Blog

white and red car on road during night time

Understanding what constitutes an “emergency” under California’s traffic laws is crucial for determining when an authorized emergency vehicle is afforded certain legal exemptions. Under <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&amp;sectionNum=21055." href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&amp;sectionNum=21055.">Vehicle Code § 21055(a)</a>, an “emergency” exists if the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is:responding to an emergency call; involved in rescue operations; in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law; responding to, but not returning from, a fire alarm; or operating a fire department vehicle while traveling from one place to another because of an emergency call. This statutory language provides a clear framework for evaluating whether a driver was acting in response to an emergency at the time of an incident. It is important to note that the determination of an emergency depends not on an objective analysis of events after the fact, but on the nature of the call or situation as it was presented to the driver. In other words, the driver must have had reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency existed, even if the emergency may later be subject to debate.The landmark case <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/washington-v-city-county-of-sf-1" href="https://casetext.com/case/washington-v-city-county-of-sf-1">Washington v. City and County of San Francisco (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 235, 241 [266 P.2d 828]</a> serves as a key reference point in interpreting this statute. In Washington, the court scrutinized the factual context of the incident to determine whether the driver was indeed responding to an emergency as defined by the statute. Similarly, <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/gallup-v-sparks-mundo-engineering-co" href="https://casetext.com/case/gallup-v-sparks-mundo-engineering-co">Gallup v. Sparks-Mundo Engineering Co. (1954) 43 Cal.2d 1, 5 [271 P.2d 34]</a> further clarifies that the existence of an emergency is contingent upon the nature of the call received and the situation as perceived by the driver. It is not solely based on whether an emergency exists in fact, but rather on whether the driver had reasonable grounds to believe one was present.This distinction is critical because it establishes that the exemptions provided to emergency vehicle operators are not absolute; they are predicated on the driver’s reasonable interpretation of the situation. If a driver reasonably believes that an emergency exists, they may be afforded certain legal protections even if, upon later review, the circumstances might not meet an objective standard of emergency. The courts have repeatedly underscored that the “emergency” determination is inherently subjective, relying on the facts as they were understood by the driver at the moment of action.For practitioners and scholars alike, secondary sources such as Witkin’s Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017, Torts §§ 358, 394–398) and the Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed. §§ 11.140–11.144) provide further commentary on the nuances of this statutory provision. These resources emphasize that the analysis of whether a driver was responding to an emergency must consider the reasonable perceptions of the driver, rather than solely the objective outcome of the situation.In summary, California’s definition of “emergency” under Vehicle Code § 21055 is designed to offer legal protections to emergency vehicle operators who act in response to urgent, time-sensitive situations. By focusing on the driver’s reasonable belief in the existence of an emergency—supported by judicial interpretations in cases such as Washington v. City and County of San Francisco and Gallup v. Sparks-Mundo Engineering Co.—the statute ensures that drivers are not unduly penalized for actions taken under the pressure of emergent circumstances. This approach strikes a balance between public safety and the need to hold drivers accountable, reflecting the complex realities of emergency response on California’s roadways. Southern California Personal Injury Law: Trusted Personal Injury Law FirmAt Southern California Personal Injury Law, we take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.

