California's Proposed High-Speed Train & Its Effect on Property Owners

The proposed California high-speed rail system is a huge endeavor, with plans to initially run track from San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim through the Central Valley, and later to Sacramento and San Diego. At speeds of up to 220 miles per hour, trains will be able to travel from LA to San Francisco in under 2 hours and 40 minutes. The California High-Speed Rail Authority is confident the train will bring significant economic, environmental, and community benefits to the State.

For people who own property in the path of the train, however, the project demands personal sacrifice for the benefit of all. Many California homeowners, business owners, and land owners will receive a notice from the government that their property may be subject to acquisition by the Rail Authority for construction of the rail system.

The government is able to initiate these acquisitions because the state and federal constitutions, as well as the California Eminent Domain Law and the state and federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, authorize the purchase of private property for public use.  But in addition to allowing this action, the laws protect the rights of citizens whose property is being acquired.

If your property lies within the proposed train route, the Rail Authority will send a "Right of Way Agent" to perform an appraisal of your property. It is the duty of the Rail Authority to ensure that you receive fair market value for your property, which is the amount you would receive if you sold your property privately in the open market. California law provides that you must receive a copy of the appraisal or a summary of the valuation upon which the Rail Authority's purchase offer is based.

The acquisition of private property for public use is rarely a simple matter. There may be issues of partial purchases and loss of value to remaining property; costs of relocation; the ability to retain and move a home, business building, machinery, or equipment; payment of loans or liens; tax deferments; favorable tax status; and the list could go on and on. An experienced eminent domain attorney can help you navigate this complex terrain, ensuring that your rights are protected every step of the way.

Southern California Eminent Domain Attorneys

If your property may be subject to taking for public use, make sure you know your rights. In Southern California, contact the Los Angeles eminent domain attorneys at Fisher & Talwar at (213) 891-0777 for advice and representation in eminent domain and condemnation matters.

Potentially Contaminated Baby Formula Could Lead to Products Liability Lawsuits

Yesterday and today, several news sources reported that a third baby has tested positive for Chronobacter, a bacterial infection that caused a Missouri baby's death in mid-December and prompted national retailers, including Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Kroger, and Safeway, to pull Enfamil baby formula from their shelves.

Chronobacter bacteria cause rare illnesses and infections in newborns that are considered extremely dangerous for babies less than one month old, with approximately 40 % of illnesses from the bacteria ending in death. Even when children survive the infection, they may have neurological problems, such developmental delays and seizures. The bacteria are found naturally in plants such as wheat and rice, and have been found in dried milk and powdered formulas in the past. According to an expert interviewed by Bloomberg News, the potential for the bacteria to infect infants from powdered formula has been known since the 1980s.

As reported by Huff Post Health News, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is testing opened formula containers, both liquid and powdered, as well as distilled water used to feed the baby in Missouri. They are also testing closed bottles and cans from the lot collected from the family, the hospital, and the Wal-Mart store where the family bought its formula. Health authorities will look for links between the Missouri case, the most recent case, which involves a baby from Oklahoma, and a case reported in Illinois. Luckily, the Oklahoma and Illinois babies were treated successfully and are now recovering.

If experts conclude that the babies did contract the Chronobacter bacteria from baby formula, lawsuits against the parties responsible for distributing the formula are likely. Manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers have a duty to make sure their products are safe for use by the consuming public. Failure to ensure safety may give rise to products liability claims, which are a type of personal injury lawsuit that is meant to compensate victims of defective products in the marketplace.

While no connection between the affected babies and Enfamil formula has been found yet, as a preventative measure - against legal liability as well as harm to other infants - Wal-Mart is waiting for the government test results before returning the product to its shelves.

Contact the Los Angeles Personal Injury Attorneys at Fisher & Talwar

If you are concerned that your child has been harmed by a dangerous or defective product in the marketplace, immediately seek medical care, and contact personal injury lawyers Fisher & Talwar at (213) 891-0777 for legal assistance.

The Lasting Effects of Traumatic Brain Injury in Children

In our August personal injury blog, we discussed the potentially long term consequences of serious spinal cord injuries, and the need to plan for future living costs, including housing, healthcare, and transportation. This month, we will talk about the lasting effects of traumatic brain injury. Specifically, a new study reported in US News found that children who suffered head injuries may face numerous problems throughout their lifetimes.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI), also known as intracranial injury, occurs when an external force injures the brain. It is a major cause of death and disability worldwide, especially in children and young adults. The new study, available in the November issue of Pediatrics magazine, focuses on lasting learning and behavioral deficits in children who had suffered head injuries. After testing a group of 729 children treated for TBI three months, one year, and two years after the injuries occurred, the researchers found significant residual effects of TBI, as compared to children who had suffered no injuries and children who had suffered arm injuries.

The majority of lasting deficits were found in children who sustained a mild injury with a brain hemorrhage and children who suffered moderate or severe brain injury. At the end of the two-year period, these children still had troubles in daily life activities, school activities, and sports. Alarmingly, the researchers also concluded that the most seriously injured children had a lower quality of life than children undergoing active treatment for cancer.
Thus, when a child suffers a head injury, it is extremely important to carefully observe and document unusual behaviors, such as:

• Changes in mood or sleep patterns, including anxiety, depression, or irritability


• Difficulty performing tasks where there was none before


• Differences in sensory functions


• Nausea and/or headaches


• Orientation problems


• Emotional control problems


• Concentration or attention problems where there were none before

Contact the Los Angeles Personal Injury Attorneys at Fisher & Talwar

At the onset of any of the above signs and symptoms, immediate seek medical care, and contact Los Angeles Lawyers Fisher & Talwar at (213) 891-0777 for legal assistance.

The Importance of Life Care Plans in a Spinal Cord Injury Lawsuit

The severity of a spinal cord injury depends upon where the trauma occurs; the higher up on the spine, the more severe disability will result. Injury to the nerve in the lower back (lumbar region) will likely cause some form of permanent paralysis in the legs (paraplegia) and loss of control of bowel and bladder and sexual activity. An injury to the vertebrae in the neck (cervical region) can cause paralysis of all four limbs (quadriplegia) as well as loss the ability to independently breathe without mechanical assistance.

Clearly, any spinal cord injury is serious, and a victim who is left paralyzed by the negligence or wrongful conduct of another is entitled to compensation for the present and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages this injury will create. But the spinal cord victim suffers more damages than most other personal injury victims, and often a life care plan is the best tool to communicate that fact to an insurance company or jury.

A life care planner looks at a person's diagnosis, prognosis, medical history, and known facts about the type of disability, and develops a comprehensive outline of the individual's needs for the future, including a cost estimate for each item. A life care plan is a comprehensive document that considers all facets of daily living, including:

Housing - will the individual live at home, in assisted living or a nursing facility? If at home, will there be home health care visits or a full-time caregiver? If a family member is the caregiver, respite care should be provided when the family member needs a break or has other duties. What modifications need to be made to make the home accessible?

Healthcare - planning for future routine doctor visits, labs and tests, as well as future procedures to fix pumps or implanted medical devices, or treat common complications, such as bedsores, urinary tract infections, fractures, or respiratory ailments.

Transportation and Mobility - will the individual utilize a manual or motorized wheelchair? A modified vehicle or accessible van?

Occupational - what assistive technology is necessary to allow the individual to work and/or achieve the maximum level of self-care and independence?

Not Just For Litigation

Of course, a life care plan may be useful for more reasons than just maximizing a financial recovery. In fact, settlement negotiations and litigation may not even be the most important reasons for a life care plan. A life care plan is like a roadmap created to help you navigate your life. You will be able to see the road ahead and know when to expect some bumps and how to avoid them or handle them appropriately.

A life care plan may not be necessary in every case. Talk to the physician in charge of your recovery, and visit with your lawyer about how best to maximize your recovery. In Los Angeles and Southern California, contact the personal injury lawyers at Fisher & Talwar.

Truck Versus Train Crash on Nevada Highway

On June 24th, the Amtrak California Zephyr was traveling from Chicago, Illinois to Emeryville, California north of Oakland when it collided with a semi-truck on Interstate 95 in Nevada, about 70 miles east of Reno. The driver of the truck was killed, as were six passengers on the train. Dozens more were injured, and as of the time of this posting, many are still unaccounted for.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has begun its investigation into the cause of the crash. Meanwhile, a personal injury lawsuit has already been filed in the case. An Amtrak attendant is suing the driver and the trucking company for negligence. The plaintiff in the case has already obtained a court order in an effort to preserve evidence from the crash. Why is such an order necessary?

Trucking Company Logs and Records

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issues rules and regulations that cover truck drivers, the trucks themselves, and the trucking companies. These regulations dictate the hours behind the wheel for truckers and mandate periodic inspections of tires, brakes, and other critical components.

The regulations require truck drivers and trucking companies to maintain log books showing compliance. By obtaining these log books, the NTSB, or a plaintiff's attorney, can determine whether the driver was logging in too many hours, and whether the truck was properly inspected and maintained. An important piece of evidence, log books may sometimes be lost or destroyed in the accident, either accidentally or intentionally. A forensic analysis may even be necessary to determine if they have been doctored after the fact. The plaintiff's protective order should help preserve such evidence.

Other lawsuits may follow from those injured and the family members of those who were killed. As you can see, taking swift legal action is important to protecting your rights and preserving crucial evidence after a crash. If you or a loved one has been involved in a train accident, contact Los Angeles Lawyers Fisher & Talwar at (213) 891-0777 for immediate assistance.

Fatal Crash Raises Questions as to Cause or Causes

A recent tragedy in Los Angeles raises many points that show how complicated a personal injury or wrongful death case can be.

On April 26^th, a woman died as the Volkswagen Tiguan she was driving went off the fourth story of a West Los Angeles parking garage. The vehicle landed upside down, causing the roof to cave in. The woman was pronounced dead at the scene.

At this point, it is not clear what happened to cause this accident. Indeed, many factors may be involved, and we may never know all the details of what happened.

Vehicle Defect?

It is possible that some component of the vehicle failed. It may have slipped into gear, the accelerator may have stuck, the brakes may have failed. Even if none of these things occurred, there is the question of the roof crush. SUVs and other vehicles with a high center of gravity should especially have reinforced roofs in the event they rollover in an accident. Was the roof properly designed in this case? It is possible that it was, and that vehicle roofs are simply not designed to withstand the forces of a four-story fall. Accident experts and engineers may be required to answer that question.

Construction Defect?

Another question surrounds the construction of the parking garage itself. The garage had concrete barriers in place to prevent a car from going over the edge. The barrier in this case failed; it was simply pushed out by the force of the car. The barrier appears to have been connected only to the floor of the garage, so that it swung out and down as if on a hinge, allowing the car to sail over the edge.

Did the barrier's failure reveal a construction defect? One would expect the barrier to be built to withstand most impacts that could foreseeably occur in a parking garage environment. The failure of the barrier could be due to a design defect or it could have been installed improperly or with substandard materials. It is also possible that the barrier was built to acceptable standards and that the acceleration of the vehicle in this particular accident was simply too powerful.

Driver Error?

Some may point to driver error as the likely cause, and that may certainly be the case. The woman's foot may have slipped or she may have had a health emergency that caused her to lose control of the vehicle. But questions about the vehicle's safety and the garage construction remain. Was the Tiguan's roof properly designed and constructed, and what about the barrier? Perhaps this deadly tragedy could only have been a minor accident had other measures been in place.

In California, an injured driver (or the family in a wrongful death action) can recover damages against negligent defendants, even where the injured driver contributed to the accident. A jury decides how much each party is responsible, and defendants who are found negligent are liable for that portion of the damages their negligence caused.

At times of tragedy nobody wants to consider issues like fault and blame and lawsuits. Yet sadly this is also the time when a thorough investigation is most likely to collect and preserve the evidence needed to hold those accountable who contributed to the catastrophe. If a design or manufacturing defect is to blame, legal action is often the fastest and most effective way to change corporate policy and make sure the same tragedy does not befall another individual or family.

Our hearts go out to the families of people who have lost their lives in automobile accidents or due to dangerous, unsafe products and construction. If you find yourself in such a situation and require legal assistance, please contact Fisher & Talwar for a consultation.

Federal Safety Standards No Safe Haven for Automakers

Just because an automaker meets federal safety standards may not absolve it from liability in a crash, when implementing safer features may have prevented a serious personal injury or wrongful death. Such is the message seemingly delivered by the United States Supreme Court in a February 23^rd ruling in the case of Williamson et al. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., et al.

This case involved a lawsuit brought in California state court by the family and estate of a woman who died in an auto accident. The woman was riding in the rear aisle seat of a Mazda minivan equipped only with a lap belt instead of a lap-and-shoulder belt. The woman suffered fatal internal injuries, which ostensibly would not have occurred had the seat been equipped with a lap-and-shoulder belt.

The relevant Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (the “Standard”) at the time the minivan was manufactured required auto manufacturers to install seatbelts on the rear seats of passenger vehicles, but left it up to the automaker to decide whether to use simple lap belts or the more-expensive lap-and-shoulder belts on rear inner seats such as the one involved in the present case.

The state trial court dismissed the case on the pleadings, and the state court of appeal affirmed that dismissal, relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling which held that a safety standard requiring installation of passive restraint devices preempted a state tort suit against a carmaker who installed seat belts instead of airbags. In this case, however, the Supreme Court held that the current Standard does not preempt state tort suits claiming that manufacturers should have installed lap-and-shoulder belts instead of lap belts only.

The difference in the two Supreme Court rulings is that in the first instance, the Standard gave carmakers a choice between seat belts and airbags for many reasons, including allowing time for airbag technology to improve and overcome public concerns about airbag safety. The current Standard allowed a choice based solely on cost-effectiveness. Although that choice existed, the High Court would not let an automaker's decision to cut costs stand in the way of lawsuit when its choice resulted in a passenger's death.

This decision will allow the case against Mazda to proceed in state court. Moreover, it should cause all automakers to think twice when choosing cost over safety and human life in its business decisions. Thanks for reading our blog. If you have been injured in an accident and suspect the vehicle did not adequately protect you, or if you think a dangerous or defective part of the vehicle caused or contributed to your injuries, contact Fisher & Talwar.