« May 2008 | | July 2008 »
Posted On: June 30, 2008

Motorcycle Accidents and Worker's Comp

Every so often, we get asked: “I was involved in a motorcycle accident while riding my motorcycle for work and got injured. Worker’s Compensation is taking care of my medical bills. Do I need an attorney?” The answer is “If you were injured as a result of someone else’s negligence, you probably do.” Motorcycle accidents tend to result in more serious injuries than a similar car accident would. These more serious injuries result in higher medical bills, more lost wages and higher levels of pain and suffering.

Generally speaking, Worker’s Comp will only cover your medical bills. You may also be able to collect some disability but there will likely be a shortfall compared to your usual earnings. This is where an attorney comes in.

We can recover for your medical bills (subject to reimbursement), lost wages, damage to your motorcycle and your pain and suffering by pursuing a claim or lawsuit against the negligent driver that caused the accident.

If you have been in a motorcycle accident in San Diego or Southern California, whether on the job or not, please feel free to call Walton Law Firm LLP and discuss whether you have a case and need an attorney. We will provide honest and practical answers to your questions.

Posted by | | Email This Post

Posted In: Motorcycle Accidents

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 28, 2008

San Diego Auto Accident: Severe Car Accident Injuries on the Decline Nationally

A study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows a decrease in the annual number of incapacitating injuries due to auto accidents of 25%. It defines an incapacitating injury as a severe non-fatal injury that prevents the injured party from walking or driving, or the ability to continue the pre-accident activities of daily living.

Much of the decline in auto accident injuries is attributed to many improvements made in vehicle safety and driver behavior over the last decade. It's really no surprise. Seat belt use is now commonplace and expected, child safety seats are in regular use, and the incidents of drunk driving have also been in decline. In addition, cars are safer than ever. Air bags are now a standard feature on newer cars, as well as stability control.

This is all good news. But there are still too many car accidents that result in personal injury. All the technology and public service announcements in the world can't prevent the negligent or careless driver from being negligent and careful. But it is nice to know that the roads are becoming increasingly safer.

Walton Law Firm LLP is a San Diego County law firm representing individuals, families, and businesses throughout San Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties, in matters involving personal injury, wrongful death, nursing home abuse and neglect, and real estate litigation.

Posted by Randall R. Walton | | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accidents , Personal Injury

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 25, 2008

Personal Injury Recovery Limits Under Insurance To Change?

One of the difficulties plaintiffs have had to deal with in recovering their “fair” damages in a personal injury lawsuit has been, ironically, insurance. Under a line of California cases, a plaintiff who has medical insurance, has essentially been penalized by the courts.

Under the holding of Hanif v Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 and the cases which have followed it, a plaintiff may only recover “up to, and no more than, the actual amount expended or incurred for past medical services so long as that amount is reasonable.” Hanif at 643.

To understand the application of this “rule,” we need to look at a hypothetical. Assume a woman is in a car accident, sustains injuries and requires $20,000 in medical care to treat her injuries. If the woman does not have insurance, her damages may be $20,000. However, if she has insurance, her insurance may have contracted with the hospital and thus only paid $6,000 for her medical care. Under Hanif, the insured woman would thus only be able to recover $6,000 despite her suffering the same injuries as the uninsured woman who recovered $20,000.

The Fourth Appellate District-Division Three (Orange County) on Monday handed down it’s ruling in Olsen v. Reid (G038478). While the ruling itself broke no new ground, bypassing the issues of both Hanif and the contrary collateral source rule, the Concurring Opinion by Presiding Judge Moore “sound[ed] the bell of alarm.” Judge Moore’s concurring opinion examined the history of the collateral source rule which has long been part of California law. In Judge Moore’s opinion, and that of just about every plaintiffs’ attorney in California, Hanif and the cases which follow it have tried to judicially abrogate the law as set forth by the Legislature, the collateral source rule.

