What Is a "Hit and Run" Accident?

California Vehicle Code section 16025 Hit and Run

• Your name
• Your address
• Drivers license number
• Vehicle ID number (in your registration)
• Name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle
• Insurance information

Can I Still Be Fully Compensated for My Property Damage and Injuries if the Other Driver Fled the Scene?

What Are the Criminal Penalties for Committing a Hit and Run in California?

CVC 16025 Information Required to Disclose in an Accident

CVC 20002 Hit and Run

What are the Penalties CVC 20002 Hit and Run Conviction?

• Up to 6 months in a county jail
• A maximum fine of $1,000

What are the Penalties CVC 20001 Hit and Run With Injuries or Death Conviction?

• Up to 4 years in a state prison
• A maximum fine of $10,000

California Personal Injury Attorney

Is Carjacking Considered a Violent Crime in California?

What Is The Penalty For a PC 215 Carjacking Conviction in California?

• Three (3), five (5), or nice (9) year sentence without enhancements, and/or
• Compensation to each victim and fines of up to $10,000.

Carjacking Penalty Enhancements

• used a weapon;
• injured the victim; and/or
• committed the crime to aid street gang

Penal Code 186.22 Gang Enhancement

Gun Enhancement Penal Code 12022.53

Other Penalty Enhancements

What is the Carjacking Problem in California?

Related Crimes

• Grand Theft Auto Penal Code 487(d)(1) PC
• Joyriding under Vehicle Code 10851 VC

Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney

How Do Burn Injuries Result?

What Compensation Will a Burn Injury Sufferer Be Entitled To?

• Emotional anguish
• Wages that have been lost
• Loss of property
• Medical expenses
• Companionship loss
• Suffering and pain
• Loss of earning potential

• Negligence
• Defects in the product
• Liability for the premises

• The defendant owes a duty of care to the burn injury sufferer.
• This duty of care was breached by the defendant.

Common Types of Burn Injuries

• Accidents in the kitchen
• Accidents on the jobsite
• Accidents involving fireworks
• Accidents in automobiles
• Accidents in restaurants
• Burns from a tanning salon
• Burns caused by chemicals

Distribution of Faulty Products

• Errors that occurred during the design process
• Defects in the manufacturing process are a common occurrence.
• There aren't enough cautions or instructions.

• This product was used in a reasonable manner by a burn damage survivor.
• A defective product was conceived, manufactured, or sold by the defendant.
• A significant factor that contributed to a burn injury victim's losses was a product defect.
• When the product left the defendant, it already had a design, manufacturing, or warning flaw.

Contact a Los Angeles Attorney Today

What Does Own Recognizance Mean?

• They will appear in court when ordered to do so;
• Obey all conditions imposed by the court;
• Not leave the state without permission.

Who Is Eligible for Own Recognizance?

• Whether the individual has strong roots in the community;
• Whether the individual has regular employment;
• The severity of the crime;
• The individual's criminal record;
• Whether the individual poses a danger to the public if released

Does an Own Recognizance Require a Formal Hearing?

• Serious felonies such as rape, assault with a deadly weapon or murder;
• Violent felonies;
• Violation of a protective order, which includes violence, serious threat of harm, or the individual goes to the home or workplace of the person whom the protective order is for;
• Violation of domestic battery law;
• Violation of witness intimidation laws, such that is defined under Penal Code 136.1

Are There Any Conditions Associated with an Own Recognizance?

• Attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings;
• Attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings;
• Receive mental health treatment;
• Receive substance abuse treatment;
• Home detention;
• Electronic monitoring.

Are There Consequences Connected with Own Recognizance Release?

Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney

Treatise: Motorcycle Helmet Product Liability in California

Product liability lawsuits frequently arise as a result of motorcycle accidents, and a common product at issue is the rider's motorcycle helmet. In California, manufacturers, distributers, and retailers of motorcycle head gear can be held liable for injuries and damages that occur as a result of defective protective gear.

I. STRICT LIABILITY: In California, Product Liability Cases do not Require Proof of Negligence.

In California, lawsuits brought under the theory of products liability are considered strict liability cases, meaning the injured plaintiff does not have to show negligence on the part of the manufacturer or seller in order to prevail on a claim of defective product. The basis for strict products liability is grounded on the public policy considerations that parties involved in the commercial enterprise who make a profit by placing defective products into the marketplace should bear the responsibility of the injuries caused to consumers by those products. Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 61 C.2d 256 (Ca. 1964).

In order for a plaintiff to prevail and be awarded damages under the theory of products liability the plaintiff must show: (1) there was a defect in the manufacture or design of the helmet or the helmet's product warning was defective or did not exist; (2) the defect was the cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (3) injury did in fact occur. County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 137 Cal.App.4th 292, (Ca. Ct. App. 2006).

A. Product Defect

Product defects can be established by: (1) manufacturing defect; (2) design defect; or (3) warning defect. The mere fact that a plaintiff suffered an injury from the normal use of a product does not itself establish that the product was defective. Hennigan v. White, 199 Ca.App.4th 395 (Ca. Ct. App. 2011). For example, a plaintiff who suffers a head injury while wearing a motorcycle helmet in its normal use is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a claim for products liability. Rather, there has to be some kind of legal defect in the motorcycle helmet.

