died while operating the fatal Chatsworth Metrolink commuter train crash.

Robert M. Sanchez was the engineer, who was operating the train September 12, 2008, when he allegedly ran a red signal light and crashed into a Union Pacific freight train killing himself, 24 passengers, and injuring 135 as reported by the Los Angeles Time.

The NTSB panel heard testimony in Washington D.C. from Rick Dahl, a supervisor with Connex Railroad. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority “Metrolink commuter rail,” contracts their train operators and workers from Connex Railroad.

Dahl testified he had warned Sanchez on two separate occasions about violating railroad policy regarding cell phone use. It is a serious violation for train engineers to use their cell phones while operating a moving train. The supervisor also testified Sanchez’s phone was found in his bag in 2006, but he was not observed by supervisors using the phone.

Shortly before the Chatsworth California accident, Dahl warned Sanchez, a second time, after a conductor reported seeing Sanchez using the cell phone while at work.

The testimony remains confusing because there have been contradictory reports from four witnesses and the surviving Metrolink conductor about the color of the rail signal. They all claim, the rail signal was green and not red when the train failed to switch lines. The federal panel remains hearing testimony and the investigation is ongoing.

Chatsworth California Metrolink Train Accident Attorney

Share

The Supreme Court strikes Preemption Argument In Drug Company Case.

California Personal Injury LawyerIn one of the most eagerly awaited decisions of this Supreme Court session, the justices today ruled that drug companies are not shielded from personal injury claims even if the feds approved their products and packaging. The 6-3 decision is a victory for Diana Levine, a Vermont musician, now in her 60s, who sued drug giant Wyeth after she had to have her arm amputated because of a botched injection of the anti-nausea med Phenergan.

The ruling has wide-reaching implications for product liability and personal injury lawsuits, including those pending against Merck & Co. charging that its anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx dramatically increased heart attack and stroke risk.

“Federal law does not pre-empt Levine’s claim,” the justices wrote, “that Phenergan’s label did not contain an adequate warning about the IV-push method of administration.”

To sum the case up, Levine, a guitarist, suffered from migraines and often received an injection at a nearby clinic of Phenergan in her backside to treat related nausea symptoms. But on one tragic visit in 2000, instead of giving her a shot in the butt, the physician’s assistant attempted to inject the drug directly into a vein in her arm using an alternative approved method called intravenous push.

The worker accidentally injected the drug into Levine’s artery instead of a vein, which has the potential to cause a spasm in the artery, reducing the blood supply and sometimes leading to gangrene. Indeed, the right-handed musician rapidly developed an infection in her right hand and forearm, and doctors were forced to amputate the blackened limb in two stages.

Although the packaging was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and described the risks of Phenergan, Levine’s lawyers argued that the warning against IV-push should have been stronger. A Vermont jury awarded Levine $6.7 million in damages, and the Vermont Supreme Court upheld the decision in 2006. But Wyeth appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has now weighed in, putting the matter to rest.

The three justices who ruled against Levine were John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito, Jr., who penned the dissenting opinion. “[I]t is odd (to say the least) that a jury in Vermont can now order for Phenergan what the FDA has chosen not to order for mustard gas,” Alito wrote — referring to the highly toxic but powerful chemical that, despite the significant risk, can be administered via IV push as an anticancer drug.

California Products Liabilty Attorney

Share

California Medical Malpractice Cases In a Nutshell.

Medical Malpractice in a nutshell

For those of you who do not know what a medical malpractice case is, I will describe it to you in basic language. Medial malpractice is the failure of a doctor to perform like other similar doctors in the community, and this failure causes you damages.

Medical malpractice usually includes health care providers such as doctors, hospitals, nurses, dentists, or anyone providing health care services.

Some examples of medical malpractice would be: a doctor operating on the wrong body part; a doctor removing the wrong body part; failure to diagnose a medical condition; misdiagnosis; prescribing the wrong medications; leaving tools or devices in the body after surgery; negligently performing surgery; failing to warn about possible ramifications of a medical procedure, and so on.

A medical malpractice victim is entitled to special and general damages. Special damages are out of pocket losses such as medical bills, loss of wages, prescriptions, travel to and from a medical provider and so on. General Damages are pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, etc.

Since the 1970’s, the State of California has limited or capped general damages in medical malpractice cases to $250,000 no matter what your loss is.

I know that the $250,000 cap on general damages is absurd and way behind the times. I may discuss how unfair this cap is in another article. The purpose of the article is simply to discuss a California medical malpractice case.

If you are a victim of medical malpractice in California you can basically recover your out of pocket loss, and up to $250,000 in general damages. Because of the $250,000 cap in California, many personal injury attorneys have stopped doing medical malpractice cases because they are expensive to prosecute.

Victims of medical malpractice in California have only 1 year from the time they knew or should have known about the malpractice to sue. Furthermore, they must notify the health care provider in writing of the fact that they are going to sue, before they can sue.

For this reason it is important for medical malpractice victims to find a medical malpractice personal injury attorney such as myself, as soon as possible.

To prove that there was medical malpractice in a particular case, an expert witness is almost always necessary. In most medical malpractice cases, the expert needs to be retained at the outset of the case, to determine if there was indeed a failure of a healthcare provider to act as similar providers in the community would have.

In closing, if you feel like you may be the victim of medical malpractice, call my office forthwith at 800-816-1529 ext. 1. I will give you a free consultation.

By California Medical Malpractice Personal Injury Attorney Norman Gregory Fernandez, © 2009

Share

Man killed in highway crash with big rig Truck.

Law Office of Norman Gregory Fernandez Personal Injury NewsYERMO – California

A passenger died Monday night after the pickup truck he was riding in crashed into the back of a tractor-trailer on Interstate 15 near Yermo, according to a report from the San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner’s Department.

County coroners have not yet released the man’s name pending notification of his family. He and the car’s driver were in a red pickup truck on northbound Interstate 15 at the First Street overcrossing near Yermo when it slammed into the back of a big rig at 9:23 p.m., the report stated.

The driver was airlifted to Loma Linda University Hospital where he is being treated for major injuries. Both men were from San Fernando, according to a California Highway Patrol report.

The California Highway Patrol is investigation the collision.

San Bernardino Truck Accident Attorney

Share

New Laws for 2009 in the State of California.

Here are some of the new laws which went effect on January 1, 2009:

No-text Law
Writing, sending, or reading a “text-based communication” while driving will be against the law for all drivers in California. Violating this law is punishable by a base fine of $20 for a first offense and $50 for each subsequent offense. With the addition of penalty assessments, fines can be more than triple the base fine amount.

Mounting GPS on Windshield
You may now mount a GPS on the lower right or lower left part of your windshield so long as it does not interfere with any air bag device. In the past nothing could be mounted to your windshield.

Smoking with a minor in the Car
It is now an infraction to smoke a cigarette, cigar, or pipe in a car whether it is in motion or at rest if a minor child is in the car with you. This applies even if you are pulled over to the side of the road.

Definition of a motorcycle
Deleting the existing weight limitation of 1,500 pounds, removes a separate definition for electrically powered vehicles and will allow fully enclosed 3-wheeled motor vehicles to use the carpool lanes.

New DUI Laws — Zero tolerance
Any person who is on probation for a DUI convection cannot drive with a blood alcohol level of.01 percent.

Unlicensed car dealersLaw-enforcement officers can impound vehicles that are being sold by unlicensed dealers.

Temporary operating permits restricted
The DMV will restrict permits to allow more time to obtain a smog certificate.

Counterfeit Clean Air Stickers
It will be a crime to forge Clean Air Stickers, which are issued to low-emission vehicles and allow the vehicles with these stickers to be driven in carpool lanes.

Special interest license plates
Gold Star Family special interest license plates will be available to family members who have had family killed in the line of duty while serving in the Armed Forces during wartime or military operations.

Temporary employees
Wages for employees of temporary services employers shall be paid weekly or daily if the work less than 90 days.

Family and Medical Leave Act
Families who have members who are active in the military are eligible up to 12 weeks of leave if they meet the “qualifying exigencies: short notice deployment, attendance at official military events or activities, arranging or providing childcare, attending school or daycare meetings, handling financial and legal matters, and rest and recuperation visits when the soldier is on leave.”

I must caution you that this is only a partial list of new laws in California for 2009.

By California Motorcycle Accident Attorney and Biker Lawyer Norman Gregory Fernandez, © 2009

Share

Ventura, California Woman Impaled During Car Accident Dies

Ventura California Car Accident LawyerVENTURA, California —

The Ventura County Medical Examiner’s office says a Ventura woman impaled by a metal pole after a dramatic car accident died from her injuries.

Armando Chavez, a senior deputy with the Medical Examiner’s office, says Louise Nemerson was rushed to Ventura County Medical Center where she died during surgery on Thursday.

Police say Nemerson’s sports utility vehicle collided with another vehicle, went over the center median into opposing lanes of traffic. Nemerson went down an embankment and crashed through a chain-link fence where she was impaled by a metal pole.

Nemerson worked part time at Ventura College at the student health center.

We send out thoughts and prayers out to the family of Louise Nemerson.

If you or your family have lost a loved one in a car accident, or other fatal motor vehicle accident, you have in most cases, the right to recover compensatory damages for wrongful death, so long as your loved one was not at fault in the accident.

If you or your family have lost a loved one in a car accident, or other fatal motor vehicle accident, you may call our firm now for a free consultation at 800-816-1529, extension 1, or check out our main personal injury website at http://thepersonalinjury.com.

Ventura Car Accident Attorney

Share

Man Arrested in Fatal Car Crash in La Puente, California

California Fatal Car Accident Attorney and LawyerLos Angeles, California

A Duarte, California man, 22 years old, is being held after allegedly running a red light and smashing into another car, killing its occupant.

A 22-year-old Duarte California man was arrested after allegedly running a red light and broadsiding another car in La Puente, California last night, killing the 61-year-old driver, a California Highway Patrol officer said.

Elliott M. Imm was driving south on Valinda Avenue with a female passenger around 11:20 last night when he failed to stop at a red light at Temple Avenue and crashed into the driver’s side of a 2003 Chrysler, CHP Officer Anthony Martin said.

The driver of the Chrysler, a resident of Valinda, California, was pronounced dead at the scene, Martin said. Officials did not immediately release his name, saying his family had not been notified.

The impact also pushed the Chrysler into a 2003 Ford that was traveling parallel to the Chrysler but caused no serious injuries to the driver of the Ford.

Both Imm and his passenger were taken to Queen of the Valley hospital to be treated for their injuries. Martin said he did not know whether alcohol or drugs may have been factors in the accident. The officer said Imm was driving between 35 and 40 miles per hour.

Imm was being held in lieu of $30,000 bail.

In this particular accident, the family of the man killed in the accident has a cause of action for wrongful death against the driver of the car who was at fault.

Furthermore, the passenger in the car the caused the fatal car accident also has a cause of action against the driver who was at fault.

If you or your family have suffered through a fatal car accident such as the one described in this article, or you were a passenger in a car that was involved in an accident such as this, you will want to retain an attorney as quickly as possible to receive just compensation, and to protect your legal rights.

You may call our law firm 7 days a week, 24 hours per day for a free consultation at 800-816-1529, extension 1, or visit our main personal injury website at www.thepersonalinjury.com.

California Fatal Car Accident Attorney and Lawyer

Share

Metro Bus and Metro Train Collide in Los Angeles, 15 injured so far!

Metro Train and Metro Bus Collide in Los Angeles, CaliforniaLOS ANGELES, California — A metro train and a bus collided Friday, injuring at least 15 people near downtown Los Angeles, officials said.

The crash happened a week after a deadly collision involving a commuter train in a Los Angeles suburb called Chatsworth, California.

Passengers on the Metro Blue Line train were hurt in Friday’s accident but the injuries were minor, said D’Lisa Davies, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Fire Department.

The driver of the bus, which was not carrying any passengers, was among those injured, she said.

There were 230 to 250 passengers on the train, said Metro spokesman Jose Ubaldo. It was heading east to downtown Long Beach.

Chris Romero, 31, told The Associated Press the sound of screeching metal woke him and he ran from his apartment to the tracks.

“With everything that’s going on, it’s scary to go on the Metro,” he said in Spanish through an interpreter. He told AP he would not take the train “right now.”

The cause of the crash was under investigation.

If you were injured in this crash you may call our firm for a free consultation 7 days a week, 24 hours a day at 800-816-1529, extension 1.

Our law Firm has successfully handled many cases against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority.

If you were injured you have only 6 months from the date of accident to file a claim with the governmental entity otherwise you will lose your right to sue. It is critical that you retain an attorney as soon as possible to protect your legal rights.

Los Angeles Metro Bus Accident Attorney and Los Angeles Metro Train Accident Attorney

Share
Welcome to the California Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, presented by California Personal Injury Lawyer Norman Gregory Fernandez.

For a Free Initial Consultation on your Personal Injury Case, Call (800) 816-1529 x.1

To Submit Your Case Online for a Free Evaluation, or to contact us, Click Here Now.

Here you will find articles related to Personal Injury Law, Personal Injury cases, Personal Injury news, and commentary by California Personal Injury Attorney Norman Gregory Fernandez. To Contact Us Click Here Now.