Blog

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.

Understanding Right-of-Way and Waiver of Right-of-Way in California Traffic Law

Every case is different. Neither this post nor anything on this website should be construed as legal advice. It is crucial that you obtain experienced legal representation so that they can analyze the specvifics of your case. A list of licensed attorneys in California can be found <a data-mce-href="https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/LicenseeSearch/QuickSearch" href="https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/LicenseeSearch/QuickSearch">here</a>. Indeed, when you’ve suffered a personal injury, the process of seeking compensation can feel overwhelming. One of the most critical steps toward securing a successful outcome is choosing the right personal injury attorney. The right lawyer can make all the difference—not only by handling the legal complexities on your behalf but also by providing the guidance and support you need during a challenging time. In this blog post, we explore the key factors to consider when selecting a personal injury attorney and offer tips to help you make an informed decision.Understanding Your Legal NeedsBefore you begin your search, it’s important to clearly understand your legal situation. Personal injury cases can range from car accidents and slip and fall incidents to workplace injuries and medical malpractice. Each type of case has its own set of complexities and legal nuances. Identifying the specifics of your case will help you narrow down your search to attorneys who specialize in the area of law relevant to your injury.Experience and SpecializationOne of the most important factors in choosing a personal injury attorney is their experience in handling cases similar to yours. Look for a lawyer who has a proven track record in personal injury litigation and who understands the particular challenges associated with your type of claim. An attorney with extensive experience is likely to be more adept at navigating the complexities of evidence gathering, negotiations with insurance companies, and the litigation process, should your case go to trial.How to Choose a Personal Injury AttorneyThe reputation of an attorney can provide valuable insight into their effectiveness and professionalism. Consider researching online reviews, testimonials, and any peer recognition the attorney may have received. Personal recommendations from friends or family members can also be incredibly helpful. A lawyer with a strong reputation in the community is more likely to be respected by judges, opposing counsel, and insurance companies, which can work to your advantage.Communication and AvailabilityEffective communication is essential in any legal matter. When choosing a personal injury attorney, you want to ensure that they are accessible and responsive to your needs. During your initial consultation, take note of how clearly the attorney explains the legal process, their strategy for your case, and how frequently you can expect updates. An attorney who listens to your concerns and explains your options in plain language will help alleviate some of the stress associated with your injury.Fee Structure and Financial ConsiderationsMany personal injury attorneys work on a contingency fee basis, which means they only get paid if you recover compensation. While this arrangement can make legal services more accessible, it’s important to understand the specifics of the fee structure before signing any agreements. Ask for a detailed explanation of the contingency fee percentage, any additional costs, and how expenses will be handled throughout your case. Transparency in these matters is crucial to avoid any surprises down the line.Comfort and TrustFinally, trust and comfort are paramount when selecting an attorney. You will be sharing personal details about your injury and your life, so it’s essential that you feel comfortable with your legal representation. During your initial meetings, assess whether the attorney appears genuinely interested in your case and is willing to take the time to address your questions and concerns. Trusting your attorney’s judgment and knowing that they are fully committed to achieving the best possible outcome for you can provide a great deal of peace of mind.ConclusionChoosing a personal injury attorney is a significant decision that can greatly impact the outcome of your case. By carefully considering factors such as experience, reputation, communication, fee structure, and your personal comfort with the attorney, you can make a well-informed decision. Remember that the right attorney will not only handle the legal details but will also serve as a supportive partner throughout your recovery process. Take the time to research, ask questions, and trust your instincts—your future well-being and financial recovery may depend on it.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.

