City of Los Angeles Taking Steps to Address High Number of Hit and Run Collisions, Failure to Apprehend Most Drivers who Flee the Scene

With recent legislation, the City of Los Angeles is addressing a growing safety issue for Californians, particularly pedestrians and cyclists – hit and run accidents.  Earlier this month the city council approved a measure to more effectively catch those who flee the scene of a car accident, only one-fifth of whom are arrested by the LAPD in connection with the offense, according to this Reuters story:

“Out of 40,000 car accidents in America's second-largest city, nearly half are classified as hit-and-runs, well above the national average, according to the Los Angeles Police Department.”

The city has agreed to move ahead with an information dissemination system where the details of an offending driver’s vehicle will go out to the public via social media, as well as to taxi drivers, some public transportation operators and to vehicle repair facilities that the offender might visit to address the damage to their vehicle.

The LA Times cited a 42% increase in hit and runs where a bicyclist was the victim over the decade spanning 2002 to 2012.  Although a hit and run conviction can bring with it prison time as well as thousands of dollars in fines, perpetrators of the hit and run are often not caught as shown by the police department’s statistics. Vehicle Code Section 20001, subsection (b) sets forth the penalty for leaving the scene of an accident which resulted in injury or death of a party who is not the fleeing driver:

“(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a person who violates

subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in the state

prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine

of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than ten

thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.”

The state legislature has made previous attempts at combatting the hit and run problem state-wide, with several bills having been introduced that would widen the role of the current Amber Alert system, which, if passed, would use freeway signs to let motorists know that a vehicle involved in a collision has fled the scene. Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed these types of bills every time they have been brought up, fearing that this would be a strain on the current alert system, and therefore render it ineffective. 

San Diego also has reason to be concerned - statistics show that deaths from hit and runs in 2014 topped any other year in the past decade. That city is also taking steps to make the streets and sidewalks safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

The Evolution of Automotive Technology Offers Safety Innovations for Drivers, But the Law Has to Catch Up

The month of January brings with it a couple of major trade shows for the automotive industry, including the North American International Auto Show in Detroit which comes to a close this weekend. The developments that have peaked the most interest for drivers are related to the intersection of technology and safety. Automobile safety leading up to 2015 has largely depended on drivers obeying the rules of the road and vehicle manufacturers facilitating their ability to do so by ensuring that the cars they make are free of any defects. Recently, California roads became a testing ground for driverless vehicles when the DMV issued manufacturer permits for these cars, most of which were given to Google.

When the State of California recently missed a deadline to approve safety regulations for driverless cars, it was a reflection of the fact that safety standards for emerging technology have not even been developed. California regulators decided to let the deadline pass because they believed that there was no point in trying to determine the safety of autonomous vehicles when there are no guidelines for measuring what that would entail.

New automotive technology is bringing some of the equipment used by autonomous cars to old-fashioned driver-operated vehicles. Some of these were seen at the Silicone Valley International Auto Show this month, and include cameras, sensors and detectors that aim to reduce road accidents. While these advancements aim to counter the effects of human error, some of them can actually do the work of preventing accidents.

Driverless cars must obey the same rules of the road as a vehicle operated by a driver. But lawmakers must decide on the other ways their safety will be assessed, directly related to the computer operating system that’s running the car – how dependable is that system and how quickly can it provide control to a human driver if need be.

Many drivers may be wondering how these advancements in safety might affect their insurance rates – automobile insurance carriers don’t think a big reduction in premiums is coming anytime soon. This is in part because, even though many accidents could be prevented by a vehicle equipped with extra safety provisions, if an accident does occur, the repair bill for those cars may be much higher.

California Notary Acknowledgement Form Amendment Will Affect Construction and Real Estate Documents

In 2014, the Governor of California signed into law a small but significant change to the notary acknowledgment form, a document which must be attached to, among other things, certain real property related filings with the County Clerk.