Defining “Emergency” Under California Law: An Analysis of Veh. Code § 21055

Premises liability claims are grounded in the principle that property owners—or those who control, lease, or occupy property—must exercise reasonable care in managing their premises to prevent harm to others. In a typical premises liability claim, the plaintiff alleges that they were injured due to the way the defendant managed their property. To succeed, the plaintiff must prove four essential elements: first, that the defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property; second, that the defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of that property; third, that the plaintiff was harmed; and fourth, that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.The legal duty to exercise due care is well established in California law. Under <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1714.&amp;lawCode=CIV" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1714.&amp;lawCode=CIV">Civil Code section 1714(a)</a>, every person is required to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to others. As explained in <a data-mce-href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/kesner-v-superior-court" href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/kesner-v-superior-court">Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1159 [210 Cal.Rptr.3d 283, 384 P.3d 283]</a>, the elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are essentially the same—namely, a legal duty of care, a breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. In Kesner, "Johnny Kesner’s (plaintiff’s) uncle, George Kesner, worked for Pneumo Abex, LLC (defendant). George was exposed to asbestos at work and would sometimes come home and roughhouse with Johnny while wearing his work clothes. Johnny was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and he brought an action against Abex and other defendants alleging that he contracted mesothelioma because of his secondary exposure to the asbestos on his uncle’s clothing. Lynne Haver’s husband, Mike Haver, worked for BNSF Railway Company (defendant). Mike was exposed to asbestos at work, and Lynne laundered Mike’s work clothes. Lynne died of mesothelioma. Lynne’s family (plaintiffs) brought a wrongful-death action against BNSF based on Lynne’s secondary exposure to asbestos. The lower courts in Kesner’s and the Havers’s cases reached different conclusions about whether employers and premises owners who use asbestos in their facilities have a duty to prevent nonemployees from secondary exposure to asbestos. The California Supreme Court consolidated the cases for review." <a data-mce-href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/kesner-v-superior-court" href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/kesner-v-superior-court">See here</a>.&nbsp;The court ruled that the ownership or control of a property inherently creates an affirmative duty to manage and maintain that property in a manner that minimizes risk. This duty extends to all persons on the premises, as the mere possession of the property imposes the responsibility to adhere to the same standard of care that applies in general negligence cases—a principle underscored by the Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561] decision.Courts have consistently held that property owners are liable for injuries sustained on their premises when they fail to exercise ordinary care. For example, in Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619 [264 Cal.Rptr. 756], the court affirmed that a failure to manage or maintain a property responsibly constitutes negligence. Moreover, the duty of care extends even to those who may not be the outright owners of the property. As noted in Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 448, 929 P.2d 1239], control of the premises alone is sufficient to establish liability. This principle underscores that a defendant does not need to own and possess the property entirely; mere control is enough to impose an affirmative duty.Furthermore, the duty of care imposed on a property owner is not confined solely to the boundaries of the premises. As elaborated in Kesner, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 1159, a landowner’s duty encompasses measures to avoid exposing individuals to risks of injury that might occur offsite if the property is maintained in a manner that creates an unreasonable risk. This broader interpretation reflects the evolving understanding of premises liability, ensuring that the duty to protect potential victims extends as far as is reasonably necessary.Secondary sources such as Witkin’s Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017, Torts §§ 1224-1228), the California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. §§ 4.72-4.73), and works by Levy et al. in California Torts, Ch. 15, General Premises Liability further reinforce these principles. These authorities provide additional context and analysis, offering legal practitioners a comprehensive understanding of the nuances in premises liability claims.In summary, a successful premises liability claim requires the plaintiff to establish that the defendant controlled the property, was negligent in its maintenance or use, and that this negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm. Landmark cases such as Rowland v. Christian, Kesner v. Superior Court, Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp., and Alcaraz v. Vece have shaped the contours of this legal doctrine, emphasizing that the duty arising from property control is akin to that imposed in general negligence claims. As property owners and controllers navigate their responsibilities, understanding these legal standards is essential to both preventing injuries and mitigating liability when accidents occur. Southern California Personal Injury Law: Trusted Personal Injury Law FirmAt Southern California Personal Injury Law, we take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.

Premises Liability: Essential Factual Elements and the Legal Framework

A contingency fee is a payment arrangement in which an attorney’s fee is contingent upon winning your case. Instead of requiring an upfront retainer or billing by the hour, a lawyer working on a contingency basis will receive a predetermined percentage of the final settlement or judgment only if you prevail. This type of fee structure is particularly common in personal injury, employment discrimination, and other civil litigation matters, where clients may not have the financial resources to pay traditional fees.One of the key advantages of a contingency fee arrangement is that it aligns the lawyer’s interests with your own. Since the attorney’s compensation depends entirely on the success of your case, they are highly motivated to secure the best possible outcome. This can provide a level of reassurance for clients who might otherwise be hesitant to pursue legal action due to financial constraints. Additionally, a contingency fee arrangement allows you to access legal representation without the burden of upfront costs, making justice more accessible for individuals facing significant personal or financial challenges.It’s important to understand, however, that while the basic structure of a contingency fee is widely used, the specific terms of the agreement are always negotiable. The percentage that the attorney will take can vary based on several factors, such as the complexity of the case, the likelihood of success, and the amount of work anticipated. In some instances, lawyers might agree to a sliding scale where the fee percentage decreases if the final recovery exceeds a certain threshold. Moreover, it is common for attorneys to outline how additional costs—such as filing fees, expert witness expenses, and other litigation costs—will be handled. These expenses are often deducted from the total recovery before the attorney’s fee is calculated, but the exact arrangements can be adjusted through negotiation.When discussing a contingency fee arrangement with a potential attorney, it is crucial to ask detailed questions about the fee structure and any additional costs that might be incurred during the litigation process. Ensure that you receive a clear, written agreement that spells out the terms of the contingency fee, including the percentage, how expenses will be handled, and any other relevant provisions. This transparency not only protects your interests but also fosters a collaborative relationship with your attorney, where both parties have a mutual understanding of the financial terms.Ultimately, a contingency fee arrangement can serve as an effective means of accessing quality legal representation, especially in cases where financial constraints might otherwise deter a potential claim. By aligning the attorney’s financial incentives with your own success, this arrangement helps level the playing field and ensures that you do not shoulder the financial risk if your case is unsuccessful. Remember, fees are always negotiable, so it is beneficial to discuss your options thoroughly with your attorney to arrive at a fair and workable agreement that suits the specifics of your case.Southern California Personal Injury Law: Trusted Personal Injury Law FirmAt Southern California Personal Injury Law, we take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.