In some ways, this is a victory for those who represent injured consumers. Judge Moore’s concurring opinion provides a basis upon which we can argue against post-trial Hanif motions by which defense attorneys may try to reduce the damages awarded by juries. On the other hand, Olsen does not overrule Hanif, as it cannot, but does ask the California Supreme Court to hear the issue and reaffirm, as it should, that the collateral source rule should prevail.

Posted by | | Email This Post

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 22, 2008

San Diego Personal Injury Cases

A personal injury is generally described as any harm or injury caused to a person, ranging anything from a bruise to a wrongful death. If that harm or injury is caused by the negligent or intentional conduct of another person or entity, then the injured party is entitled to recover damages for that harm, no matter how small or serious.

A significant portion of the Walton Law Firm LLP case load is dedicated to the practice of personal injury law. Our firm represents individuals and families in a variety of personal injury matters, including auto accidents, motorcycle injury accidents, defective products, construction site accidents, falls on commercial properties, accidents in the home, and most other matters involving negligent conduct.

Under most circumstances, the legitimate victims of personal injury do not have to pay the costs to pursue a case with Walton Law Firm LLP, and most cases are taken on a contingency fee. This means nothing is paid by the client until and unless there is a monetary recovery.

If you have a question about a personal injury case, call Walton Law Firm LLP for a free and confidential consultation. We accept cases all over San Diego County, and, if necessary, will visit you in the home or the hospital for convenience.

For more information call (866) 607-1325 or fill out our online questionnaire.

Posted by Randall R. Walton | | Email This Post

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 12, 2008

Prevent Swimming Pool Injuries with Simple Precautions

As summer arrives, swimming pools take center stage in lives of thousands of Southern California families. This entry is a friendly reminder of the simple steps that can be taken to avoid serious injury or death caused by the backyard pool.

The first one is a no-brainer. Never let children swim in the pool unattended or unsupervised. If toddlers are in the pool, keep them at arms-length at all times. These simple steps can prevent an accidental drowning, and a failure to do this is negligence.

It is also a good idea to have a phone handy when you're at poolside. Whether it's a cordless from inside the house, or a cell phone, it will be invaluable to have it nearby if emergency assistance is needed. 797696_sunny.jpg.jpg

After children are finished swimming for day, close the pool, if possible, in a manner that will prevent young children from getting back in the water. Whether it means locking the house door, closing the pool fence, or netting the top of the pool, it is important to prevent reentry for the day once swimming is over.

Finally, to adults, go easy on the alcohol. Poolside drinking can slow reaction time and impair decision making abilities.

Following these simple rules will prevent most injuries or fatalities related to swimming pools. Have fun... but be smart.

Posted by Walton Law Firm | | Email This Post

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 9, 2008

Car Accidents on the Rise in San Diego's North County

More people, more roads, and more freeway congestion caused the number of auto accidents on North County San Diego roads to rise in 2007. Drivers looking to avoid the congestion of Highway 78, found the local surface streets no safer. Below are the top car accident locations in all the cities along the 78 corridor.

OCEANSIDE ACCIDENTS
College Boulevard and Oceanside Boulevard - 10
North River Road and College Boulevard - 7
Mission Avenue between Butler Street and Amick Street - 7
College Boulevard and Plaza Drive - 6
College Boulevard and Via Cupeño - 6
Oceanside Boulevard and Melrose Drive - 6
College Boulevard and Barnard Drive - 5
El Camino Real and Vista Way - 5
Mesa Drive and College Boulevard - 5
Oceanside Boulevard and Rancho del Oro - 5

CARLSBAD
El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue - 28
El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road - 27
Armada Drive and Palomar Airport Road - 15
El Camino Real and Marron Road - 15
Alga Road and Aviara Parkway - 14
El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue - 14
Palomar Airport Road and Paseo del Norte - 14
Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street - 13
Cannon Road and El Camino Real -12
Car Country Drive and Paseo del Norte - 12