How to Choose a Personal Injury Attorney

taxi cabs loading on road between high rise buildung

California law imposes specific duties on both drivers and pedestrians when using crosswalks, a provision primarily codified in <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21950.&amp;lawCode=VEH" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21950.&amp;lawCode=VEH">Veh. Code § 21950</a>. This statute mandates that drivers must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. When approaching a pedestrian in such areas, a driver is required to use reasonable care by reducing speed or taking any other action necessary to ensure the pedestrian’s safety. At the same time, pedestrians are also expected to exercise reasonable care for their own safety. They must not suddenly leave a place of safety—such as a curb—and enter the roadway in a manner that poses an immediate hazard, nor should they unnecessarily delay traffic while in a crosswalk.The legal framework governing crosswalk accidents often necessitates a comparative negligence analysis based on these statutory duties. In Menchaca v. Helms Bakeries, Inc. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 535, 544 [67 Cal.Rptr. 775, 439 P.2d 903], the court noted that while driving a motor vehicle inherently involves risks that require caution, it does not mandate "extreme caution" under all circumstances. This balanced view is critical in determining liability when a pedestrian unexpectedly enters the path of an oncoming vehicle. For instance, in Spann v. Ballesty (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 754, 761 [81 Cal.Rptr. 229], the court explained that when a pedestrian suddenly leaves their place of safety, the vehicle may be so close that it constitutes an immediate hazard, thereby justifying the imposition of liability if the driver fails to act appropriately.Conversely, case law also recognizes that a pedestrian’s failure to exercise reasonable care does not automatically relieve a driver of their duty to ensure safety. In Schmitt v. Henderson (1969) 1 Cal.3d 460, 463 [82 Cal.Rptr. 502, 462 P.2d 30], it was held that a driver’s failure to yield the right-of-way constitutes a violation of both the statute and the standard of negligence, barring any reasonable explanation for the conduct. However, the courts have also emphasized that while pedestrians have a preferential right-of-way, as noted in Byrne v. City and County of San Francisco (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 731, 742 [170 Cal.Rptr. 302], this right is not absolute. Pedestrians are still under a duty to exercise ordinary care for their own safety, and a failure to do so may mitigate the liability of a driver who otherwise complies with the statutory duty.The responsibilities of both drivers and pedestrians are further underscored by the principle that the level of caution required differs according to the inherent risks of operating a vehicle versus walking on a public roadway. In Cucinella v. Weston Biscuit Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 71, 75–76, 81 [265 P.2d 513], the court articulated that while drivers must remain constantly alert due to the significant risks associated with controlling a motor vehicle, pedestrians, with only their physical capabilities at stake, are expected to exercise care commensurate with the potential for injury in their specific circumstances.Secondary sources such as <a data-mce-href="https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/Summary-of-California-Law-11th-Witkin-Library/p/106154043" href="https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/Summary-of-California-Law-11th-Witkin-Library/p/106154043">Witkin’s Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017, Torts §§ 1012, 1013, 1016)</a>, the <a data-mce-href="https://store.ceb.com/products/california-tort-guide?srsltid=AfmBOorNttyfLZZggHqq33B8O6COv8DzqxrUVUtn0tHdU8GV57zDBj1Q" href="https://store.ceb.com/products/california-tort-guide?srsltid=AfmBOorNttyfLZZggHqq33B8O6COv8DzqxrUVUtn0tHdU8GV57zDBj1Q">California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. §§ 4.72-4.73)</a>, and Levy et al. in <a data-mce-href="https://store.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/california-torts-grpussku10295.html" href="https://store.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/california-torts-grpussku10295.html">California Torts, Ch. 20, Motor Vehicles, §§ 20.10-20.12</a> further expound upon these statutory and case law principles. These texts provide practitioners with detailed insights into the comparative negligence framework applicable in crosswalk accidents and reinforce the understanding that both drivers and pedestrians bear responsibilities that influence liability determinations.In conclusion, the duties imposed on drivers and pedestrians in crosswalk scenarios are designed to enhance safety on California roadways. By requiring drivers to yield and exercise reasonable care, while also mandating that pedestrians do not act unpredictably or create hazards, the law seeks to balance the rights and responsibilities of all roadway users. Courts continue to apply these principles, as demonstrated in landmark decisions such as Menchaca, Spann, Schmitt, Byrne, and Cucinella, ensuring that liability in crosswalk accidents is apportioned fairly based on the conduct of each party. This integrated approach not only promotes roadway safety but also serves as a critical guide for legal practitioners handling crosswalk accident claims.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.

Duties of Care for Pedestrians and Drivers in Crosswalks: A Legal Analysis

come on in we're open signage on glass panel

In the realm of product liability, strict liability is a foundational doctrine that holds manufacturers, distributors, and retailers accountable when a defective product causes harm. Under strict liability, a plaintiff need not prove negligence in the traditional sense; rather, they must demonstrate that the product was defective in a manner that directly caused their injury. A product may be considered defective if it contained a manufacturing defect, was defectively designed, or failed to include sufficient instructions or warnings regarding potential safety hazards.A comprehensive understanding of strict liability requires an examination of its essential factual elements. A plaintiff must establish that they were harmed by a product distributed, manufactured, or sold by the defendant, and that the defect in question falls within one of the recognized categories:Manufacturing Defect: The product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised during production and marketing. Design Defect: The foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or eliminated by adopting a reasonable alternative design. Warning Defect: The product is unsafe because it does not include adequate instructions or warnings that would have reduced or prevented the harm. As explained in Johnson v. United States Steel Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 30 [192 Cal.Rptr.3d 158], "products liability" encompasses the liability of those who supply goods to the public when defects in those products cause various types of losses. This view is further reinforced by Soule v. GM Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 560 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 882 P.2d 298], which states that a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer is liable in tort if a defect in the product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.The doctrine of strict liability has been specifically applied to three distinct types of defects. As set forth in Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995 [281 Cal.Rptr.528, 810 P.2d 549], strict liability encompasses manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects. This categorization is crucial because it underscores that liability does not hinge on proving the defendant's negligence but rather on the existence of a defect that renders the product unreasonably dangerous.Under the guidance of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, as cited in Brady v. Calsol, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1218–1219 [194 Cal.Rptr.3d 243], a product is defective if it (a) contains a manufacturing defect, (b) is defectively designed such that a reasonable alternative design could have mitigated foreseeable risks, or (c) is defectively marketed through inadequate instructions or warnings. This framework sets the stage for determining whether a product fails to meet the safety expectations that consumers reasonably have.A landmark case that has shaped strict liability in product cases is Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 62–63 [27 Cal.Rptr.697, 377 P.2d 897]. In Greenman, the court held that a manufacturer is strictly liable when an article they place on the market, with the expectation that it will be used without inspection for defects, causes injury due to a defect. The purpose of imposing strict liability is to ensure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by those who introduced the unsafe product into the market, rather than by injured consumers who are in a position to protect themselves.It is important to note that strict liability does not require a plaintiff to establish the classic elements of negligence—duty, breach, causation, and damages—as observed in Elsheref v. AppliedMaterials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451, 464 [167 Cal.Rptr.3d 257]. However, as clarified in Sanchez v. Hitachi Koki, Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 948, 956 [158 Cal.Rptr.3d 907], strict liability is not synonymous with absolute liability. Although the doctrine imposes significant responsibility on manufacturers and others in the distribution chain, it does not transform them into insurers of product safety. Instead, it seeks to distribute the burden of injury costs in a manner that encourages safer product designs and greater vigilance in manufacturing and marketing.The concept of strict liability extends beyond just manufacturers. As stated in Arriaga v. CitiCapital Commercial Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1527, 1534 [85 Cal.Rptr.3d 143], anyone who plays an integral role in the production and marketing of a product can be subject to strict liability. This is particularly relevant under the “stream-of-commerce” approach, which holds that a defendant’s liability depends on their connection to the market and the consumer demand for the product, rather than on a precise legal relationship with the manufacturer, as elucidated in Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady Co., Inc. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 249, 258 [196 Cal.Rptr.3d 594]. Under this approach, no exact legal relationship is required for the imposition of strict liability; instead, the defendant’s role in placing the product into the consumer market is the key factor.Moreover, the application of strict liability is not without its limits. In Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261, 270 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 185], the court emphasized that liability under strict products liability is determined by policy considerations, such as enhancing product safety, maximizing protection for injured parties, and fairly apportioning costs among the various defendants involved in the manufacturing and distribution process. This policy-driven analysis helps ensure that strict liability serves its intended purpose without imposing undue burdens on parties that are only tangentially related to the production process.Another important facet of product liability is the "component parts doctrine," which was addressed in O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, 355 [135 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 266 P.3d 987]. Under this doctrine, a manufacturer of a component part is not held strictly liable for injuries caused by the finished product into which the component is incorporated—unless the component itself was defective and directly caused harm. Exceptions to this rule occur when the defendant bears direct responsibility for the harm, either by contributing their own defective product to the mix or by participating substantially in creating a hazardous combination of products.In the context of service providers versus product sellers, distinctions in strict liability also emerge. As explained in Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 316 [213 Cal.Rptr.3d 82], hospitals and other service providers are generally not subject to strict liability for defective products provided during treatment, provided that their role is limited to offering services rather than selling a product. However, this limitation does not preclude claims based on negligence, ensuring that injured parties still have avenues for redress.Scholarly sources, including secondary authorities such as Witkin’s Summary of California Law and various practice guides, reinforce the case law in emphasizing that the imposition of strict liability is based on the defendant’s role in the overall production and marketing enterprise. In particular, as noted in Arriaga and further supported by analyses in the California Practice Guides, the defendant must have received a direct financial benefit from their activities, played an integral role in the business enterprise, and had control or substantial influence over the manufacturing or distribution process.In conclusion, strict liability in product liability cases is a multifaceted doctrine designed to protect consumers by shifting the burden of injury costs to those who place defective products into the market. By requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that a product was defective—whether through manufacturing, design, or inadequate warnings—and that this defect directly caused harm, the doctrine of strict liability incentivizes safer practices throughout the production and distribution chain. As illustrated by seminal cases such as Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., and Brady v. Calsol, Inc., among others, strict liability serves as a powerful tool for ensuring that manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are held accountable for the safety of their products. This comprehensive framework not only promotes consumer safety but also facilitates the fair apportionment of injury costs in a complex commercial environment.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

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 ...

How to Choose a Personal Injury Attorney

Duties of Care for Pedestrians and Drivers in Crosswalks:...

Strict Liability in Product Liability: Essential Factual ...