Contingencies Explained

CarMax Crash in Inglewood: At Least Eight Injured in Suspected Intentional Act A routine Saturday afternoon at a CarMax dealership in Inglewood, California, turned into a chaotic scene when a customer intentionally drove a vehicle into the store, injuring at least eight people. Authorities are investigating the crash as a deliberate act stemming from a possible business dispute.<a data-mce-href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/least-8-injured-customer-rams-carmax-store-california-rcna195528" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/least-8-injured-customer-rams-carmax-store-california-rcna195528">The schocking video can be seen here.</a>Incident DetailsThe Inglewood Police Department received reports of the crash at approximately 2:03 p.m. on March 9, 2025. According to law enforcement, the suspect—a CarMax customer—had just exited the store after having his vehicle appraised. Moments later, he got into a silver Subaru and rammed it into the dealership.Shocking footage circulating online shows the vehicle backing into the building through a doorway before maneuvering and exiting through another entrance. Images from the scene depict shattered glass, a wrecked storefront, and a car with debris resting on its trunk.Casualties and InjuriesThe crash left eight people injured, including two who were critically hurt and transported to local hospitals for treatment. The Los Angeles County Fire Department confirmed that the injured included both CarMax employees and customers. CarMax later released a statement expressing concern for those affected, stating:"The safety of our associates, community, and customers is our top priority. We are deeply saddened by this event and our hearts go out to everyone impacted." The company also confirmed that the store remains temporarily closed, with no set date for reopening.Suspect in CustodyFollowing the crash, the suspect fled the scene but later turned himself in at a Los Angeles Police Department academy on Manchester Avenue. He was subsequently arrested and booked at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility.Authorities have charged the driver with multiple counts, including assault with a deadly weapon. While details about his exact motive remain unclear, police indicated that a dispute at the dealership may have played a role in the incident.Ongoing InvestigationCarMax has assured the public that it is cooperating with authorities in the ongoing investigation. Meanwhile, the Inglewood community is left grappling with the shocking nature of the attack.As more details emerge, this case raises important questions about business safety measures and the unpredictable nature of workplace confrontations.For now, those injured continue to recover, and justice takes its course. Stay tuned for updates as authorities provide further information.At Southern California Personal Injury Law, we&nbsp;take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.