The amendment to section 1189 of the Civil Code was known as Senate Bill 1050 , in Chapter 197 of the 2014 Statutes.  According to the legislation, the certificate signed by a notary must explicitly state, in a separate enclosed box, that the notary is a witness ONLY to the identity of the document’s signor, and not to any information contained within the document. The law also requires the change to be reflected in a new Notary Acknowledgement Form. Specifically, the additional wording is:

“A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.”

The change became effective on January 1, 2015.  Therefore any document signed in front of a notary after that date must have the new Acknowledgement attached. Anything notarized in 2014 with the previous form will not be rejected by a County Clerk.

A notary public must be a witness to several important documents that are pertinent to the construction and real estate industries, such as: Release of Claim of Mechanics Lien, Lis Pendens and Deeds.

The Construction Industry and Environmental Law in 2014

The intersection of the construction industry and California’s environmental codes and regulations in 2014 may have very important implications for the coming year, and looking at the current trends in environmental law is a good way to see how the courts and lawmakers are shaping the future of the industry.

In important ways, concern for the environment is reflected in new laws. For example, the Department of Housing and Community Development included a provision in their Green Building Code report that requires new construction projects to take appropriate measures to accommodate electric vehicle charging stations at residential properties and parking facilities.

The environmental law known as CEQA has appeared in the news frequently this year. A controversy arose over proposed changes to state law regarding infill projects. California developers raised concerns about guidelines that take into account “miles traveled” for projects and how they could increase litigation. The answer from the Governor’s office was that infill projects reduce the need for traveling by car, so the changes are intended to be helpful for developers of such projects as they negotiate the requirements of the environmental law.

In early 2015, the state Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case filed in Northern California regarding the standards for environmental review on the construction of a single-family property. The case revolves around the construction of a Berkley area home. Local environmental groups raised concerns about the impact of construction based on the size of the home and the steep slope of the land.  California law states rather vaguely that environmental review isn’t necessary for single family homes other than in “unusual” cases, and it’s up to the courts to decipher what meets the criteria. A ruling that extends public environmental review to the home in question may set a precedent that changes standards for construction of single family residences.

In a recent blog post, I wrote about the ruling by the Surface Transportation Board regarding CEQA lawsuits against the high speed rail. This decision reinforced the power of the federal government over transportation projects which it has authorized, above state environmental law.  The implication of this ruling is as an additional source of support for high speed rail and similar projects authorized by the federal government when the challenge is based on state law.

What Potential Do Driverless Vehicles Have to Change the Way Car Accidents Are Dealt with in the Future?

Starting in September of this year, a permit is required to test driverless cars on the road in California

The California Department of Motor Vehicles has issued a handful of permits for self-driving cars, most of which have been awarded to Google. These vehicles have to follow a stringent set of rules and regulations during testing and they navigate with the assistance of various sensors, cameras and radar.

The impetus behind the development of autonomous cars is to improve safety and reduce traffic on the road - meanwhile, this raises some interesting questions about liability if the vehicle is involved in an accident, and related issues about insurance coverage and other parts of the vehicle code.

During testing, a driver must be at the wheel at all times so that a human can take over if the vehicle encounters a situation it’s not yet able to handle. At this time, the manufacturer and the operator are responsible for any possible bodily damage or destruction of property that may result from a collision.

When autonomous cars become available to consumers, which may be around 2017, what will the insurance requirements be? The consensus seems to be that the manufacturer will be held responsible for a collision. In fact, automated vehicles may make it easier and quicker to resolve insurance claims because factors that currently cause a gray area may be eliminated.

An autonomous vehicle application for acquiring a testing permit sets forth some rigorous requirements. Trained drivers with clean records must be at the wheel in case they need to intervene. In addition to sensors, the vehicle is equipped with safety equipment that warns of any possible malfunction, and strict record-keeping is required by the manufacturer. And there's also this form from the DMV for reporting accidents involving driverless vehicles. 

Sources:

http://www.govtech.com/transportation/Googles-Self-Driving-Cars-Must-Learn-to-Deal-with-the-Bizarre.html

http://fortune.com/2014/11/11/california-permits-autonomous-vehicles/

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/25/3407746/self-driving-cars-bill-california-google

Can a Public Entity Be Liable for Personal Injuries suffered as a Result of a Dangerous Condition of Public Property?

The question of whether a public entity can be liable for personal injury suffered by someone as a result of a dangerous condition of public property was discussed recently by the California Court of Appeal in the published case entitled Martinez v. County of Ventura (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 364, in an opinion filed on April 8, 2014. 

Plaintiff Martinez and his wife sued the County for serious personal injuries he suffered when his motorcycle hit an asphalt berm next to a raised drain on the shoulder of a County-owned road.  Government Code § 835 says that a public entity is liable for reasonably foreseeable personal injuries that are caused by a dangerous condition on its property. 

At trial, the jury found that the County’s drain system was a dangerous condition of public property that caused plaintiff’s injuries. However, because of the “design immunity” defense raised by the County, the County won the case.  The Plaintiffs appealed.

The design immunity defense is found in Government Code § 830.6. This code section says that a public entity is not liable for a dangerous condition on its property when the personal injury is caused by discretionary approval of a construction plan or design prior to construction, and there is substantial evidence that the construction plan or design was reasonable.

The appeal focused on the “discretionary approval” aspect of the design immunity defense.  For the design immunity defense to apply, the public entity must be able to show that the construction plan or design was approved by the public entity in advance of the construction.  The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision in favor of the County because there was no evidence at trial that the County exercised its discretion to approve the drain system. At the trial, the County did not introduce any evidence of a design or a plan for the drain system.  The evidence at trial showed that “the maintenance workers simply built and installed the drains in the field as they saw the need for them.” The Court of Appeal stated: “Because the County presented no evidence of any design, there was no evidence of a design that anyone with authority to approve it could approve.”  The Court of Appeal also agreed with the Plaintiffs' contention that “there was no evidence that any design was approved in advance of construction by someone exercising discretionary authority to give such approval on behalf of the County.” 

The Court of Appeal confirmed that “a public entity seeking design immunity must establish the discretionary approval element of the defense, even if the project is a maintenance project for which formal plans are not customarily prepared.”

When is an Employer Responsible for a Car Accident Caused by its Employee?

 

              The California Court of Appeal case Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Department of Transportation (2013) 220 Cal.App.4^th 87, deals with the issue of when an employer is responsible for a car accident caused by one of its employees. The Court of Appeal explained that an employer can only be responsible for an employee’s car accident if the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the car crash.  The case involved an employee who was assigned a company truck to drive. After the employee’s shift at work near Seal Beach, CA ended, he drove in the company truck to meet his wife at a car dealership in Bakersfield in an attempt to purchase a vehicle for his family’s personal use.  He then drove in the truck to a restaurant to have a meal with his family.  On the way back to his job, he was involved in an automobile accident on the 5 freeway southbound as he was beginning to ascend the grapevine.  Six persons suffered personal injury in the accident.  The injured parties sued the employee and his employer, in addition to the Department of Transportation.  The employer successfully filed a motion for summary judgment in the trial court to get out of the case on the ground that it was not responsible for the alleged negligent driving of its employee. 
              The Court of Appeal explained that in order to hold an employer liable for an accident caused by its employee, under a legal theory called “Respondeat Superior”, it must be determined if the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. In other words, there must be a connection between the employee’s negligent action and the employment.  In this case, the employee was not at his employer’s place of business or worksite at the time of the car accident. The automobile accident happened between the employee’s shifts, 120 miles away from his assigned worksite.  In addition, the employee was on a personal trip to meet his wife to purchase a personal vehicle.  He was not performing any services for or running any errands for his employer, and the trip did not further any business activity of the employer.  The Court of Appeal found the trip to be entirely personal to the employee, and outside the scope of his employment.  Because of this, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling in favor of the employer.