‘And so, my son, if you would witness to the truth, do not forsake the inn at Bethlehem.  There the infant Word lies wailing in the crib, yet that cry is far more eloquent than Cicero’s oratory or even than the angels’ silver tongues, for it gave fluency to children.  There he who feasts the angels is sustained with a little milk, yet our simplicity nourished at this humble source will grow into adulthood.  There inaccessible light is wrapped in common swaddling clothes, which yet serve to wipe away the grime of sin.’ — Adam of Perseigne

In recent years the process of “Secret Santa”, where colleagues exchange gifts anonymously, has become a Christmas tradition in offices across Britain. But buying the wrong gift could land you, and your company, in some serious bother.

Tongue-in-cheek presents, such as giving a bottle of hair dye to an ageing colleague, could lead to legal proceedings if the joke is taken the wrong way.

Even gifts that seem innocuous to the donator could be classed as inappropriate; for example, a bottle of wine could cause offence to a co-worker who does not drink alcohol for religious reasons.

Last year, a policeman in Luton was forced to resign after giving a Muslim colleague a packet of bacon and a bottle of wine as a Secret Santa gift. While the colleague in question did not complain personally, the incident was referred to the PC’s senior officers, which led to his resignation.

One way you could prevent a similar scenario occurring at your business is by investing in an employment law implementation service from a company like Citation.

Citation protects over 6000 businesses across the UK, providing a Queen’s Award-winning Employment Law service that is both practical and legally accurate. One of their qualified experts will work with you to help reduce your business’s exposure to unwanted legal disputes.

Should an employment tribunal be brought against you by an employee, Citation’s unique Advice Guarantee means that their dedicated employment tribunal team will take complete control of the cause on your behalf. This includes representation at the tribunal itself, as well as handling any representation costs, compensation awards, or other financial settlements as agreed by the Citation team on your behalf.

Citation clients also have access to a 24/7 Employment Advice line, and an online business tool that allows businesses to record vital data about their employees, such as holiday entitlements, sickness absences, company cars issued, etc.

For more information about Citation and the services they provide, visit the Citation website.

Ref: HSLP0101AA113

In recent years the process of “Secret Santa”, where colleagues exchange gifts anonymously, has become a Christmas tradition in offices across Britain. But buying the wrong gift could land you, and your company, in some serious bother.

Tongue-in-cheek presents, such as giving a bottle of hair dye to an ageing colleague, could lead to legal proceedings if the joke is taken the wrong way.

Even gifts that seem innocuous to the donator could be classed as inappropriate; for example, a bottle of wine could cause offence to a co-worker who does not drink alcohol for religious reasons.

Last year, a policeman in Luton was forced to resign after giving a Muslim colleague a packet of bacon and a bottle of wine as a Secret Santa gift. While the colleague in question did not complain personally, the incident was referred to the PC’s senior officers, which led to his resignation.

One way you could prevent a similar scenario occurring at your business is by investing in an employment law implementation service from a company like Citation.

Citation protects over 6000 businesses across the UK, providing a Queen’s Award-winning Employment Law service that is both practical and legally accurate. One of their qualified experts will work with you to help reduce your business’s exposure to unwanted legal disputes.

Should an employment tribunal be brought against you by an employee, Citation’s unique Advice Guarantee means that their dedicated employment tribunal team will take complete control of the cause on your behalf. This includes representation at the tribunal itself, as well as handling any representation costs, compensation awards, or other financial settlements as agreed by the Citation team on your behalf.

Citation clients also have access to a 24/7 Employment Advice line, and an online business tool that allows businesses to record vital data about their employees, such as holiday entitlements, sickness absences, company cars issued, etc.

For more information about Citation and the services they provide, visit the Citation website.

Ref: HSLP0101AA113

As I continue sharing every day, I’m increasingly trying to think of how this different and similar to other forms of sharing I regularly do through Facebook (primarily photos and comments on friends’ things) and Delicious (usually links to awesome things others have shared with me) and Twitter (often brief comments on those links).

Surely the idea of sharing something every day–and purposefully using the word sharing–implies something beyond those tasks that I already do. I’m trying to go out of my way to share a part of me that might not show up in any of those other arenas.

I don’t have the answer to this yet, but one answer is for me to share something that I’ve had a creative hand in. Since it’s the first thing that comes to mind, I’ll share a video I made for students at my university about the changes in the 7th edition of the MLA Handbook–silly stuff, I know, but quite interesting to me, when I consider how changing practices affect standards in all areas of life. Enjoy! (Maybe?)

l’affiche française de « la maison de bambou » (house of bamboo – samuel fuller – 1955)  à l’entrée de la salle de cinéma dans « les sièges de l’alcazar » (luc moullet – 1989).

/
/
« les jeunes cinéastes américains n’ont rien à dire
et sam fuller encore moins que les autres.
il a quelque chose à faire, et il le fait naturellement,
sans se forcer. ce n’est pas un mince compliment :
nous détestons les philosophes manqués qui font du cinéma
malgré le cinéma et y répètent les découvertes des autres arts,
ceux qui veulent exprimer un sujet digne d’intérêt par un
certain style artistique. si vous avez quelque chose à dire,
dites-le, écrivez-le, prêchez-le si vous voulez,
mais fichez-nous la paix (…) »
(luc moullet – « cahiers du cinéma » n° 93 – mars 1959)
- repris dans « piges choisies » – éd. capricci, 2009 -

/
/
-  -  -  -  -
/
«  (…) picturalement, les couleurs ternes (ocres, gris…) dominent. dans le temps (séquences clairement définies) et dans le cadre (éléments ponctuels, « taches »), la présence minoritaire des couleurs vives – surtout le rouge – n’en a que d’autant plus d’impact. même si le lion au cigare se défend farouchement d’être un cinéaste du réalisme (« je n’aime pas le mot ‘réaliste’ ; le réalisme c’est de la connerie ! la fiction est plus réelle que ne l’est la réalité, parce qu’on vit une réalité fractionnée. mais ce qu’on crée en fiction existe réellement »), on peut cependant décrypter le japon de fuller comme une imbrication d’éléments exotiques, immédiatement reconnaissables comme japonais (temples, statues de bouddha, kimonos, masques, théâtre dansé traditionnel…) et d’aspects quasi dépourvus de « couleur locale » – ces derniers étant, paradoxalement, les plus liés à un certain ancrage quasi documentaire dans le « vrai tokyo » des années cinquante. le tokyo de fuller est aussi celui des bas-fonds, des ruelles secondaires, des arrière-cours et des escaliers de service. l’idée même d’un gang américain contrôlant, au nez et à la barbe des yakusa locaux – totalement absents du film ! -, la « protection » des trois mille salles de pachinko de la ville (sortes de croisements entre flippers et machines à sous, importés à osaka au milieu des années vingt en provenance de… chicago et filmés en détails en 1985 par wenders dans « tokyo-ga ») ne tient pas la route, historiquement parlant. mais, dans la contradiction qu’elle porte en elle, la présence de ce « gibier de cachot expulsé de l’armée, de [ces] beaux ex-gi’s fréquentant le peuple le plus poli du monde » représente une pile dialectique très fullerienne qui électrise son intrigue et qui, aux côtés des coups de poings et coups de feux de son film d’action, lui permet par exemple, au détour discret d’un très bel échange entre robert stack et shirley yamaguchi, de glisser un hommage – tout à fait exact et bien documenté, celui-ci – au cou des japonaises : « dans l’ancien temps, les japonaises distinguées se cachaient la nuque. parce qu’à cette époque, c’était la première partie du corps qu’un homme trouvait attirant chez une femme ».

/
/
parlant du cinéma de fuller, à partir d’une passionnante analyse à la table de montage du sublime western « forty guns », yann dedet – monteur e.a. pour pialat, stévenin, ferran ou truffaut… - émet l’hypothèse selon laquelle « [sa] sécheresse [sert à] contrer la sentimentalité », ce qui implique que ce qui relève de la description ou de l’anecdote documentaire est quasi toujours inclus dans les recoins des scènes d’action pour ne pas ralentir leur flux et leur force de percussion. par sa transplantation dans un terrain socio-urbanistique asiatique pour lequel le cinéaste ne peut totalement réfréner sa fascination, « house of bamboo » se laisse sans doute aller à plus de descriptions et plus de lenteur. le film n’a pas la puissance de « films-torrents » plus tardifs comme « forty guns » (1957), « the naked kiss » (1964) ou « the big red one » (1980), mais sa chasse à l’homme finale au milieu d’un parc d’attraction aérien qui, depuis le toit d’un immeuble de bureaux, domine toute la ville a de quoi rendre définitivement jaloux tous les cinéastes maniéristes de hong-kong et des états-unis ! un homme meurt et la terre continue à tourner… ou, plus exactement, la terre se remet à tourner et un homme meurt… »
> début de ma chronique de « house of bamboo » sur le site de la médiathèque

In a previous post, I wrote about the Navy Cessna T-47, a missionized Cessna Citation used in the Undergraduate Naval Flight Officer program back in 1984-92.

US Navy Cessna T-47A

The story of military Citations, however, did not end there. I also wrote about the Army and Marine UC-35. There is yet another chapter in the Citation story.

In June 1995, USAF awarded Cessna a $40.8 million contract for five OT-47B Tracker aircraft for DoD’s counter-drug missions. Although based on the original T-47A, the OT-47B incorporated a longer fuselage, upgraded engines, the radar from the F-16 Fighting Falcon, and an infrared imaging system. The Trackers are operated by Aviation Development Corp., with headquarters at Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Alabama (which may be a CIA-run company).