CarMax Crash in Inglewood: At Least Eight Injured in Suspected Intentional Act

black and silver stethoscope on white surface

When you've been injured in an accident in California, finding the right medical care is crucial. It's common for personal injury attorneys to recommend medical providers who work on a lien basis. While this may seem convenient, it's important to understand the potential risks and long-term implications of using an attorney-recommended lien provider.What Is a Medical Lien?A medical lien is an agreement where a medical provider agrees to treat a patient without upfront payment, with the understanding that they will be paid from the proceeds of a legal settlement or judgment. This can help injured individuals access necessary care even if they don't have immediate funds or insurance coverage.<img id="f4ha93rbmm87n1tbg" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/23jZUj5K6UCJAp7Nu4RRlSnPWji43Fcy57Khqh2hKX7FhulsSgVu7aKTRv0CcmIJ.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/23jZUj5K6UCJAp7Nu4RRlSnPWji43Fcy57Khqh2hKX7FhulsSgVu7aKTRv0CcmIJ.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" style="border-color: rgba(229,231,235,var(--tw-border-opacity)); --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-pan-x: ; --tw-pan-y: ; --tw-pinch-zoom: ; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-gradient-from-position: ; --tw-gradient-via-position: ; --tw-gradient-to-position: ; --tw-ordinal: ; --tw-slashed-zero: ; --tw-numeric-figure: ; --tw-numeric-spacing: ; --tw-numeric-fraction: ; --tw-ring-inset: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgba(62,172,255,.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-blur: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-brightness: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-contrast: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-grayscale: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-hue-rotate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-invert: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-saturate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-sepia: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-drop-shadow: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-blur: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-brightness: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-contrast: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-grayscale: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-hue-rotate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-invert: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-opacity: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-saturate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-sepia: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-transform: translateX(var(--tw-translate-x)) translateY(var(--tw-translate-y)) rotate(var(--tw-rotate)) skewX(var(--tw-skew-x)) skewY(var(--tw-skew-y)) scaleX(var(--tw-scale-x)) scaleY(var(--tw-scale-y)); --tw-border-opacity: 1; --tw-filter: var(--tw-blur) var(--tw-brightness) var(--tw-contrast) var(--tw-grayscale) var(--tw-hue-rotate) var(--tw-invert) var(--tw-saturate) var(--tw-sepia) var(--tw-drop-shadow); --tw-backdrop-filter: var(--tw-backdrop-blur) var(--tw-backdrop-brightness) var(--tw-backdrop-contrast) var(--tw-backdrop-grayscale) var(--tw-backdrop-hue-rotate) var(--tw-backdrop-invert) var(--tw-backdrop-opacity) var(--tw-backdrop-saturate) var(--tw-backdrop-sepia); --tw-bg-opacity: 1; width: 640px; margin: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); aspect-ratio: 16 / 9; object-position: center center;">The Hidden RisksWhile attorney-recommended lien providers can offer immediate care, there are significant risks that should be considered. Medical providers working on a lien basis may charge significantly higher rates than standard insurance rates, reducing the final amount an injured party receives from their settlement. Additionally, these providers could be seen as having a financial interest tied to the outcome of the case, raising concerns about the impartiality of their medical opinions. This could ultimately jeopardize the credibility of the claim if challenged in court.Furthermore, relying on a limited network of providers may restrict access to diverse medical opinions or treatments. Patients might miss out on specialists better suited to their condition. Higher medical bills can also complicate settlement negotiations, prolonging the legal process and delaying compensation. If the settlement does not cover the full cost of medical treatments, patients could be left personally responsible for any outstanding balances.Our Approach at Southern California Personal Injury LawAt Southern California Personal Injury Law, we believe it is crucial for medical providers to offer unbiased opinions, free from any financial interest. We will never attempt to compel you to see any particular doctor.<p style="border-color: rgba(229,231,235,var(--tw-border-opacity)); --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-pan-x: ; --tw-pan-y: ; --tw-pinch-zoom: ; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-gradient-from-position: ; --tw-gradient-via-position: ; --tw-gradient-to-position: ; --tw-ordinal: ; --tw-slashed-zero: ; --tw-numeric-figure: ; --tw-numeric-spacing: ; --tw-numeric-fraction: ; --tw-ring-inset: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgba(62,172,255,.