(i) Manufacturing Defect

Manufacturing defects are most common. Strict products liability for a manufacturing defect can be found in two scenarios: (1) when the product left the manufacturer's control, it differed from the manufacturer's intended result or (2) when the product left the manufacturer's control, it differed from apparently identical products of the same manufacturer. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc., 20 Ca.3d 413 (Ca. 1978). Additionally, the defective product must have been used in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer and yet still caused the plaintiff's injury. Id. The following scenario highlights the "reasonably foreseeable use" element of a manufacturing defect claim:

Plaintiff wears her motorcycle helmet on backwards and shortly thereafter has a wreck because her vision is obstructed. A defect in the face shield of the helmet causes injury to the back of her head. Plaintiff would not be able to maintain a products liability case against a motorcycle helmet manufacturer because, even though the face shield was defective, she was not using the helmet in a manner that would be reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer.

The above scenario would also present a common defense to products liability – misuse or misapplication. It is an affirmative defense to an action for products liability if the plaintiff was injured as a result of using the produce in an inappropriate manner.

California's Civil Jury Instructions require that in order for a plaintiff to establish a claim for manufacturing defect, all of the following must be proven: (1) that the defendant manufactured or sold the product at issue; (2) that the product contained a manufacturing defect when it left the defendant's possession; (3) that the plaintiff was harmed; and (4) that the product defect was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm. CACI No. 1201. "A product will be considered as containing a manufacturing defect if the product differs from the manufacturer's design or specifications or from other typical units of the same product." CACI No. 1202.

(ii) Design Defect

Although a product may be excellently manufactured, it may still be defective due to a flaw in design. Barker. California courts utilize two tests when analyzing whether or not a design defect exists. Id. The first test plays on the same factors utilized in determining a manufacturer defect – "whether the product performed as safely as the ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable manner..." Brown v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.3d 1049 (1988) (citing Id.). The first test is often referred to as the "consumer expectation" test. The second test (referred to as the "risk-benefit" test often attributed to Learned Hand and the "Hand Formula") asks, whether on balance, the benefits of the disputed design outweigh the risks of danger inherent in the design. Id.

The two tests are not mutually exclusive and depending on the particular set of facts, both tests may be used by the plaintiff to prove a design defect. Demara v. Raymond Corp., 13 Cal.5th 545 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). However, while one or both tests may be utilized by the plaintiff to establish a claim based on design defect, the burden of proof varies depending on the theory asserted. A plaintiff pleading under the consumer expectation test must demonstrate that on the face of the facts asserted, the defect caused the plaintiff's injury and must also produce evidence that the product failed to meet reasonable consumer expectations in regard to the product's safety. Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (Ca. Ct. App. 1994). On the other hand, when asserting a claim based on the risk-benefit test, the plaintiff need only present evidence that would allow the trier of fact to find that the design defect was the cause of plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff does not have to present alternative designs that could have prevented the injury. Rather, upon the plaintiff's showing of causation, the burden then shifts to the defendant to introduce evidence that the benefit associated with the design defect outweighs the risks. Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp., 6 Cal.5th 21 (2018) (citing Barker). The purpose of this distinction in burden of proof standards is grounded in public policy. California courts have determined that the shift in burden of proof in the risk-benefit tests is necessary to ease the burden on plaintiffs in regard to knowledge of industry standards and practice – a subject much more appropriate for the defendant to address. Id. (citing Barker).

In terms of analyzing a plaintiff's claim under the consumer expectation test, a jury will be instructed that the following elements must be proven before judgment can be awarded in favor of the plaintiff: (1) that the defendant manufactured or sold the product (2) that the product did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way; (3) that the plaintiff was harmed and; (4) that the product's failure to perform safely was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm. CACI No. 1203.

Alternatively, when reviewing a claim for design defect under the risk-benefit test, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that the defendant manufactured or sold the product; (2) that the plaintiff was harmed and; (3) that the product's design was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm. CACI No. 1204. If a plaintiff can prove these three facts, then the jury is instructed to decide in favor of the plaintiff unless the defendant can prove that the benefits of the product's design outweigh the risks of the design. Id. In deciding whether the benefits outweigh the risks, the jury is instructed to consider the following factors:

(1) The gravity of the potential harm resulting from the use of the product; (2) The likelihood that the harm would occur; (3) The feasibility of an alternative design at the time of manufacture; (4) The cost of an alternative design; (5) The disadvantages of an alternative design; and (6) Any other relevant factors.

Id.

(iii) Warning Defect

The last form of defect comes not in regard to the product's physical shortcomings, but rather the deficiencies in the product's warning label (or lack thereof). Generally, warning defects can be classified in two ways: (1) the warning inadequately instructs the consumer as to how the product should be used in order to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm or (2) the warning fails to inform the consumer of the risks and side effects of the product, which does not give the consumer the informed choice in whether to use the product or not. Finn v. G.D. Searle & Co., 35 Cal.3d 691 (Ca. 1984). The latter is most often used in cases of medicinal products, while the former would be the likely warning defect scenario in the context of a motorcycle helmet products liability case.

When analyzing a claim of defective warning, courts will often look to the state or federal warning label requirements. In 2013, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) amended the Federal motor vehicle safety standard as it relates to the requirements for motorcycle helmets in an effort to reduce traumatic brain injury and other types of head injury. Specifically, the amended federal regulation requires that each motorcycle helmet be permanently and legibly labeled in a manner such that can be easily read with the manufacturer's name, the helmet size, the month and year of manufacture, and instructions to the consumer specified as follows: