According to an article in the Orange County Register, four people were injured Wednesday night after a multi-vehicle crash on the eastbound 91 near Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim.  Citing CHP sources, the Register listed the following as injured in the crash: 

• Jessica Vasquez, 36, from Burbank, was a passenger in a vehicle and suffered major injuries.
• Edgar Aragon, 36, from Belmont, was the driver of a 2005 Hyundai, who suffered moderate injuries.
• Anghy Aragon, 21, from Fontana, was a passenger and suffered minor injuries.
• German Mora, 22, from Fullerton, was a passenger and suffered moderate injuries.

Details of the crash are still being sorted out, and the Register article with photographs can be found HERE.

The cause of the crash has yet to be determined, but from the photographs it appears the roadway may have been wet at the time.  This condition could have contributed to the happening of the accident.  If one or more of the vehicles was traveling at a speed unsafe for the conditions (rain), they may have lost control and then started the multi-vehicle accident.  In California, it is a violation of the law to operate a vehicle "at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."  (California Vehicle Code Section 22350)

Compensation for victims of chain reaction traffic accidents, like the one above, should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a driver operates their vehicle carelessly and causes an accident with a number of other vehicles, they should be held accountable.  An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has 20 years years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a loved one been injured in a chain reaction automobile accident?

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

In California, a retailer may hire employees to detect, apprehend and arrest suspected shoplifters.  Traditionally, retailers hire "officers" to wear uniforms in order to deter crime and assist in the apprehension and arrest of suspected thieves.  Security "agents" (sometimes referred to as "asset protection agents" or "loss prevention agents") are generally employed to work undercover on the sales floor to detect and apprehend suspected shoplifters.  A statute enacted many years ago (California Penal Code § 490.5) permits the retailer and their agents to stop and detain suspected shoplifters whenever there is probable cause to believe the person stopped has attempted to take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the store's premises.  This same statute protects the retailer and their agents from civil liability so long as they have acted with probable cause, and the detention was in all other respects reasonable.  This code section is commonly referred to as the "merchant's privilege."

However, it is not terribly uncommon for an overly zealous shoplift agent to apprehend someone without adequate cause or use more than that force necessary to effect the detention.  The law only permits the agent/security officer to use a reasonable amount of non-deadly force to apprehend and detain suspected law breakers.  Once the amount of force crosses this line or the detention is longer than is reasonably necessary, the store and its employees may be held liable for damages.

The damages that can be recovered are often determined by the actions of the store employees.  For example, where physical restraints are used (such as handcuffs) or there is a physical altercation of some sort, the amount of damages awarded is likely increased.  Additionally, if the retailer elects to criminally prosecute the suspected shoplifter (who is in reality innocent), the merchant's privilege does not apply beyond the detention, and damages may be awarded for false arrest and/or malicious prosecution.

Beyond the damages already mentioned, the victim of security misconduct may be able to pursue a claim for a violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 and/or §43, which reads in part as follows:

....every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations.

There are a host of civil claims that may be brought to vindicate the rights of those falsely detained or arrested by store security agents and officers.  The laws in California operate to protect the store owners to an extent, but also to ensure the innocent are fairly compensated when their rights have been trampled.

Compensation for the victims of security misconduct should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a security officer or agent acts outside the bounds of the law, they and their employer should be held accountable.  An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Does the California law protecting retailers and their agents, at least in a limited fashion,  seem fair?

• This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Yesterday a man was killed in a rollover crash on Interstate 10 in Banning.  The driver had reportedly been involved in an earlier accident and was actually standing on the shoulder of the freeway when he was struck by an out-of-control vehicle.  According to news reports, the driver who lost control and rolled his vehicle was not injured.  The victim, whose earlier accident was apparently a fender-bender, was pronounced dead at the scene.

See www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_webfatal.f38591.html

In Orange County, a 77-year-old woman died after being hit by a car while she was reportedly chasing her dog.  The accident happened in Buena Park at about 12:30 a.m. yesterday.   The male driver of the late model Dodge Charger was not cited.

See http://www.ocregister.com/news/bray-271891-dog-police.html

In either or both of these cases, driver inattention could have played a significant role in the happening of the accident.  The operator of any motor vehicle has an obligation to keep an adequate lookout so that steps can be taken to avoid an accident if possible.  This is true even though the victim may have done something careless that contributed to the collision.  It is generally the rule in California that every person has the right to presume that every other person will perform his legal duty and obey the law, at least in the absence of reasonable grounds to think otherwise.   However, this does not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the obligation to use  reasonable care to observe the conduct of the other person (even illegal or unsafe conduct) so far as such conduct may affect his own safety at the time.

When a driver fails to keep an adequate lookout for hazards, including one caused by another's carelessness, they should be held accountable for their portion of the responsibility.  An Orange County trial lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has more than 19 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

• Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above.  This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.