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-blur: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-brightness: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-contrast: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-grayscale: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-hue-rotate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-invert: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-saturate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-sepia: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-drop-shadow: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-blur: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-brightness: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-contrast: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-grayscale: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-hue-rotate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-invert: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-opacity: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-saturate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-sepia: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-transform: translateX(var(--tw-translate-x)) translateY(var(--tw-translate-y)) rotate(var(--tw-rotate)) skewX(var(--tw-skew-x)) skewY(var(--tw-skew-y)) scaleX(var(--tw-scale-x)) scaleY(var(--tw-scale-y)); --tw-border-opacity: 1; --tw-filter: var(--tw-blur) var(--tw-brightness) var(--tw-contrast) var(--tw-grayscale) var(--tw-hue-rotate) var(--tw-invert) var(--tw-saturate) var(--tw-sepia) var(--tw-drop-shadow); --tw-backdrop-filter: var(--tw-backdrop-blur) var(--tw-backdrop-brightness) var(--tw-backdrop-contrast) var(--tw-backdrop-grayscale) var(--tw-backdrop-hue-rotate) var(--tw-backdrop-invert) var(--tw-backdrop-opacity) var(--tw-backdrop-saturate) var(--tw-backdrop-sepia); font-size: 18px; font-weight: 400; font-family: Quattrocento, serif;"><img id="zl95bm8nmbm87n122v" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/175264754/photo/ensuring-her-vitals-are-nominal-before-the-procedure.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=7kNZ3MubwkGfFNpQCwRktpGnpm1-XGLvzXtJ83lYkL0=" alt="Ensuring her vitals are nominal before the procedure" title="Ensuring her vitals are nominal before the procedure" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/175264754/photo/ensuring-her-vitals-are-nominal-before-the-procedure.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=7kNZ3MubwkGfFNpQCwRktpGnpm1-XGLvzXtJ83lYkL0=" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" style="border-color: rgba(229,231,235,var(--tw-border-opacity)); --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-pan-x: ; --tw-pan-y: ; --tw-pinch-zoom: ; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-gradient-from-position: ; --tw-gradient-via-position: ; --tw-gradient-to-position: ; --tw-ordinal: ; --tw-slashed-zero: ; --tw-numeric-figure: ; --tw-numeric-spacing: ; --tw-numeric-fraction: ; --tw-ring-inset: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgba(62,172,255,.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-blur: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-brightness: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-contrast: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-grayscale: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-hue-rotate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-invert: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-saturate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-sepia: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-drop-shadow: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-blur: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-brightness: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-contrast: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-grayscale: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-hue-rotate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-invert: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-opacity: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-saturate: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-backdrop-sepia: var(--tw-empty,/*!*/ /*!*/); --tw-transform: translateX(var(--tw-translate-x)) translateY(var(--tw-translate-y)) rotate(var(--tw-rotate)) skewX(var(--tw-skew-x)) skewY(var(--tw-skew-y)) scaleX(var(--tw-scale-x)) scaleY(var(--tw-scale-y)); --tw-border-opacity: 1; --tw-filter: var(--tw-blur) var(--tw-brightness) var(--tw-contrast) var(--tw-grayscale) var(--tw-hue-rotate) var(--tw-invert) var(--tw-saturate) var(--tw-sepia) var(--tw-drop-shadow); --tw-backdrop-filter: var(--tw-backdrop-blur) var(--tw-backdrop-brightness) var(--tw-backdrop-contrast) var(--tw-backdrop-grayscale) var(--tw-backdrop-hue-rotate) var(--tw-backdrop-invert) var(--tw-backdrop-opacity) var(--tw-backdrop-saturate) var(--tw-backdrop-sepia); --tw-bg-opacity: 1; width: 640px; aspect-ratio: 16 / 9; object-position: center center;"> Your health is our priority, and we understand that whatever recovery you may receive is not worth risking long-term impacts to your physical well-being. You deserve care from providers who are focused solely on your medical needs, not the outcome of a legal case.Making the Right ChoiceIf you are considering treatment through an attorney lien arrangement, it's vital to take steps to protect yourself. Seek independent medical advice to verify the necessity and appropriateness of proposed treatments. Review all agreements carefully and consider consulting a second legal opinion if you have concerns about conflicts of interest.ConclusionWhile attorney-recommended lien providers may offer a path to immediate care, they also come with significant financial and legal risks. At Southern California Personal Injury Law, we advocate for your right to unbiased medical treatment that prioritizes your long-term health. If you have questions about your rights and options following an accident, contact us for guidance that puts your well-being first.We take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.

The Hidden Dangers of Using Attorney-Recommended Medical Providers on a Lien in California

California’s traffic statutes and case law establish clear guidelines regarding the right-of-way and its waiver, ensuring orderly interactions between drivers and pedestrians on the road. Under the law, when a driver or pedestrian is required to yield the right-of-way, the party must allow the other—whether a vehicle or pedestrian—to proceed first. Importantly, even if one holds the right-of-way, that person must still exercise reasonable care to avoid an accident. This requirement is grounded in the notion that traffic regulations are not designed to absolve a party of all responsibility but rather to promote safety and courtesy on the highway.The statutory framework for right-of-way is well-delineated within the California Vehicle Code. For instance, the definition of right-of-way and its application in various contexts—such as intersections, left turns, and entries onto highways—is set forth in multiple sections including <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&amp;sectionNum=525" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&amp;sectionNum=525">Veh. Code §§ 525</a>, <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&amp;sectionNum=21800." href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&amp;sectionNum=21800.">21800</a>, <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21802.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21802.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH">21801</a>, <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21802.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21802.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH">21802</a>, <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21803.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21803.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH">21803</a>, <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21804.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21804.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH">21804</a>, <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21805.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21805.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH">21805</a>, and <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21806.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21806.&amp;nodeTreePath=15.4&amp;lawCode=VEH">21806</a>. These provisions collectively mandate that drivers approaching a pedestrian in a crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked, must reduce their speed or take any necessary action to ensure the pedestrian’s safety. This duty is further emphasized in scenarios where the law requires yielding even when the right-of-way is clearly established, underscoring the principle that statutory rights do not eliminate the requirement to act prudently.Scholarly analysis of these duties reveals a balanced approach to roadway safety. In<a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/eagar-v-mcdonnell-douglas-corp" href="https://casetext.com/case/eagar-v-mcdonnell-douglas-corp"> Eagar v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 116, 122 [107 Cal.Rptr. 819]</a>, the court described the right-of-way rules as establishing a “practical basis for necessary courtesy on the highway.” Similarly, <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/spriesterbach-v-holland-1" href="https://casetext.com/case/spriesterbach-v-holland-1">Spriesterbach v. Holland (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 255, 266 [155 Cal.Rptr.3d 306]</a> clarified that a driver entering a public highway must act as a reasonably prudent person, taking into account the relative positions and movements of other road users. <a data-mce-href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/schmitt-v-henderson-30143" href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/schmitt-v-henderson-30143">In Schmitt v. Henderson (1969) 1 Cal.3d 460, 463 [82 Cal.Rptr. 502, 462 P.2d 30]</a>, failure to yield the right-of-way was characterized as a violation of both the statute and the standard of negligence when no reasonable explanation exists for the conduct. Conversely, <a data-mce-href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1833178.html" href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1833178.html">Byrne v. City and County of San Francisco (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 731, 742 [170 Cal.Rptr. 302]</a> emphasized that while pedestrians enjoy a preferential right-of-way, this advantage is not absolute; pedestrians themselves must exercise ordinary care to avoid putting themselves in harm’s way. Additionally, in <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/bove-v-beckman" href="https://casetext.com/case/bove-v-beckman">Bove v. Beckman (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 555, 563 [46 Cal.Rptr. 164]</a>, the courts have noted that even when statutory rights are present, the right-of-way must be yielded if conditions demand it to avoid injury. This principle is further supported by <a data-mce-href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1811986.html" href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1811986.html">Malone v. Perryman (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 227, 234 [37 Cal.Rptr. 864]</a>, which reminds us that holding the right-of-way does not absolve one from the duty to remain vigilant and responsive to potential hazards.Beyond the basic definition of right-of-way, California law also recognizes that the right-of-way can be waived. A driver or pedestrian who initially holds the right-of-way may choose to relinquish it by conducting themselves in such a way that the other party reasonably believes the right has been surrendered. <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/hopkins-v-tye" href="https://casetext.com/case/hopkins-v-tye">In Hopkins v. Tye (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 431, 433 [344 P.2d 640]</a>, the court held that a clear and definite act by a party that creates a reasonable belief in the mind of another that the right-of-way has been waived is sufficient to transfer the right. This principle was further clarified in <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/cohen-v-bay-area-pie-co" href="https://casetext.com/case/cohen-v-bay-area-pie-co">Cohen v. Bay Area Pie Company (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 69, 72-73 [31 Cal.Rptr. 426]</a>, which noted that a conscious, intentional act is not always necessary for a waiver; the critical factor is whether the other party can reasonably infer that the right-of-way has been relinquished.Secondary sources, including Witkin’s Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017, Torts §§ 1010, 1011) and the California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. §§ 4.72-4.73), provide further analysis and commentary on these statutory and case law principles. These authoritative texts underscore that while right-of-way rules are designed to prevent collisions and promote mutual respect among road users, they must be applied in a context-sensitive manner that considers the actions of both drivers and pedestrians.In summary, the duty to yield the right-of-way in California is a statutory obligation designed to facilitate safe and efficient traffic flow, while also ensuring that all parties exercise reasonable care. Whether one is a driver or a pedestrian, adherence to these rules is crucial, and even the right-of-way can be waived through clear, reasonable conduct. The interplay of statutory mandates and case law—from Eagar to Hopkins—illustrates the dynamic nature of this area of law, balancing legal rights with the practical necessities of everyday roadway interactions. Understanding these principles is essential for legal practitioners, policymakers, and the public alike, as they collectively contribute to the overarching goal of roadway safety.Southern California Personal Injury Law: Trusted Personal Injury Law FirmAt Southern California Personal Injury Law, we take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.

Blog

Defining “Emergency” Under California Law: An Analysis of...

Premises Liability: Essential Factual Elements and the Le...

Contingencies Explained

CarMax Crash in Inglewood: At Least Eight Injured in Susp...

The Hidden Dangers of Using Attorney-Recommended Medical ...

Understanding Right-of-Way and Waiver of Right-of-Way in ...