Modesto Personal Injury Lawyer

WOMAN SUES VICTORIA'S SECRET OVER DEFECTIVE THONG

Howard Knapp — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:21:08 GMT

I overheard recently, while listening to a radio talk show, that a woman was suing Victoria's Secret because of a defective thong. The woman was changing into the thong in a locker room at her work place when a "sharp dangly" addition to the thong snapped and hit her in the eye. She had three cuts to her cornea and decided to sue the boutique.

While this matter may seem comical, even a bit juvenile, what this woman is doing certainly is not. She is putting the civil justice system in the same bad light as the woman with the finger in her chili did, and that is unfortunate. More and more people feel the necessity to take cases to trial for "Hollywood" reasons. "Hollywood," for me, refers to the incorrect views society today gets on the legal system by watching slanderous movies and humiliating television series that portray the legal system as a way to earn a quick buck through ticktack cases that have no reason being in court. It is apparent that the woman (who had worn the thong at least twice before the incident) has watched one too many Judge Maria Lopez episodes.

This case is bad for the legal system for two reasons:

1) It causes the public to continue to view courts and the legal system with a false "Mickey Mouse" and "Looney Tunes" mindset.

2) The case will possibly cause copycat cases from people more interested in making a quick Franklin than actually receiving justice.

Reading other blogs posted about the thong case, it is true that clients with preposterous cases will never stop entering attorney's offices, and attorneys looking for spotlight will never stop taking these preposterous cases. It is apparent however, because of media and Hollywood, these cases will have the most affect on the public's view of the legal system, as opposed to the thousands of righteous cases that settle and/or go to trial daily.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Howard Knapp

Is Lawsuit Involving Little League Bat Wrong?

Larry Knapp — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:49:50 GMT

Today a brain injured child's lawyer filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the metal bat (from which a baseball launched hitting the boy in the chest just above his heart causing it to arrest for 15 to 20 minutes), Little League Baseball (who endorsed the bat with a seal of approval) and Sports Authority (the retailer that sold the bat). The news of the lawsuit brought the usual knee jerk reaction from many bloggers:

Manny

Maynard, MA

"Why do people always look for a reason or throw blame without realizing that sometimes accidents just happen and that there was nothing that could have been done to prevent them."

Tom Davis

Jacksonville, FL

"Does this mean I can get drunk, fall down on the sidewalk and sue Budweiser for manufacturing beer, the bar for selling it and the city for installing a sidewalk?"

Brenda

Bourbon, IN

"Just HOW do you think this lawsuit is going to make the sport safer?"

Tory One

Atlanta, GA

"What a total embarassment for America, this is close on the boiling coffee case. "

I will be the first one to admit that I am biased. That said, people need to stop a moment and consider the damage these type of cavalier comments do to our civil justice system. It's the best system going. Period. There is no other on the planet that serves the function of requiring wrongdoers to take responsibility and fairly compensate the injured. In addition, the effect of a "big bad" lawsuit is to make corporate profiteers consider the consequences of the products they put on the market for the public to consume. This particular lawsuit may, at first blush, sound poor. However, maybe the plaintiff's lawyer can prove that the manufacturer, the retailer and the approving organization (who all made money) put an unreasonably dangerous product on the market. Maybe the plaintiff's lawyer can't. However, I would rather see this brain damaged child's future care be paid for by the entities that profited from the sale of a defective dangerous bat than out of public funds.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

Tatiana Tiger Not Taunted?

Larry Knapp — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:22:09 GMT

O.K. the experts say that yelling and waving hands at a tiger likely wouldn't be enough to provoke it to attack. Even throwing rocks wouldn't necessarily cause the cat to leave its home and track down a taunter. You would have to hit it in the face or poke it repeatedly. Urinating

would provoke it, too.

While there is no evidence that the boys involved in the tiger attack hit the cat in the face or poked it or even urinated it, it is possible that a jury would assign them a portion of fault for waving and yelling. That's called comparative fault under California Law and even thought the owner of the Tiger is strictly liable for the injuries it inflicted this comparative fault element could be significant. The reason it is significant is because the jury in a civil case is first asked to determine how much the damages are to the plaintiff. So, for example in this case let's say the damages are $1,000,000.00. In a separate question the jury is asked what portion of fault, if any, does the plaintiff have for the attack. If the jury is convinced that the plaintiff brought the attack on themselves they could assign 99% comparative fault. The judge would then reduce the $1,000,000.00 by 99% leaving $10,000.00. That's a huge reduction.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Premises Liability.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

Modesto Drivers Need Aggressive Representation

Larry Knapp — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:31:18 GMT

Insurance companies are in the business to collect premiums and keep the money. They are not in the business of paying claims. It's not profitable. A perfect example is property damage claims. Most people are entitled to loss of use damages and rarely claim them from the responsible party. Here is the law.

Where property is injured, recovery is allowed for loss of use during the time required for repairs (see supra,

§1718). Where it is totally destroyed, there is authority denying recovery for loss of use, chiefly on the common law theory that destruction changes the plaintiff's right from one of ownership to a claim for the value. (See 33 So. Cal. L. Rev. 451.) However, in Reynolds v. Bank of America (1959) 53 C.2d 49, 345 P.2d 926, the court disapproved prior dicta and followed the Restatement in rejecting this limitation. Defendant's testator had negligently destroyed plaintiff's airplane. Recovery of its value, $30,000, was allowed by the trial judge, but value of its use for the 4-month period required to find a replacement, and loss of business profits for this period, was denied. Held, reversed.

"There appears to be no logical or practical reason why a distinction should be drawn between cases in which the property is totally destroyed and those in which it has been injured but is repairable, and we have concluded that when the owner of a negligently destroyed commercial vehicle has suffered injury by being deprived of the use of the vehicle during the period required for replacement, he is entitled, upon proper pleading and proof, to recover for loss of use in order to 'compensate for all the detriment proximately caused' by the wrongful destruction." (53 C.2d 50.) (See Rest.2d, Torts §927(2)(d); 22 Am.Jur.2d (2003 ed.), Damages §§296, 297; 33 So. Cal. L. Rev. 451 [pointing out that speculative recovery can be avoided by strict insistence on minimizing damages]; 12 U.S.F. L. Rev. 311 [admiralty collision cases]; 73 A.L.R.2d 719 [measure of damages for destruction or injury to airplane]; 18 A.L.R.3d 497 [recovery for loss of use of motor vehicle damaged or destroyed].)

Ultimately, the consumer needs insurance to protect from a loss.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

California Fire Victims Need to Be Prepared

Larry Knapp — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:39:46 GMT

If you have lost property in the Southern California Disasters this past week be prepared to make a claim with your homeowner's insurance company. First thing you need to do is prepare an inventory. This must be painstakingly detailed. You will need to get as much evidence as possible to back up your inventory. Once you are allowed to return to your home, do not allow the remains to be cleaned up until you have gone through it and

photographed anything that can be identified. You may be surprised at how you can still identify some of your belongings.

Contact your relatives and friends to see if they may have photographs of the interior of your home that could also help identify your belongings. Or ask your neighbors to sit down with you and help construct an inventory of what they remember to have been in your home. If necessary go to the store purchase these items and keep the receipts. Let your insurance adjuster know that you have witnesses who will testify that this property was in your house prior to the fire and they saw it.

Above all be prepared to fight for what is right. Don't allow your insurance company to negotiate you into accepting a lower figure than what it will take to get you back to where you were before the fire. Good luck to all those affected.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

Mi-Wuk Village Woman Dies in Head-On Collision East of Modesto

Larry Knapp — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:03:19 GMT

I have written before about the ever increasing danger of auto accidents on the two lane highways that surround us in the Central San Joaquin Valley. As I have said, increasing population pressures from Stockton, Modesto, Manteca, Tracy and the Mother Lode are too taxing for the type of roadways traffic these highways were designed to handle.

In the future, I predict that all of these highways will become "non-passing" zones.

A perfect example is the head-on collision that killed this young woman who was only 20 years old on highway 120.

According to the CHP, Hernandez was passing a westbound big rig while climbing a hill in the road and approaching a blind right curve. As the cars crested the hill, they collided on the south asphalt shoulder, the CHP reported.

This morning as I was traveling on Highway 26 when I witnessed a rear-end collision that certainly could have been avoided given the proper driver attention. As traffic continues to increase we will all have to be extra vigilant of other drivers on the roads.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

California Governor Lets Down Taxpayers and the Injured.