Some years ago, I discussed this program with Lt Col Frank Pratt in the Reconnaissance Systems Program Office at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio, who confirmed that the aircraft would be used in operations where the Rules of Engagement were uncertain and where the “bad guys” were, indeed, truly “bad.”

Available records indicate that an OT-47B (crewed by three contractor pilots and a Peruvian Air Force officer) monitored the downing of a US missionary plane by a Peruvian Air Force Cessna A-37B Dragonfly on April 20, 2001.

Cessna A-37

Firefox add-on for citation analysis

http://tenurometer.indiana.edu/

For all the researches we have done for school, “cite your source” is probably the most used phrase we’ve heard from our teachers.

The New Oxford American Dictionary defines citation as

ci-ta-tion (abbr.: cit.) > n. 1 a quotation from or reference to a book, paper or author, esp. in a scholarly work.

A citation is required to give due respect to the owners of the idea we borrowed for our research papers and thesis. This saves an individual from violating the copyright law. Citing one’s source also helps other people read more about the topic of the research.

There are several ways how to cite a source, the more common styles of citation are APA (American Psychological Association) and MLA (Modern Language Association). While the styles vary, most of these give the reader an idea what the title is, who the authors are and when and where the material was published. For some, citation is a very taxing activity but with the aid of websites, citation nowadays can be done in a breeze. All you have to do is plug in the required information and the existing online program will give you the desired format.

The following are some of the programs available online that format your bibliographic information into the required format:

BibMe:  BibMe has a database of titles.  No log-in is required to access the database.  Users will just input the title, author or ISBN number and a list will be generated.  Once a title is selected, the formatted bibliographic data will appear on the upper right portion of the screen.  You can choose the style and opt to download the formatted data in MS Word format.

(click to enlarge)

CitationMachine: Citation Machine is another online program that can help users properly cite a material. The website starts with the style choices and then by clicking on the link provided, a menu of materials is displayed. This allows the user to choose the proper formatting for the specified material — book, journal, web document, etc. This website requires that the user is familiar with the publisher, the exact title and the author. It is manual in the sense that the user has to look for the required information before clicking on the submit button but the program automatically format the bib info provided according to the chosen style. An ISBN lookup is also available in this website, wherein the user plugs the ISBN number and the matching bibliographic information is displayed. This program allows the user to edit the information (just in case there is a discrepancy in the edition, page number, etc.) before clicking on the submit button.

(click picture to enlarge)

To download the complete article, click HERE.

Sources:The New Oxford American Dictionary. 2 ed. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2005. Print.“BibMe: Fast & Easy Bibliography Maker – MLA, APA, Chicago, Turabian – Free.” BibMe: Fast & Easy Bibliography Maker – MLA, APA, Chicago, Turabian – Free. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. <http://www.bibme.org/>.“Son of Citation Machine.” Son of Citation Machine. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. <http://citationmachine.net/index2.php>.

“Ok dad. Let’s do it. Let’s go get the shit kicked out of us by love”

Do you realize ?
Do you realize ?
To look into her eyes
And to let her go

To pass it on to him
To pass it on to him
To pass it on to him

Now everything was quiet
I would have sworn that she had died
And i didn’t even try…

dEUS – Bad Timing

Participants in the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Biennial will

Explore the possibility of large-scale effective social mobilization in a time that lacks centralized force, spiritual solidarity and practical organization – Ou Ning, Biennial Curator.

In the context of Shenzhen’s thirty year history, the word “mobilization” resonates ironically. In 1966, Mao Zedong began the Cultural Revolution by mobilizing Chinese youth to prevent the restoration of capitalism through ongoing class struggle. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping initiated Reform and Opening by mobilizing the national engineering corps, architects, and reform-mind cadres to plan and build a Special Economic Zone, where elements of capitalism would be deployed to finance modernization projects throughout China. In other words, the construction of Shenzhen was a countermeasure to large-scale social mobilization during the Cultural Revolution and the city itself is the product of effective social mobilization under the auspices of modernization. Juxtaposed with the stated aims of the Biennial, Shenzhen’s history thus begs the question, “Why mobilization? Why now?”

With respect to the history of Shenzhen, I believe that Biennial organizers’ call for mobilization is a call for shared symbols and myths – spiritual solidarity, rather than a call for either centralized force or practical action. After all, Shenzhen’s success is direct result of the city’s capacity to organize an estimated 12-14 million people into hierarchically related networks of production, trade, and consumption. This level of sustained economic productivity speaks to the presence of highly effective means of large-scale social mobilization. In contrast, what Shenzhen residents lack – and I would argue yearn for – is a shared story of what it means to inhabit and belong to the city. Over the past thirty years, unprecedented migration has transformed the population, so that Shenzheners have limited experience of membership in shared social networks. Land reclamation and leveling projects have reshaped the landscape, so that residents have few experiences of sharing common space. Moreover, massive construction has repeatedly leveled old landmarks, such that even long-term Shenzhen residents have difficulty revisiting once meaningful places.

The call for spiritual solidarity is a call for an antidote to the effects of the scale and scope of social transformation that has defined urbanization not just in Shenzhen, but also in other cities, in other times. Early modern sociologists like Max Weber and Emile Durkheim have shown how industrialization and rural migration not only re-created European cities, but also disrupted traditional social networks, common spaces, and familiar landmarks. These old school scholars may have used unfamiliar jargon such as secularization, disenchantment, and ennui to describe the social effects of industrial urbanization, but their research points to a common experience – the loss of meaning that accompanies large-scale social transformation. Human beings use shared symbols and places and histories in order to orient ourselves to one another. Members of traditional societies enjoy spiritual solidarity precisely because they share ways of thinking, acting, and day-to-day living. When we leave those worlds – migrating to the city from rural villages, for example – we loose our sense of self to the extent that we cannot use traditional symbols either to orient or to describe our experience. Like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, migrants to Shenzhen aren’t in Kansas anymore. They’ve ridden a tornado of change to a whole new world and are looking for a way home.

Shenzhen residents are trying to create new forms of spiritual solidarity because they find themselves in unfamiliar territory. Like earlier migrants to fin-de-siecle Berlin and Paris that Weber and Durkheim studied one hundred years ago, Shenzhen migrants are transforming traditional values, places, and lifeways both to meet and to create unprecedented social situations. However, contemporary Chinese society is changing faster and bigger than did turn-of-the-century German and French societies. Moreover, Shenzhen has erupted in the context of globalization, which is itself a new kind of momentous social change. Contemporary urbanization is not simply a question of rural migration and concomitant industrialization, but also the manifestation of massive social restructuring on a global scale. Shenzhen resembles contemporary cities worldwide in that the new migrants come from an array of social backgrounds and cultures, with different educations, cultures, and even national histories. Those of us who didn’t ride the tornado aren’t in Kansas anymore either; Oz has come to us and we can’t go home because we’re already here.

The Biennial provides an opportunity for cross-cultural discussion of how cities – like Shenzhen and not – might become sites for and the objects of spiritual solidarity. It is a difficult discussion because we must negotiate different histories and cultures in very different languages. Architecture provides a common point of departure for these conversations because most of us live in (or against) a city. Neon and teles and cars (oh my!) provide common, if abstract, landmarks. However, as Ou Ning indicates, this is just the beginning. It is not enough to move people from place to place, or even enough to build new places with each move. Instead, we must figure out how to ride the maelstrom because even if we were once at home in Shenzhen, we’re not there anymore either.

This commentary was first published in that’s prd.

It seems that it is possible (to some extent at least) to exclude self-citation in Google Scholar, this is how:

1. Search for author name in the usual way
2. Click “cited by number“
3. Identify how Google Scholar represents the name you want to exclude in the hits (typically “A Name”)
4. Add a standard Google query string which excludes the name you identified in point 3 to your current citation url in the following format &q=-”A Name”

A practical example of removing self-reference: Aspects of the theory of syntax by N Chomsky without self citation:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7563750853896762876&hl=en&as_sdt=2000&q=-”N Chomsky”

This reduces the original number of hits from “around 12,350″ to “around 11,600″.

Perhaps this is useful? Feedback?

Moving Violations

Misdemeanor

Traffic Citation

KULLMANN, KLEIN AND DIONEDA,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

KULLMANN, KLEIN AND DIONEDA, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SERVING MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS

Gary Kullmann, Andrew Klein and Steve Dioneda, Attorneys At Law

“One of us will meet with you and personally handle your case.”

Severe penalties and fines can be imposed as a result of being charged with a misdemeanor or traffic violation.  Please call the law firm of Kullmann, Klein & Dioneda (314) 772-0000 for professional legal advice.  For your convenience, we have law offices located in both Missouri and Illinois.

LAW OFFICES IN:  St. Louis, St. Charles and  Granite City

 Visit us online at:  www.kkdpc.com

Kullmann, Klein & Dioneda:

“Let us protect your rights.”

When California Vehicle Code Section 23104 is cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California, and the person found to be in violation of this Vehicle Code Section is the other driver involved in your accident, this can greatly assist a personal injury lawyer in settling your accident insurance claim for a substantial settlement or even the policy limits if your injuries are extensive. This is even more true in the case of fatal accidents which cause one or more fatalities. Although a traffic collision report is not evidence, insurance companies treat them as if they are as discussed below.

However, due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident should always retain an attorney to represent them at the earliest possible date after an accident. Unless you haven’t been injured and won’t be needing medical treatment, an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer will almost always be able to obtain a considerably larger settlement from an insurance company and a larger amount for you, even after the attorney’s fees and costs are paid.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we work on a contingency fee basis, which means that unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your case, there is no fee payable to us. Even if we’ve incurred costs, such as the costs of obtaining your medical records, no fee is payable to us, unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your favor. Starting with the personal injury consultation which is also free, and which can be by phone or in person depending on our mutual availability, you never receive a bill from us on any case we take on contingency. Unlike other attorneys who ask you to pay the costs involved with your case, we simply don’t believe you should have to pay those costs yourself.

We’ll also advise you how to obtain reimbursement for your car repairs or if your vehicle is totaled, for the value of your vehicle, and any amount you receive for the vehicle is yours to be used by you for the repairs or to replace your vehicle. At the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson we never take any portion of your property damage settlement and we can also advise you how to obtain payment for a new child safety seat if one was in use at the time of the accident.

California Vehicle Code Section 23104 provides:

23104. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), whenever reckless driving of a vehicle proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver, the person driving the vehicle shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than six months or by a fine of not less than two hundred twenty dollars ($220) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment. (b) A person convicted of reckless driving that proximately causes great bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7 of the Penal Code, to a person other than the driver, who previously has been convicted of a violation of Section 23103, 23104, 23105, 23109, 23109.1, 23152, or 23153, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than six months or by a fine of not less than two hundred twenty dollars ($220) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by both the fine and imprisonment.

When a Police or CHP Officer, or a Sheriff’s Deputy states in his or her report either that the primary collision factor in an auto accident was one party’s violation of a certain vehicle code section such as the one above, and that one of the parties is at fault for violating that code section, the Officer or Deputy is stating what he or she believes to be the underlying cause of the accident.

The reason insurance companies treat the collision reports as if they are admissible evidence is that they know if put on the witness stand, the investigating officer or deputy will almost always testify in a manner consistent with the conclusions in his or her report. That testimony becomes evidence and will often sway a jury in their determination of fault for an accident.

While an investigating officer’s job is to determine if there was a violation of the law and not to determine who should be at fault in a civil dispute such as a car accident claim, insurance companies often view these two determinations as one and the same.

A police officer assigned to investigate the scene of an accident does not have the role that a trier of fact does in a courtroom. The officer is not there to render a verdict and determine who is responsible for the damages. Rather, the officer is there to determine if any laws were broken. The officer makes such a determination based on his or her having seen the damage to the vehicles, and having spoken to the drivers and the witnesses when their memories are freshest. He or she is thus often in a position to make a well-educated determination of who caused the accident.

Unfortunately, despite the experience of most investigating officers who are dispatched to the scene of an accident, sometimes mistakes are made by these officers. Quite often one or both parties to an accident will lie to them and an officer or deputy will not always be able to determine which of the parties is telling the truth. The evidence from the scene, while important, may also be misleading as to what actually occurred to cause the accident.

If you’ve been injured in an auto, truck, motorcycle, bike, pedestrian or car accident, or if you’ve lost a loved one in a wrongful death vehicle accident, call our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can also e-mail Attorney Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website for more information at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

Sometimes an Officer or Deputy cannot determine with any degree of certainty which party was at fault and will cite two possible Vehicle Code Sections, one for each party in a two-party collision, that may have been violated. In that case, the Police or CHP Officer or Deputy will often state that the primary collision factor is unknown.

Even if there are witnesses to an accident, the Officer of Deputy may discount the statements of some or all of the witnesses if they were friends or relatives of one of the drivers.

Although, as stated above, the conclusion of fault by an officer or deputy does not carry the same weight as a determination of fault by a judge or jury, the importance of the citation of this or any other California code section in the police report is that insurance companies treat the conclusions in these traffic collision reports in a great majority of cases as if the conclusions were written in stone and evaluate a party’s claim based on the findings of fault in these reports.

A traffic collision report may be amended by the police department or the CHP where it contains obvious mistakes, such as when the officer or deputy has mixed up the names of the parties. Supplemental reports are sometimes written when new evidence comes to light, such as when a hit and run party is located. But for the most part, most police departments, Sheriff’s offices and the California Highway Patrol will not amend a report when a party complains and states why he or she doesn’t feel they should have been found at fault for a collision. They will, however, in most cases allow a person to fill out a Counter Report, which, unfortunately simply does not carry much weight with an insurance company.

If the Primary Collision Factor for an accident is unknown, one should look on the traffic collision report to see if the Police or California Highway Patrol Officer or Sheriff’s Deputy cited any “Other Associated Factors” in the traffic collision report as having had a role to play in causing the collision. There may have been faulty equipment, as with some truck accidents, or the roadway itself may have been dangerous.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident in California that has been determined by the investigating Police or CHP Officer or a Sheriff’s Deputy to be the fault of another driver as a result of his or her violation of Vehicle Code Section 23104, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson as soon after an accident as possible before important evidence disappears, such as skid marks that are washed away with the rain.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as Section 23104, and will represent you to obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries.

In over thirty years of practice, Attorney Sebastian Gibson has obtained millions of dollars in settlements and multiple million dollar or larger settlements. We handle auto accident cases on a contingency fee basis so there is no fee payable unless we win your case and obtain either a settlement, an arbitration, mediation, jury, judge or court award.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident, call to speak with a lawyer at our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can speak to Attorney Sebastian Gibson personally by phone or you can e-mail Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com or visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

When California Vehicle Code Section 23103 is cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California, and the person found to be in violation of this Vehicle Code Section is the other driver involved in your accident, this can greatly assist a personal injury lawyer in settling your accident insurance claim for a substantial settlement or even the policy limits if your injuries are extensive. This is even more true in the case of fatal accidents which cause one or more fatalities. Although a traffic collision report is not evidence, insurance companies treat them as if they are as discussed below.

However, due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident should always retain an attorney to represent them at the earliest possible date after an accident. Unless you haven’t been injured and won’t be needing medical treatment, an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer will almost always be able to obtain a considerably larger settlement from an insurance company and a larger amount for you, even after the attorney’s fees and costs are paid.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we work on a contingency fee basis, which means that unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your case, there is no fee payable to us. Even if we’ve incurred costs, such as the costs of obtaining your medical records, no fee is payable to us, unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your favor. Starting with the personal injury consultation which is also free, and which can be by phone or in person depending on our mutual availability, you never receive a bill from us on any case we take on contingency. Unlike other attorneys who ask you to pay the costs involved with your case, we simply don’t believe you should have to pay those costs yourself.

We’ll also advise you how to obtain reimbursement for your car repairs or if your vehicle is totaled, for the value of your vehicle, and any amount you receive for the vehicle is yours to be used by you for the repairs or to replace your vehicle. At the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson we never take any portion of your property damage settlement and we can also advise you how to obtain payment for a new child safety seat if one was in use at the time of the accident.

California Vehicle Code Section 23103 provides:

23103. (a) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. (b) A person who drives a vehicle in an offstreet parking facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. (c) Persons convicted of the offense of reckless driving shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, except as provided in Section 23104 or 23105.

When a Police or CHP Officer, or a Sheriff’s Deputy states in his or her report either that the primary collision factor in an auto accident was one party’s violation of a certain vehicle code section such as the one above, and that one of the parties is at fault for violating that code section, the Officer or Deputy is stating what he or she believes to be the underlying cause of the accident.

The reason insurance companies treat the collision reports as if they are admissible evidence is that they know if put on the witness stand, the investigating officer or deputy will almost always testify in a manner consistent with the conclusions in his or her report. That testimony becomes evidence and will often sway a jury in their determination of fault for an accident.

While an investigating officer’s job is to determine if there was a violation of the law and not to determine who should be at fault in a civil dispute such as a car accident claim, insurance companies often view these two determinations as one and the same.

A police officer assigned to investigate the scene of an accident does not have the role that a trier of fact does in a courtroom. The officer is not there to render a verdict and determine who is responsible for the damages. Rather, the officer is there to determine if any laws were broken. The officer makes such a determination based on his or her having seen the damage to the vehicles, and having spoken to the drivers and the witnesses when their memories are freshest. He or she is thus often in a position to make a well-educated determination of who caused the accident.

Unfortunately, despite the experience of most investigating officers who are dispatched to the scene of an accident, sometimes mistakes are made by these officers. Quite often one or both parties to an accident will lie to them and an officer or deputy will not always be able to determine which of the parties is telling the truth. The evidence from the scene, while important, may also be misleading as to what actually occurred to cause the accident.

If you’ve been injured in an auto, truck, motorcycle, bike, pedestrian or car accident, or if you’ve lost a loved one in a wrongful death vehicle accident, call our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can also e-mail Attorney Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website for more information at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

Sometimes an Officer or Deputy cannot determine with any degree of certainty which party was at fault and will cite two possible Vehicle Code Sections, one for each party in a two-party collision, that may have been violated. In that case, the Police or CHP Officer or Deputy will often state that the primary collision factor is unknown.

Even if there are witnesses to an accident, the Officer of Deputy may discount the statements of some or all of the witnesses if they were friends or relatives of one of the drivers.

Although, as stated above, the conclusion of fault by an officer or deputy does not carry the same weight as a determination of fault by a judge or jury, the importance of the citation of this or any other California code section in the police report is that insurance companies treat the conclusions in these traffic collision reports in a great majority of cases as if the conclusions were written in stone and evaluate a party’s claim based on the findings of fault in these reports.

A traffic collision report may be amended by the police department or the CHP where it contains obvious mistakes, such as when the officer or deputy has mixed up the names of the parties. Supplemental reports are sometimes written when new evidence comes to light, such as when a hit and run party is located. But for the most part, most police departments, Sheriff’s offices and the California Highway Patrol will not amend a report when a party complains and states why he or she doesn’t feel they should have been found at fault for a collision. They will, however, in most cases allow a person to fill out a Counter Report, which, unfortunately simply does not carry much weight with an insurance company.

If the Primary Collision Factor for an accident is unknown, one should look on the traffic collision report to see if the Police or California Highway Patrol Officer or Sheriff’s Deputy cited any “Other Associated Factors” in the traffic collision report as having had a role to play in causing the collision. There may have been faulty equipment, as with some truck accidents, or the roadway itself may have been dangerous.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident in California that has been determined by the investigating Police or CHP Officer or a Sheriff’s Deputy to be the fault of another driver as a result of his or her violation of Vehicle Code Section 23103, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson as soon after an accident as possible before important evidence disappears, such as skid marks that are washed away with the rain.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as Section 23103, and will represent you to obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries.

In over thirty years of practice, Attorney Sebastian Gibson has obtained millions of dollars in settlements and multiple million dollar or larger settlements. We handle auto accident cases on a contingency fee basis so there is no fee payable unless we win your case and obtain either a settlement, an arbitration, mediation, jury, judge or court award.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident, call to speak with a lawyer at our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can speak to Attorney Sebastian Gibson personally by phone or you can e-mail Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com or visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

When California Vehicle Code Section 21651 is cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California, and the person found to be in violation of this Vehicle Code Section is the other driver involved in your accident, this can greatly assist a personal injury lawyer in settling your accident insurance claim for a substantial settlement or even the policy limits if your injuries are extensive. This is even more true in the case of fatal accidents which cause one or more fatalities. Although a traffic collision report is not evidence, insurance companies treat them as if they are as discussed below.

However, due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident should always retain an attorney to represent them at the earliest possible date after an accident. Unless you haven’t been injured and won’t be needing medical treatment, an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer will almost always be able to obtain a considerably larger settlement from an insurance company and a larger amount for you, even after the attorney’s fees and costs are paid.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we work on a contingency fee basis, which means that unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your case, there is no fee payable to us. Even if we’ve incurred costs, such as the costs of obtaining your medical records, no fee is payable to us, unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your favor. Starting with the personal injury consultation which is also free, and which can be by phone or in person depending on our mutual availability, you never receive a bill from us on any case we take on contingency. Unlike other attorneys who ask you to pay the costs involved with your case, we simply don’t believe you should have to pay those costs yourself.

We’ll also advise you how to obtain reimbursement for your car repairs or if your vehicle is totaled, for the value of your vehicle, and any amount you receive for the vehicle is yours to be used by you for the repairs or to replace your vehicle. At the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson we never take any portion of your property damage settlement and we can also advise you how to obtain payment for a new child safety seat if one was in use at the time of the accident.

California Vehicle Code Section 21651 provides:

21650.1. A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the shoulder of a highway, shall be operated in the same direction as vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway.

When a Police or CHP Officer, or a Sheriff’s Deputy states in his or her report either that the primary collision factor in an auto accident was one party’s violation of a certain vehicle code section such as the one above, and that one of the parties is at fault for violating that code section, the Officer or Deputy is stating what he or she believes to be the underlying cause of the accident.

The reason insurance companies treat the collision reports as if they are admissible evidence is that they know if put on the witness stand, the investigating officer or deputy will almost always testify in a manner consistent with the conclusions in his or her report. That testimony becomes evidence and will often sway a jury in their determination of fault for an accident.

While an investigating officer’s job is to determine if there was a violation of the law and not to determine who should be at fault in a civil dispute such as a car accident claim, insurance companies often view these two determinations as one and the same.

A police officer assigned to investigate the scene of an accident does not have the role that a trier of fact does in a courtroom. The officer is not there to render a verdict and determine who is responsible for the damages. Rather, the officer is there to determine if any laws were broken. The officer makes such a determination based on his or her having seen the damage to the vehicles, and having spoken to the drivers and the witnesses when their memories are freshest. He or she is thus often in a position to make a well-educated determination of who caused the accident.

Unfortunately, despite the experience of most investigating officers who are dispatched to the scene of an accident, sometimes mistakes are made by these officers. Quite often one or both parties to an accident will lie to them and an officer or deputy will not always be able to determine which of the parties is telling the truth. The evidence from the scene, while important, may also be misleading as to what actually occurred to cause the accident.

If you’ve been injured in an auto, truck, motorcycle, bike, pedestrian or car accident, or if you’ve lost a loved one in a wrongful death vehicle accident, call our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can also e-mail Attorney Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website for more information at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

Sometimes an Officer or Deputy cannot determine with any degree of certainty which party was at fault and will cite two possible Vehicle Code Sections, one for each party in a two-party collision, that may have been violated. In that case, the Police or CHP Officer or Deputy will often state that the primary collision factor is unknown.

Even if there are witnesses to an accident, the Officer of Deputy may discount the statements of some or all of the witnesses if they were friends or relatives of one of the drivers.

Although, as stated above, the conclusion of fault by an officer or deputy does not carry the same weight as a determination of fault by a judge or jury, the importance of the citation of this or any other California code section in the police report is that insurance companies treat the conclusions in these traffic collision reports in a great majority of cases as if the conclusions were written in stone and evaluate a party’s claim based on the findings of fault in these reports.

A traffic collision report may be amended by the police department or the CHP where it contains obvious mistakes, such as when the officer or deputy has mixed up the names of the parties. Supplemental reports are sometimes written when new evidence comes to light, such as when a hit and run party is located. But for the most part, most police departments, Sheriff’s offices and the California Highway Patrol will not amend a report when a party complains and states why he or she doesn’t feel they should have been found at fault for a collision. They will, however, in most cases allow a person to fill out a Counter Report, which, unfortunately simply does not carry much weight with an insurance company.

If the Primary Collision Factor for an accident is unknown, one should look on the traffic collision report to see if the Police or California Highway Patrol Officer or Sheriff’s Deputy cited any “Other Associated Factors” in the traffic collision report as having had a role to play in causing the collision. There may have been faulty equipment, as with some truck accidents, or the roadway itself may have been dangerous.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident in California that has been determined by the investigating Police or CHP Officer or a Sheriff’s Deputy to be the fault of another driver as a result of his or her violation of Vehicle Code Section 21651, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson as soon after an accident as possible before important evidence disappears, such as skid marks that are washed away with the rain.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as Section 21651, and will represent you to obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries.

In over thirty years of practice, Attorney Sebastian Gibson has obtained millions of dollars in settlements and multiple million dollar or larger settlements. We handle auto accident cases on a contingency fee basis so there is no fee payable unless we win your case and obtain either a settlement, an arbitration, mediation, jury, judge or court award.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident, call to speak with a lawyer at our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can speak to Attorney Sebastian Gibson personally by phone or you can e-mail Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com or visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

When California Vehicle Code Section 20002 is cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California, and the person found to be in violation of this Vehicle Code Section is the other driver involved in your accident, this can greatly assist a personal injury lawyer in settling your accident insurance claim for a substantial settlement or even the policy limits if your injuries are extensive. This is even more true in the case of fatal accidents which cause one or more fatalities. Although a traffic collision report is not evidence, insurance companies treat them as if they are as discussed below.

However, due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident should always retain an attorney to represent them at the earliest possible date after an accident. Unless you haven’t been injured and won’t be needing medical treatment, an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer will almost always be able to obtain a considerably larger settlement from an insurance company and a larger amount for you, even after the attorney’s fees and costs are paid.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we work on a contingency fee basis, which means that unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your case, there is no fee payable to us. Even if we’ve incurred costs, such as the costs of obtaining your medical records, no fee is payable to us, unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your favor. Starting with the personal injury consultation which is also free, and which can be by phone or in person depending on our mutual availability, you never receive a bill from us on any case we take on contingency. Unlike other attorneys who ask you to pay the costs involved with your case, we simply don’t believe you should have to pay those costs yourself.

We’ll also advise you how to obtain reimbursement for your car repairs or if your vehicle is totaled, for the value of your vehicle, and any amount you receive for the vehicle is yours to be used by you for the repairs or to replace your vehicle. At the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson we never take any portion of your property damage settlement and we can also advise you how to obtain payment for a new child safety seat if one was in use at the time of the accident.

California Vehicle Code Section 20002 provides:

20002. (a) The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting only in damage to any property, including vehicles, shall immediately stop the vehicle at the nearest location that will not impede traffic or otherwise jeopardize the safety of other motorists. Moving the vehicle in accordance with this subdivision does not affect the question of fault. The driver shall also immediately do either of the following: (1) Locate and notify the owner or person in charge of that property of the name and address of the driver and owner of the vehicle involved and, upon locating the driver of any other vehicle involved or the owner or person in charge of any damaged property, upon being requested, present his or her driver’s license, and vehicle registration, to the other driver, property owner, or person in charge of that property. The information presented shall include the current residence address of the driver and of the registered owner. If the registered owner of an involved vehicle is present at the scene, he or she shall also, upon request, present his or her driver’s license information, if available, or other valid identification to the other involved parties. (2) Leave in a conspicuous place on the vehicle or other property damaged a written notice giving the name and address of the driver and of the owner of the vehicle involved and a statement of the circumstances thereof and shall without unnecessary delay notify the police department of the city wherein the collision occurred or, if the collision occurred in unincorporated territory, the local headquarters of the Department of the California Highway Patrol. (b) Any person who parks a vehicle which, prior to the vehicle again being driven, becomes a runaway vehicle and is involved in an accident resulting in damage to any property, attended or unattended, shall comply with the requirements of this section relating to notification and reporting and shall, upon conviction thereof, be liable to the penalties of this section for failure to comply with the requirements. (c) Any person failing to comply with all the requirements of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

When a Police or CHP Officer, or a Sheriff’s Deputy states in his or her report either that the primary collision factor in an auto accident was one party’s violation of a certain vehicle code section such as the one above, and that one of the parties is at fault for violating that code section, the Officer or Deputy is stating what he or she believes to be the underlying cause of the accident.

The reason insurance companies treat the collision reports as if they are admissible evidence is that they know if put on the witness stand, the investigating officer or deputy will almost always testify in a manner consistent with the conclusions in his or her report. That testimony becomes evidence and will often sway a jury in their determination of fault for an accident.

While an investigating officer’s job is to determine if there was a violation of the law and not to determine who should be at fault in a civil dispute such as a car accident claim, insurance companies often view these two determinations as one and the same.

A police officer assigned to investigate the scene of an accident does not have the role that a trier of fact does in a courtroom. The officer is not there to render a verdict and determine who is responsible for the damages. Rather, the officer is there to determine if any laws were broken. The officer makes such a determination based on his or her having seen the damage to the vehicles, and having spoken to the drivers and the witnesses when their memories are freshest. He or she is thus often in a position to make a well-educated determination of who caused the accident.

Unfortunately, despite the experience of most investigating officers who are dispatched to the scene of an accident, sometimes mistakes are made by these officers. Quite often one or both parties to an accident will lie to them and an officer or deputy will not always be able to determine which of the parties is telling the truth. The evidence from the scene, while important, may also be misleading as to what actually occurred to cause the accident.

If you’ve been injured in an auto, truck, motorcycle, bike, pedestrian or car accident, or if you’ve lost a loved one in a wrongful death vehicle accident, call our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can also e-mail Attorney Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website for more information at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

Sometimes an Officer or Deputy cannot determine with any degree of certainty which party was at fault and will cite two possible Vehicle Code Sections, one for each party in a two-party collision, that may have been violated. In that case, the Police or CHP Officer or Deputy will often state that the primary collision factor is unknown.

Even if there are witnesses to an accident, the Officer of Deputy may discount the statements of some or all of the witnesses if they were friends or relatives of one of the drivers.

Although, as stated above, the conclusion of fault by an officer or deputy does not carry the same weight as a determination of fault by a judge or jury, the importance of the citation of this or any other California code section in the police report is that insurance companies treat the conclusions in these traffic collision reports in a great majority of cases as if the conclusions were written in stone and evaluate a party’s claim based on the findings of fault in these reports.

A traffic collision report may be amended by the police department or the CHP where it contains obvious mistakes, such as when the officer or deputy has mixed up the names of the parties. Supplemental reports are sometimes written when new evidence comes to light, such as when a hit and run party is located. But for the most part, most police departments, Sheriff’s offices and the California Highway Patrol will not amend a report when a party complains and states why he or she doesn’t feel they should have been found at fault for a collision. They will, however, in most cases allow a person to fill out a Counter Report, which, unfortunately simply does not carry much weight with an insurance company.

If the Primary Collision Factor for an accident is unknown, one should look on the traffic collision report to see if the Police or California Highway Patrol Officer or Sheriff’s Deputy cited any “Other Associated Factors” in the traffic collision report as having had a role to play in causing the collision. There may have been faulty equipment, as with some truck accidents, or the roadway itself may have been dangerous.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident in California that has been determined by the investigating Police or CHP Officer or a Sheriff’s Deputy to be the fault of another driver as a result of his or her violation of Vehicle Code Section 20002, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson as soon after an accident as possible before important evidence disappears, such as skid marks that are washed away with the rain.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as Section 20002, and will represent you to obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries.

In over thirty years of practice, Attorney Sebastian Gibson has obtained millions of dollars in settlements and multiple million dollar or larger settlements. We handle auto accident cases on a contingency fee basis so there is no fee payable unless we win your case and obtain either a settlement, an arbitration, mediation, jury, judge or court award.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident, call to speak with a lawyer at our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can speak to Attorney Sebastian Gibson personally by phone or you can e-mail Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com or visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

When California Vehicle Code Section 20001 is cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California, and the person found to be in violation of this Vehicle Code Section is the other driver involved in your accident, this can greatly assist a personal injury lawyer in settling your accident insurance claim for a substantial settlement or even the policy limits if your injuries are extensive. This is even more true in the case of fatal accidents which cause one or more fatalities. Although a traffic collision report is not evidence, insurance companies treat them as if they are as discussed below.

However, due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident should always retain an attorney to represent them at the earliest possible date after an accident. Unless you haven’t been injured and won’t be needing medical treatment, an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer will almost always be able to obtain a considerably larger settlement from an insurance company and a larger amount for you, even after the attorney’s fees and costs are paid.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we work on a contingency fee basis, which means that unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your case, there is no fee payable to us. Even if we’ve incurred costs, such as the costs of obtaining your medical records, no fee is payable to us, unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your favor. Starting with the personal injury consultation which is also free, and which can be by phone or in person depending on our mutual availability, you never receive a bill from us on any case we take on contingency. Unlike other attorneys who ask you to pay the costs involved with your case, we simply don’t believe you should have to pay those costs yourself.

We’ll also advise you how to obtain reimbursement for your car repairs or if your vehicle is totaled, for the value of your vehicle, and any amount you receive for the vehicle is yours to be used by you for the repairs or to replace your vehicle. At the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson we never take any portion of your property damage settlement and we can also advise you how to obtain payment for a new child safety seat if one was in use at the time of the accident.

California Vehicle Code Section 20001 provides:

20001. (a) The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to a person, other than himself or herself, or in the death of a person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and shall fulfill the requirements of Sections 20003 and 20004. (b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a person who violates subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. (2) If the accident described in subdivision (a) results in death or permanent, serious injury, a person who violates subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not less than 90 days nor more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. However, the court, in the interests of justice and for reasons stated in the record, may reduce or eliminate the minimum imprisonment required by this paragraph. (3) In imposing the minimum fine required by this subdivision, the court shall take into consideration the defendant’s ability to pay the fine and, in the interests of justice and for reasons stated in the record, may reduce the amount of that minimum fine to less than the amount otherwise required by this subdivision. (c) A person who flees the scene of the crime after committing a violation of Section 191.5 of, or paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the Penal Code, upon conviction of any of those sections, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed, shall be punished by an additional term of imprisonment of five years in the state prison. This additional term shall not be imposed unless the allegation is charged in the accusatory pleading and admitted by the defendant or found to be true by the trier of fact. The court shall not strike a finding that brings a person within the provisions of this subdivision or an allegation made pursuant to this subdivision. (d) As used in this section, “permanent, serious injury” means the loss or permanent impairment of function of a bodily member or organ.

When a Police or CHP Officer, or a Sheriff’s Deputy states in his or her report either that the primary collision factor in an auto accident was one party’s violation of a certain vehicle code section such as the one above, and that one of the parties is at fault for violating that code section, the Officer or Deputy is stating what he or she believes to be the underlying cause of the accident.

The reason insurance companies treat the collision reports as if they are admissible evidence is that they know if put on the witness stand, the investigating officer or deputy will almost always testify in a manner consistent with the conclusions in his or her report. That testimony becomes evidence and will often sway a jury in their determination of fault for an accident.

While an investigating officer’s job is to determine if there was a violation of the law and not to determine who should be at fault in a civil dispute such as a car accident claim, insurance companies often view these two determinations as one and the same.

A police officer assigned to investigate the scene of an accident does not have the role that a trier of fact does in a courtroom. The officer is not there to render a verdict and determine who is responsible for the damages. Rather, the officer is there to determine if any laws were broken. The officer makes such a determination based on his or her having seen the damage to the vehicles, and having spoken to the drivers and the witnesses when their memories are freshest. He or she is thus often in a position to make a well-educated determination of who caused the accident.

Unfortunately, despite the experience of most investigating officers who are dispatched to the scene of an accident, sometimes mistakes are made by these officers. Quite often one or both parties to an accident will lie to them and an officer or deputy will not always be able to determine which of the parties is telling the truth. The evidence from the scene, while important, may also be misleading as to what actually occurred to cause the accident.

If you’ve been injured in an auto, truck, motorcycle, bike, pedestrian or car accident, or if you’ve lost a loved one in a wrongful death vehicle accident, call our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can also e-mail Attorney Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website for more information at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

Sometimes an Officer or Deputy cannot determine with any degree of certainty which party was at fault and will cite two possible Vehicle Code Sections, one for each party in a two-party collision, that may have been violated. In that case, the Police or CHP Officer or Deputy will often state that the primary collision factor is unknown.

Even if there are witnesses to an accident, the Officer of Deputy may discount the statements of some or all of the witnesses if they were friends or relatives of one of the drivers.

Although, as stated above, the conclusion of fault by an officer or deputy does not carry the same weight as a determination of fault by a judge or jury, the importance of the citation of this or any other California code section in the police report is that insurance companies treat the conclusions in these traffic collision reports in a great majority of cases as if the conclusions were written in stone and evaluate a party’s claim based on the findings of fault in these reports.

A traffic collision report may be amended by the police department or the CHP where it contains obvious mistakes, such as when the officer or deputy has mixed up the names of the parties. Supplemental reports are sometimes written when new evidence comes to light, such as when a hit and run party is located. But for the most part, most police departments, Sheriff’s offices and the California Highway Patrol will not amend a report when a party complains and states why he or she doesn’t feel they should have been found at fault for a collision. They will, however, in most cases allow a person to fill out a Counter Report, which, unfortunately simply does not carry much weight with an insurance company.

If the Primary Collision Factor for an accident is unknown, one should look on the traffic collision report to see if the Police or California Highway Patrol Officer or Sheriff’s Deputy cited any “Other Associated Factors” in the traffic collision report as having had a role to play in causing the collision. There may have been faulty equipment, as with some truck accidents, or the roadway itself may have been dangerous.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident in California that has been determined by the investigating Police or CHP Officer or a Sheriff’s Deputy to be the fault of another driver as a result of his or her violation of Vehicle Code Section 20001, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson as soon after an accident as possible before important evidence disappears, such as skid marks that are washed away with the rain.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as Section 20001, and will represent you to obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries.

In over thirty years of practice, Attorney Sebastian Gibson has obtained millions of dollars in settlements and multiple million dollar or larger settlements. We handle auto accident cases on a contingency fee basis so there is no fee payable unless we win your case and obtain either a settlement, an arbitration, mediation, jury, judge or court award.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident, call to speak with a lawyer at our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can speak to Attorney Sebastian Gibson personally by phone or you can e-mail Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com or visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

When California Vehicle Code Section 34501.2 is cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California, and the person found to be in violation of this Vehicle Code Section is the other driver involved in your accident, this can greatly assist a personal injury lawyer in settling your accident insurance claim for a substantial settlement or even the policy limits if your injuries are extensive. This is even more true in the case of fatal accidents which cause one or more fatalities. Although a traffic collision report is not evidence, insurance companies treat them as if they are as discussed below.

However, due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident should always retain an attorney to represent them at the earliest possible date after an accident. Unless you haven’t been injured and won’t be needing medical treatment, an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer will almost always be able to obtain a considerably larger settlement from an insurance company and a larger amount for you, even after the attorney’s fees and costs are paid.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we work on a contingency fee basis, which means that unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your case, there is no fee payable to us. Even if we’ve incurred costs, such as the costs of obtaining your medical records, no fee is payable to us, unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your favor. Starting with the personal injury consultation which is also free, and which can be by phone or in person depending on our mutual availability, you never receive a bill from us on any case we take on contingency. Unlike other attorneys who ask you to pay the costs involved with your case, we simply don’t believe you should have to pay those costs yourself.

We’ll also advise you how to obtain reimbursement for your car repairs or if your vehicle is totaled, for the value of your vehicle, and any amount you receive for the vehicle is yours to be used by you for the repairs or to replace your vehicle. At the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson we never take any portion of your property damage settlement and we can also advise you how to obtain payment for a new child safety seat if one was in use at the time of the accident.

California Vehicle Code Section 34501.2 provides:

34501.2. (a) The regulations adopted under Section 34501 for vehicles engaged in interstate or intrastate commerce shall establish hours-of-service regulations for drivers of those vehicles that are consistent with the hours-of-service regulations adopted by the United States Department of Transportation in Part 395 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as those regulations now exist or are hereafter amended. (b) The regulations adopted under Section 34501 for vehicles engaged in intrastate commerce that are not transporting hazardous substances or hazardous waste, as those terms are defined by regulations in Section 171.8 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as those regulations now exist or are hereafter amended, shall have the following exceptions: (1) The maximum driving time within a work period shall be 12 hours for a driver of a truck or truck tractor, except for a driver of a tank vehicle with a capacity of more than 500 gallons transporting flammable liquid, who shall not drive for more than 10 hours within a work period. (2) No motor carrier shall permit or require a driver to drive, nor shall any driver drive, for any period after having been on duty for 80 hours in any consecutive eight days. (3) A driver employed by an electrical corporation, as defined in Section 218 of the Public Utilities Code, a gas corporation, as defined in Section 222 of that code, a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of that code, a water corporation, as defined in Section 241 of that code, or a public water district as defined in Section 20200 of the Water Code, may be permitted or required to drive more than the number of hours specified in subdivision (a) while operating a public utility or public water district vehicle during the emergency restoration of service. (4) Any other exceptions applicable to drivers assigned to governmental fire suppression and prevention, as determined by the department. (5) A driver employed by a law enforcement agency, as defined in Section 390.3(f)(2) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as that section now exists or is hereafter amended, during an emergency or to restore the public peace. (c) The regulations adopted under Section 34501 for vehicles engaged in the transportation of farm products in intrastate commerce shall include all of the following provisions: (1) A driver employed by an agricultural carrier, including a carrier holding a seasonal permit, or by a private carrier, when transporting farm products from the field to the first point of processing or packing, shall not drive for any period after having been on duty 16 hours or more following eight consecutive hours off duty and shall not drive for any period after having been on duty for 112 hours in any consecutive eight-day period, except that a driver transporting special situation farm products from the field to the first point of processing or packing, or transporting livestock from pasture to pasture, may be permitted, during one period of not more than 28 consecutive days or a combination of two periods totaling not more than 28 days in a calendar year, to drive for not more than 12 hours during any workday of not more than 16 hours. A driver who thereby exceeds the driving time limits specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) shall maintain a driver’s record of duty status, and shall keep a duplicate copy in his or her possession when driving a vehicle subject to this chapter. These records shall be presented immediately upon request by any authorized employee of the department, or any police officer or deputy sheriff. (2) Upon the request of the Director of Food and Agriculture, the commissioner may, for good cause, temporarily waive the maximum on-duty time limits applicable to any eight-day period when an emergency exists due to inclement weather, natural disaster, or an adverse economic condition that threatens to disrupt the orderly movement of farm products during harvest for the duration of the emergency. For purposes of this paragraph, an emergency does not include a strike or labor dispute. (3) For purposes of this subdivision, the following terms have the following meanings: (A) “Farm products” means every agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, or vegetable product of the soil, honey and beeswax, oilseeds, poultry, livestock, milk, or timber. (B) “First point of processing or packing” means a location where farm products are dried, canned, extracted, fermented, distilled, frozen, ginned, eviscerated, pasteurized, packed, packaged, bottled, conditioned, or otherwise manufactured, processed, or preserved for distribution in wholesale or retail markets. (C) “Special situation farm products” means fruit, tomatoes, sugar beets, grains, wine grapes, grape concentrate, cotton, or nuts.

When a Police or CHP Officer, or a Sheriff’s Deputy states in his or her report either that the primary collision factor in an auto accident was one party’s violation of a certain vehicle code section such as the one above, and that one of the parties is at fault for violating that code section, the Officer or Deputy is stating what he or she believes to be the underlying cause of the accident.

The reason insurance companies treat the collision reports as if they are admissible evidence is that they know if put on the witness stand, the investigating officer or deputy will almost always testify in a manner consistent with the conclusions in his or her report. That testimony becomes evidence and will often sway a jury in their determination of fault for an accident.

While an investigating officer’s job is to determine if there was a violation of the law and not to determine who should be at fault in a civil dispute such as a car accident claim, insurance companies often view these two determinations as one and the same.

A police officer assigned to investigate the scene of an accident does not have the role that a trier of fact does in a courtroom. The officer is not there to render a verdict and determine who is responsible for the damages. Rather, the officer is there to determine if any laws were broken. The officer makes such a determination based on his or her having seen the damage to the vehicles, and having spoken to the drivers and the witnesses when their memories are freshest. He or she is thus often in a position to make a well-educated determination of who caused the accident.

Unfortunately, despite the experience of most investigating officers who are dispatched to the scene of an accident, sometimes mistakes are made by these officers. Quite often one or both parties to an accident will lie to them and an officer or deputy will not always be able to determine which of the parties is telling the truth. The evidence from the scene, while important, may also be misleading as to what actually occurred to cause the accident.

If you’ve been injured in an auto, truck, motorcycle, bike, pedestrian or car accident, or if you’ve lost a loved one in a wrongful death vehicle accident, call our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can also e-mail Attorney Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website for more information at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

Sometimes an Officer or Deputy cannot determine with any degree of certainty which party was at fault and will cite two possible Vehicle Code Sections, one for each party in a two-party collision, that may have been violated. In that case, the Police or CHP Officer or Deputy will often state that the primary collision factor is unknown.

Even if there are witnesses to an accident, the Officer of Deputy may discount the statements of some or all of the witnesses if they were friends or relatives of one of the drivers.

Although, as stated above, the conclusion of fault by an officer or deputy does not carry the same weight as a determination of fault by a judge or jury, the importance of the citation of this or any other California code section in the police report is that insurance companies treat the conclusions in these traffic collision reports in a great majority of cases as if the conclusions were written in stone and evaluate a party’s claim based on the findings of fault in these reports.

A traffic collision report may be amended by the police department or the CHP where it contains obvious mistakes, such as when the officer or deputy has mixed up the names of the parties. Supplemental reports are sometimes written when new evidence comes to light, such as when a hit and run party is located. But for the most part, most police departments, Sheriff’s offices and the California Highway Patrol will not amend a report when a party complains and states why he or she doesn’t feel they should have been found at fault for a collision. They will, however, in most cases allow a person to fill out a Counter Report, which, unfortunately simply does not carry much weight with an insurance company.

If the Primary Collision Factor for an accident is unknown, one should look on the traffic collision report to see if the Police or California Highway Patrol Officer or Sheriff’s Deputy cited any “Other Associated Factors” in the traffic collision report as having had a role to play in causing the collision. There may have been faulty equipment, as with some truck accidents, or the roadway itself may have been dangerous.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident in California that has been determined by the investigating Police or CHP Officer or a Sheriff’s Deputy to be the fault of another driver as a result of his or her violation of Vehicle Code Section 34501.2, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson as soon after an accident as possible before important evidence disappears, such as skid marks that are washed away with the rain.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as Section 34501.2, and will represent you to obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries.

In over thirty years of practice, Attorney Sebastian Gibson has obtained millions of dollars in settlements and multiple million dollar or larger settlements. We handle auto accident cases on a contingency fee basis so there is no fee payable unless we win your case and obtain either a settlement, an arbitration, mediation, jury, judge or court award.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident, call to speak with a lawyer at our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can speak to Attorney Sebastian Gibson personally by phone or you can e-mail Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com or visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

When California Vehicle Code Section 27360.5 is cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California, and the person found to be in violation of this Vehicle Code Section is the other driver involved in your accident, this can greatly assist a personal injury lawyer in settling your accident insurance claim for a substantial settlement or even the policy limits if your injuries are extensive. This is even more true in the case of fatal accidents which cause one or more fatalities. Although a traffic collision report is not evidence, insurance companies treat them as if they are as discussed below.

However, due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident should always retain an attorney to represent them at the earliest possible date after an accident. Unless you haven’t been injured and won’t be needing medical treatment, an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer will almost always be able to obtain a considerably larger settlement from an insurance company and a larger amount for you, even after the attorney’s fees and costs are paid.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we work on a contingency fee basis, which means that unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your case, there is no fee payable to us. Even if we’ve incurred costs, such as the costs of obtaining your medical records, no fee is payable to us, unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your favor. Starting with the personal injury consultation which is also free, and which can be by phone or in person depending on our mutual availability, you never receive a bill from us on any case we take on contingency. Unlike other attorneys who ask you to pay the costs involved with your case, we simply don’t believe you should have to pay those costs yourself.

We’ll also advise you how to obtain reimbursement for your car repairs or if your vehicle is totaled, for the value of your vehicle, and any amount you receive for the vehicle is yours to be used by you for the repairs or to replace your vehicle. At the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson we never take any portion of your property damage settlement and we can also advise you how to obtain payment for a new child safety seat if one was in use at the time of the accident.

California Vehicle Code Section 27360.5 provides:

27360.5. (a) No parent or legal guardian, when present in a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, may permit his or her child or ward who is six years of age or older, but less than 16 years of age, or who is less than six years of age and weighs 60 pounds or more to be transported upon a highway in the motor vehicle without properly securing the child or ward in an appropriate child passenger restraint system or safety belt meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. (b) No driver may transport on a highway any child who is six years of age or older, but less than 16 years of age, or who is less than six years of age and weighs 60 pounds or more in a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, without properly securing the child in a child passenger restraint system or safety belt meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. This subdivision does not apply to a driver if the parent or legal guardian of the child is also present in the vehicle and is not the driver. (c) (1) A first offense under this section is punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100), except that the court may reduce or waive the fine if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he or she is economically disadvantaged, and the court, instead, refers the defendant to a child restraint education program that includes, but is not limited to, demonstration of the proper installation and use of child passenger restraint systems for children of all ages, and provides economically disadvantaged families with a child passenger restraint low-cost purchase or loaner program. Upon completion of the program, the defendant shall provide proof of participation in the program that includes an inspection of a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal safety standards. If an education program on the proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system is not available within 50 miles of the residence of the defendant, the requirement to participate in that program shall be waived. If the fine is paid, waived, or reduced, the court shall report the conviction to the department pursuant to Section 1803. The court may, at its discretion, require any defendant described under this section to attend an education program that includes demonstration of proper installation and use of child passenger restraint systems and provides certification to the court that the defendant has presented for inspection a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal safety standards. (2) A second or subsequent offense under this section is punishable by a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250), no part of which may be waived by the court, except that the court may reduce or waive the fine if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he or she is economically disadvantaged, and the court, instead refers the defendant to a community education program that includes, but is not limited to, education on the proper installation and use of child passenger restraint systems for children of all ages, and provides certification to the court of completion of that program. Upon completion of the program, the defendant shall provide proof of participation in the program. If an education program on the proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system is not available within 50 miles of the residence of the defendant, the requirement to participate in that program shall be waived. If the fine is paid, waived, or reduced, the court shall report the conviction to the department pursuant to Section 1803. The court may at its discretion, require any defendant described under this section to attend an education program that includes demonstration of proper installation and use of child passenger restraint systems and provides certification to the court that the defendant has presented for inspection a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal safety standards. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the fines collected for a violation of this section shall be allocated as follows: (1) Sixty percent to county or city health departments where the violation occurred, to be used for an education program that includes, but is not limited to, the demonstration of proper installation and use of child passenger restraint systems for children of all ages and provides child restraints for loan or low-cost purchase. (2) Twenty-five percent to the county or city for the administration of the program. (3) Fifteen percent to the city, to be deposited in its general fund except that, if the violation occurred in an unincorporated area, this amount shall be allocated to the county for purposes of paragraph (1).

When a Police or CHP Officer, or a Sheriff’s Deputy states in his or her report either that the primary collision factor in an auto accident was one party’s violation of a certain vehicle code section such as the one above, and that one of the parties is at fault for violating that code section, the Officer or Deputy is stating what he or she believes to be the underlying cause of the accident.

The reason insurance companies treat the collision reports as if they are admissible evidence is that they know if put on the witness stand, the investigating officer or deputy will almost always testify in a manner consistent with the conclusions in his or her report. That testimony becomes evidence and will often sway a jury in their determination of fault for an accident.

While an investigating officer’s job is to determine if there was a violation of the law and not to determine who should be at fault in a civil dispute such as a car accident claim, insurance companies often view these two determinations as one and the same.

A police officer assigned to investigate the scene of an accident does not have the role that a trier of fact does in a courtroom. The officer is not there to render a verdict and determine who is responsible for the damages. Rather, the officer is there to determine if any laws were broken. The officer makes such a determination based on his or her having seen the damage to the vehicles, and having spoken to the drivers and the witnesses when their memories are freshest. He or she is thus often in a position to make a well-educated determination of who caused the accident.

Unfortunately, despite the experience of most investigating officers who are dispatched to the scene of an accident, sometimes mistakes are made by these officers. Quite often one or both parties to an accident will lie to them and an officer or deputy will not always be able to determine which of the parties is telling the truth. The evidence from the scene, while important, may also be misleading as to what actually occurred to cause the accident.

If you’ve been injured in an auto, truck, motorcycle, bike, pedestrian or car accident, or if you’ve lost a loved one in a wrongful death vehicle accident, call our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can also e-mail Attorney Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website for more information at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

Sometimes an Officer or Deputy cannot determine with any degree of certainty which party was at fault and will cite two possible Vehicle Code Sections, one for each party in a two-party collision, that may have been violated. In that case, the Police or CHP Officer or Deputy will often state that the primary collision factor is unknown.

Even if there are witnesses to an accident, the Officer of Deputy may discount the statements of some or all of the witnesses if they were friends or relatives of one of the drivers.

Although, as stated above, the conclusion of fault by an officer or deputy does not carry the same weight as a determination of fault by a judge or jury, the importance of the citation of this or any other California code section in the police report is that insurance companies treat the conclusions in these traffic collision reports in a great majority of cases as if the conclusions were written in stone and evaluate a party’s claim based on the findings of fault in these reports.

A traffic collision report may be amended by the police department or the CHP where it contains obvious mistakes, such as when the officer or deputy has mixed up the names of the parties. Supplemental reports are sometimes written when new evidence comes to light, such as when a hit and run party is located. But for the most part, most police departments, Sheriff’s offices and the California Highway Patrol will not amend a report when a party complains and states why he or she doesn’t feel they should have been found at fault for a collision. They will, however, in most cases allow a person to fill out a Counter Report, which, unfortunately simply does not carry much weight with an insurance company.

If the Primary Collision Factor for an accident is unknown, one should look on the traffic collision report to see if the Police or California Highway Patrol Officer or Sheriff’s Deputy cited any “Other Associated Factors” in the traffic collision report as having had a role to play in causing the collision. There may have been faulty equipment, as with some truck accidents, or the roadway itself may have been dangerous.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident in California that has been determined by the investigating Police or CHP Officer or a Sheriff’s Deputy to be the fault of another driver as a result of his or her violation of Vehicle Code Section 27360.5, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson as soon after an accident as possible before important evidence disappears, such as skid marks that are washed away with the rain.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as Section 27360.5, and will represent you to obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries.