VISTA ACCIDENTS
Escondido Avenue and Hillside Terrace - 26
Melrose Drive and Vista Way - 15
Santa Fe Avenue and Vista Village Drive - 15
Emerald Drive and Vista Way - 15

SAN MARCOS ACCIDENTS
Rancho Santa Fe Road and San Marcos Boulevard - 41
Grand Avenue and San Marcos Boulevard - 24
Business Park Drive and San Marcos Boulevard - 17
Knoll Road and San Marcos Boulevard - 17
Descanso Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road - 16
San Marcos Boulevard and Twin Oaks Valley Road - 16
Via Vera Cruz and San Marcos Boulevard - 16
Bent Avenue and San Marcos Boulevard - 15

ESCONDIDO ACCIDENTS
Washington Avenue and North Broadway - 17
East Valley Parkway and Midway Drive - 16
Lincoln Avenue and North Broadway - 16
El Norte Parkway and Centre City Parkway - 14
East Valley Parkway and Rose Street - 14
East Mission Avenue and Ash Street - 13
Mission Avenue and Fig Street - 13
Washington Avenue and Ash Street - 13
East Valley Parkway and Harding Street - 12
East Valley Parkway and Ash Street - 12
Centre City Parkway and Mission Avenue - 12

Posted by Walton Law Firm | | Email This Post

Posted In: Auto Accidents , Personal Injury , San Diego Car Accident , San Diego Personal Injury

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 6, 2008

Media Consults Walton Law Firm on Dog Bite Case

San Diego’s Fox 6 News visited Walton Law Firm on Thursday to interview Randy Walton about the liability of dog owners whose dogs are involved in biting incidents. The interview was prompted by a vicious attack on a Spring Valley woman who was seriously injured by a large dog while walking in her neighborhood.

In California, Walton told Fox 6 News, the law is clear. If someone owns a dog, and that dog bites a human, the owner if the dog is strictly liable.

Walton, who deals with dog bite cases frequently, says it doesn’t matter whether or not the dog displayed aggressive behavior prior to the attack. He says there were over 2000 dog bite cases in San Diego County last year and he believes there may have been many more that weren’t reported. “Because people don’t report them that frequently, if it’s a dog that they know,” Walton says.

To read the full story or see the video report click here.

The dog bite attorneys at Walton Law Firm represents individuals all over San Diego County who have been injured by dogs. If you have a question about a dog bite matter and would like a free consultation, please call (866) 607-1325 or fill out an inquiry form online.

Posted by Walton Law Firm | | Email This Post

Posted In: Dog Bites , Personal Injury

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 2, 2008

Sophisticated Users of Defective Products Do Not Require Warning

The California Supreme Court handed down its opinion (.pdf) in the case of Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. affirming the principle that the "sophisticated user" doctrine is a valid defense under California law. Federal courts have long held that a sophisticated user of a product does not need to be warned of the products potential to cause harm.

Generally, under California law a manufacturer has a duty to warn users of its products about the potential risks or harm caused by the use of the product. In Johnson, the Defendant argued was not required to warn the Plaintiff, a heating and air-conditioning technician, of the risks of using R-22, a gas used in air conditioners units. The Defendant contended that because Mr. Johnson was a sophisticated user, i.e. he worked in the industry and was well-aware, due to his training and experience, of the risks associated with R-22, that they had no duty to provide him with any warnings.

The trial court agreed with the Defendant’s reasoning, and granted its motion for summary judgment. After appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed, which led to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case. Now, the "sophisticated user" doctrine is part of California law.

Posted by Walton Law Firm | | Email This Post

Posted In: Defective Products

Bookmark and Share

« May 2008 | | July 2008 »
Randy Walton Photo

Randy Walton

Subscribe

Subscribe to the blogs's ATOM feed Subscribe to the RSS feed

Subscribe

Recent Entries

Legal Blogs