Larry Knapp — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:29:39 GMT

Governor Schwarzenegger broke a promise to the taxpayers and injured consumers of the State of California when he failed sign SB 93 (Corbett). The insurance industry has been artificially deflating the value of medical treatment for wrongfully injured people in this state for almost 20 years. This has resulted in huge losses to state programs like Medi-Cal and to those people who are injured by tortuous conduct. As a result, the insurance

industry has been receiving an enormous windfall, money that the industry should be paying instead of the taxpayers of this state.

It works like this. The law states that an injured person is entitled to recover the reasonable value of the medical treatment they receive as a result of the wrongful conduct of another person. Sounds simple, however, the insurance industry has been successfully arguing in court that the reasonable value of medical treatment is what the insurance industry pays through their contracts with medical providers. This is where the train leaves the tracks. This is because a health insurance company gets huge discounts from medical providers that regular folks aren't able to negotiate. In exchange for the huge discounts, the health insurers give the hospitals all kinds of valuable benefits instead of money. A few examples are: millions of patients without the need to advertise, fast guaranteed payment and uniform billing.

So if a hospital would get paid $100.00 by you and me for a particular service. They might only get paid $25.00 by a health insurance company. But they also get all those valuable benefits in addition to the $25.00. Once the case gets to trial, the insurance lawyer has been successfully persuading judges to only let you and me recover the $25.00. (Which by the way, your health insurer wants reimbursed.) If you are on Medi-Cal this means there is less money in the verdict to be reimbursed from and invariably the program doesn't get as much money back and the taxpayer has to pay.

SB 93 would have fixed this insurance industry boon, by letting judges know that the amount paid by Medi-cal does not represent the reasonable value and is not admissible evidence for that proposition.

This bill would prohibit consideration of the amount paid by Medi-Cal for medical services provided to a beneficiary as evidence of past medical damages, or for the purpose of reducing the third party's liability to the beneficiary in any third-party action. In effect, for purposes of measuring damages, an injured party who is a Medi-Cal beneficiary would be treated the same as any other injured party where a third party is found liable for the injuries.

However, the Governor didn't see it that way and the insurance industry continues to keep money they are not entitled to keep at the expense of the taxpayers and injured people of California.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

QVC Issues Recall of Toasters Due to Fire Hazard

Courtney Mills — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:11:01 GMT

The giant TV retailer QVC along with the U.S. CPSC has issued a recall for about 5,200 'Cook's Essential' Electric Toasters. There appears to be a risk of toasters catching on fire and burning up, and consumers who purchased these toasters from QVC should stop using them immediately.

QVC has received ten reports of its "Cook's Essential" toasters turning on spontaneously, including one incident which resulted in fire damage to kitchen cabinets and two incidents in which toaster covers were burned. The recall concerns toaster model CET 401, a four-slot stainless steel version of a traditional electric toaster. Consumers are absolutely advised to unplug these toasters.

Consumers who purchased a "Cook's Essential" toaster Model CET 401 through QVC's shopping channel between January 2003 and June 2003 should contact QVC for a refund. They can do so by calling QVC at (800) 367-9444, or by visiting QVC's web site at www.qvc.com.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

Drunk Drivers Exposed to Punitive Damages

Larry Knapp — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:28:15 GMT

When a drunk driver causes an injury in the state of California like Herondina Pinherosias is accused of doing to Clement Cope yesterday afternoon in the Sonora area on Highway 120, the Civil Justice System enables a jury to punish the drunk driver by

including money in their verdict for punitive damages. The purpose of these damages is to send a message to the driver that their conduct is so extreme and reckless that public policy will exact exemplary damages for the broken lives of those effected.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

Motorcycle Riders in Modesto Beware

Larry Knapp — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:20:25 GMT

Riding a motorcycle can be a dangerous activity, particularly if you happened to be in Modesto last week. Inattention by other drivers is a big factor in many instances. It is critical for the motorcyclist to pay particular attention when entering or exiting Highway 99. Because motorcycle riders tend

to be harder for automobile drivers to see it is very important to use extra caution to avoid injury.

The people responsible for these injuries can only truly be held accountable by the civil justice system. Insurance Companies have been working for years to avoid their contractual obligations and convince the public that there is something wrong with holding the at fault driver accountable for the injuries. A fractured leg can cause great disability and hardship to those effected. It is up to all of us to stand up to the myths and take action, holding the at fault drivers accountable for their wrongdoings. Their

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp