Uncategorized

Car accidents can be expensive. Serious accidents can result in extensive property damage and bodily injuries. Americans, on average, do not have enough saved away to pay for the cost of recovering from a car accident. In Los Angeles, car accident victims can file a personal injury lawsuit to recover compensation from the person(s) that caused the accident. These lawsuits must follow specific procedural guidelines. A successful lawsuit will include evidence that supports your argument of why you should be awarded damages. It is important to understand what you can recover, when you can recover it, and when you may be denied an award of compensation. Speaking with an experienced Los Angeles car accident attorney is a great first step toward recovering the damages you deserve.

When can I recover compensation for my car accident injuries?

Personal injury lawsuits – including those following Los Angeles car accidents – must be filed within the statute of limitations provided by law. The statute of limitations is a specific window of time following your accident. In most car accident cases, you must file a claim for damages within two years of the accident. If you have an injury that you do not notice right away, you can file a claim within one year of discovering it. If you do not file a claim within the statute of limitations you may be barred from recovering compensation. It is extremely important to speak with an attorney as soon as possible after a Los Angeles car accident.

What kind of damages can I recover in a car accident injury lawsuit?

Car accident victims can generally ask for two types of damages: economic and non-economic. Each type of damages is intended to compensate car accident victims for different types of injuries. It is important to note that the type of damages you recover can affect your income for tax purposes. Economic damages are not taxable. Non-economic damages are taxable.

Economic Damages

Economic damages are awarded to car accident victims for the financial hardships they suffer because of the accident. The idea behind awarding economic damages is that a car accident victim would not have had to deal with these expenses and costs if the accident had not occurred. Economic damages are awarded to put a victim back in the financial position they would have been in had the accident not happened. Commonly awarded economic damages in Los Angeles car accident lawsuits include:

• The cost of repairing or replacing damaged property;
• Rental cars;
• Medical expenses;
• Hospitalization;
• Surgery;
• Prescription medication;
• Rehabilitation;
• Nursing care;
• Lost wages; and
• Reduced earning capacity.

Economic damages are not taxable because the victims are not really receiving a benefit. You are merely being reimbursed for costs that you would not have otherwise had to handle. There can be an exception if deductions were previously taken on an income tax return for medical expenses. As a general rule, however, economic damages are not taxable.

Non-economic Damages

Car accidents can cause victims to suffer from intangible injuries and harms. These injuries are difficult to assign a monetary value. As a result, an award for these types of injuries will often vary (by a large degree) in each individual case. Commonly awarded non-economic damages in Los Angeles car accident lawsuits include compensation for:

• Pain and suffering;
• Mental anguish;
• Loss of consortium;
• Loss of companionship;
• Embarrassment;
• Disfigurement; and
• Loss of enjoyment of life.

We know what these injuries are but it is difficult to assign a “one size fits all” definition. A finder of fact (judge or jury) will consider evidence and testimony to determine an award that is appropriate to compensate a victim for his/her particular suffering.

Non-economic damages are taxable because victims are receiving a benefit. You are not being reimbursed for financial costs related to your car accident. Rather, you are being awarded an amount of money to reduce the suffering you are experiencing.

Is there a limit to the damages I can recover after a Los Angeles car accident?

California does not have a cap on the amount of damages that can be awarded in a civil personal injury lawsuit. This means that the sky can be the limit for plaintiffs in a car accident lawsuit. However, there are certain situations that may prohibit or reduce your ability to recover compensation.

Prohibitions on Recovery

In California, there are two situations in which you can be prohibited from recovering non-economic damages for injuries in a Los Angeles car accident. First, you may not recover non-economic damages if you were not insured at the time of your accident. Second, you may not recover non-economic damages if you were intoxicated and convicted of driving under the influence.

Comparative Fault

California utilizes the theory of comparative fault. This means that if you are partly responsible for the accident that caused your injury, any damages you recover must be reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to you. Let’s say you were recently injured in a Los Angeles car accident when another driver struck your vehicle. The other driver was speeding at the time, which was a contributing factor to the accident. You were distracted at the time of the accident because you were texting. Had you been paying attention to the road, the accident may have been less severe and/or avoidable. The other driver is considered to be 70% at-fault. You are considered to be 30% at-fault. You both suffered $100,000 in damages. You would be limited to recovering $70,000 from the other driver. The other driver would, at the same time, be limited to recovering $30,000 of his/her damages from you if they also filed a claim.

If a Los Angeles driver is considered to be 100% at fault for a car accident they are prohibited from seeking compensation from any other involved party.

Experienced Los Angeles Car Accident Attorney

Have you been injured in a Los Angeles car accident? If so, you may be entitled to recover compensation for the harms you have suffered. If you are interested in maximizing the amount of compensation you can recover you should speak with a Los Angeles car accident attorney. As skilled personal injury attorneys, we understand the nuances of California law and the best ways to design a claim for damages. We will highlight the evidence that is most beneficial to your case while also attacking any claims asserted by other parties. Contact our Los Angeles office today to schedule a free consultation with our team of car accident attorneys. We will review your case, determine the type of compensation you may be able to recover, and answer the questions you have.

Los Angeles Mayor Gil Garcetti just released his much-anticipated Vision Zero 2525 plan, but it will be a tough sell in the car-centric and budget-conscious city.

The initiative has the ambitious goal to eliminate traffic fatalities in eight years. Mayor Garcetti unveiled the plan in 2015, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, along with several other city agencies, spent most of 2016 conducting focus groups and collecting feedback on the idea. LADOT General Manager Seleta Reynolds stressed that Vision Zero is mostly about raising awareness and changing priorities from efficient traffic flow to overall roadway safety. The report also identifies 40 high-injury areas that are in dire need of physical changes; most of these locations are in south Los Angeles.

Ms. Reynolds also wants state lawmakers to redefine “jaywalking” and modify speed limit enforcement procedures.

Pedestrian-Auto Collisions in Los Angeles

Last year, there were almost as many pedestrian fatalities as all other kinds of traffic deaths (bicycle rider, motor vehicle occupant, and motorcycle rider) combined. In November 2016, voters desperate to do something about the carnage narrowly approved Measure M, which increases the sales tax to generate an estimated $120 billion over the next forty years to expand the MTA and take other measures to get people out of their cars.

Despite Mayor Garcetti’s aggressive backing, Measure M faced stiff opposition from South Bay residents because the plan prioritizes development in the northern and central parts of the city. As mentioned earlier, these are the areas where pedestrians are safer. Other voters objected to Measure M’s lack of oversight, and they predicted that the MTA’s cost overruns would derail the expansion project (no pun intended).

What Causes Fatal Pedestrian-Auto Crashes?

According to the laws of physics, speed multiplies the force in collisions between two objects, and that rule holds true in pedestrian-auto crashes. Consider the following:

Vehicle Speed	Serious Injury Rate	Fatality Rate
20mph	25 percent	15 percent
35mph	75 percent	65 percent
50mph	90 percent	75 percent

 

Speed also reduces reaction time. At 20mph, most cars travel three car lengths between the moment the driver sees a hazard and the moment the car safely stops; at 40mph, that distance triples to nine car lengths.

Reducing the posted speed limits may have some effect on vehicle velocity, but not very much. Especially, in the high-risk corridors, the city will probably need to take more aggressive traffic calming measures, like installing traffic circles, widening the crosswalks and sidewalks, lengthening red light times, and changing the streets from straight to curved. Drivers will not like these measures and the money will not last. Many motorists oppose “eyesore” construction projects and wider sidewalks cost about $8 million a mile.

Common Insurance Company Defenses

Statistically, most pedestrian-auto crashes occur outside marked crosswalks, and so insurance company lawyers usually invoke the sudden emergency defense. This doctrine excuses negligent driving if the driver:

• Faced a Sudden Emergency: In the legal sense, a “sudden emergency” is a wholly unanticipated event, like a hood fly-up or a tire blow-out. Most hazards, like jaywalking pedestrians and stalled cars, do not qualify as sudden emergencies, because these situations occur on almost every trip and drivers should be ready to deal with them.
• Reacted Reasonably: It is reasonable to slow down and pull to the right after a sudden emergency, and drivers who do not do so cannot claim the defense.

Last clear chance, a companion doctrine, often applies in T-bone and rear-end crashes when one driver had the opportunity to avoid the crash but failed to take advantage of the chance. If the jury determines that the victim and tortfeasor (negligent driver) were both partially at fault, the judge will reduce the victim’s damages proportionally.