In over thirty years of practice, Attorney Sebastian Gibson has obtained millions of dollars in settlements and multiple million dollar or larger settlements. We handle auto accident cases on a contingency fee basis so there is no fee payable unless we win your case and obtain either a settlement, an arbitration, mediation, jury, judge or court award.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident, call to speak with a lawyer at our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can speak to Attorney Sebastian Gibson personally by phone or you can e-mail Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com or visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

When California Vehicle Code Section 27360 is cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California, and the person found to be in violation of this Vehicle Code Section is the other driver involved in your accident, this can greatly assist a personal injury lawyer in settling your accident insurance claim for a substantial settlement or even the policy limits if your injuries are extensive. This is even more true in the case of fatal accidents which cause one or more fatalities. Although a traffic collision report is not evidence, insurance companies treat them as if they are as discussed below.

However, due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident should always retain an attorney to represent them at the earliest possible date after an accident. Unless you haven’t been injured and won’t be needing medical treatment, an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer will almost always be able to obtain a considerably larger settlement from an insurance company and a larger amount for you, even after the attorney’s fees and costs are paid.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we work on a contingency fee basis, which means that unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your case, there is no fee payable to us. Even if we’ve incurred costs, such as the costs of obtaining your medical records, no fee is payable to us, unless we obtain a settlement or judgement in your favor. Starting with the personal injury consultation which is also free, and which can be by phone or in person depending on our mutual availability, you never receive a bill from us on any case we take on contingency. Unlike other attorneys who ask you to pay the costs involved with your case, we simply don’t believe you should have to pay those costs yourself.

We’ll also advise you how to obtain reimbursement for your car repairs or if your vehicle is totaled, for the value of your vehicle, and any amount you receive for the vehicle is yours to be used by you for the repairs or to replace your vehicle. At the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson we never take any portion of your property damage settlement and we can also advise you how to obtain payment for a new child safety seat if one was in use at the time of the accident.

California Vehicle Code Section 27360 provides:

27360. (a) A parent or legal guardian, when present in a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, may not permit his or her child or ward to be transported upon a highway in the motor vehicle without properly securing the child or ward in a rear seat in a child passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless the child or ward is one of the following: (1) Six years of age or older. (2) Sixty pounds or more. (b) (1) A driver may not transport on a highway a child in a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, without properly securing the child in a rear seat in a child passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless the child is one of the following: (A) Six years of age or older. (B) Sixty pounds or more. (2) This subdivision does not apply to a driver if the parent or legal guardian of the child is also present in the vehicle and is not the driver. (c) (1) For purposes of subdivisions (a) and (b), and except as provided in paragraph (2), a child or ward under the age of six years who weighs less than 60 pounds may ride in the front seat of a motor vehicle, if properly secured in a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, under any of the following circumstances: (A) There is no rear seat. (B) The rear seats are side-facing jump seats. (C) The rear seats are rear-facing seats. (D) The child passenger restraint system cannot be installed properly in the rear seat. (E) All rear seats are already occupied by children under the age of 12 years. (F) Medical reasons necessitate that the child or ward not ride in the rear seat. The court may require satisfactory proof of the child’ s medical condition. (2) A child or ward may not ride in the front seat of a motor vehicle with an active passenger airbag if the child or ward is one of the following: (A) Under one year of age. (B) Less than 20 pounds. (C) Riding in a rear-facing child passenger restraint system. (d) (1) (A) A first offense under this section is punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100), except that the court may reduce or waive the fine if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he or she is economically disadvantaged, and the court, instead, refers the defendant to a community education program that includes, but is not limited to, education on the proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system for children of all ages, and provides certification to the court of completion of that program. Upon completion of the program, the defendant shall provide proof of participation in the program. If an education program on the proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system is not available within 50 miles of the residence of the defendant, the requirement to participate in that program shall be waived. If the fine is paid, waived, or reduced, the court shall report the conviction to the department pursuant to Section 1803. (B) The court may require a defendant described under this section to attend an education program that includes demonstration of proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system and provides certification to the court that the defendant has presented for inspection a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal safety standards. (2) (A) A second or subsequent offense under this section is punishable by a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250), no part of which may be waived by the court, except that the court may reduce or waive the fine if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he or she is economically disadvantaged, and the court, instead, refers the defendant to a community education program that includes, but is not limited to, education on the proper installation and use of child passenger restraint systems for children of all ages, and provides certification to the court of completion of that program. Upon completion of the program, the defendant shall provide proof of participation in the program. If an education program on the proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system is not available within 50 miles of the residence of the defendant, the requirement to participate in that program shall be waived. If the fine is paid, waived, or reduced, the court shall report the conviction to the department pursuant to Section 1803. (B) The court may require a defendant described under this section to attend an education program that includes demonstration of proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system and provides certification to the court that the defendant has presented for inspection a child passenger restraint system that meets applicable federal safety standards. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the fines collected for a violation of this section shall be allocated as follows: (1) (A) Sixty percent to health departments of local jurisdictions where the violation occurred, to be used for a community education program that includes, but is not limited to, demonstration of the installation of a child passenger restraint system for children of all ages and also assists an economically disadvantaged family in obtaining a restraint system through a low-cost purchase or loan. The county or city health department shall designate a coordinator to facilitate the creation of a special account and to develop a relationship with the court system to facilitate the transfer of funds to the program. The county or city may contract for the implementation of the program. Prior to obtaining possession of a child passenger restraint system pursuant to this section, a person shall attend an education program that includes demonstration of proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system. (B) As the proceeds from fines become available, county or city health departments shall prepare and maintain a listing of all child passenger restraint low-cost purchase or loaner programs in their counties, including a semiannual verification that all programs listed are in existence. Each county or city shall forward the listing to the Office of Traffic Safety in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and the courts, birthing centers, community child health and disability prevention programs, county clinics, prenatal clinics, women, infants, and children programs, and county hospitals in that county, who shall make the listing available to the public. The Office of Traffic Safety shall maintain a listing of all of the programs in the state. (2) Twenty-five percent to the county or city for the administration of the program. (3) Fifteen percent to the city, to be deposited in its general fund except that, if the violation occurred in an unincorporated area, this amount shall be allocated to the county for purposes of paragraph (1).

When a Police or CHP Officer, or a Sheriff’s Deputy states in his or her report either that the primary collision factor in an auto accident was one party’s violation of a certain vehicle code section such as the one above, and that one of the parties is at fault for violating that code section, the Officer or Deputy is stating what he or she believes to be the underlying cause of the accident.

The reason insurance companies treat the collision reports as if they are admissible evidence is that they know if put on the witness stand, the investigating officer or deputy will almost always testify in a manner consistent with the conclusions in his or her report. That testimony becomes evidence and will often sway a jury in their determination of fault for an accident.

While an investigating officer’s job is to determine if there was a violation of the law and not to determine who should be at fault in a civil dispute such as a car accident claim, insurance companies often view these two determinations as one and the same.

A police officer assigned to investigate the scene of an accident does not have the role that a trier of fact does in a courtroom. The officer is not there to render a verdict and determine who is responsible for the damages. Rather, the officer is there to determine if any laws were broken. The officer makes such a determination based on his or her having seen the damage to the vehicles, and having spoken to the drivers and the witnesses when their memories are freshest. He or she is thus often in a position to make a well-educated determination of who caused the accident.

Unfortunately, despite the experience of most investigating officers who are dispatched to the scene of an accident, sometimes mistakes are made by these officers. Quite often one or both parties to an accident will lie to them and an officer or deputy will not always be able to determine which of the parties is telling the truth. The evidence from the scene, while important, may also be misleading as to what actually occurred to cause the accident.

If you’ve been injured in an auto, truck, motorcycle, bike, pedestrian or car accident, or if you’ve lost a loved one in a wrongful death vehicle accident, call our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can also e-mail Attorney Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website for more information at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

Sometimes an Officer or Deputy cannot determine with any degree of certainty which party was at fault and will cite two possible Vehicle Code Sections, one for each party in a two-party collision, that may have been violated. In that case, the Police or CHP Officer or Deputy will often state that the primary collision factor is unknown.

Even if there are witnesses to an accident, the Officer of Deputy may discount the statements of some or all of the witnesses if they were friends or relatives of one of the drivers.

Although, as stated above, the conclusion of fault by an officer or deputy does not carry the same weight as a determination of fault by a judge or jury, the importance of the citation of this or any other California code section in the police report is that insurance companies treat the conclusions in these traffic collision reports in a great majority of cases as if the conclusions were written in stone and evaluate a party’s claim based on the findings of fault in these reports.

A traffic collision report may be amended by the police department or the CHP where it contains obvious mistakes, such as when the officer or deputy has mixed up the names of the parties. Supplemental reports are sometimes written when new evidence comes to light, such as when a hit and run party is located. But for the most part, most police departments, Sheriff’s offices and the California Highway Patrol will not amend a report when a party complains and states why he or she doesn’t feel they should have been found at fault for a collision. They will, however, in most cases allow a person to fill out a Counter Report, which, unfortunately simply does not carry much weight with an insurance company.

If the Primary Collision Factor for an accident is unknown, one should look on the traffic collision report to see if the Police or California Highway Patrol Officer or Sheriff’s Deputy cited any “Other Associated Factors” in the traffic collision report as having had a role to play in causing the collision. There may have been faulty equipment, as with some truck accidents, or the roadway itself may have been dangerous.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident in California that has been determined by the investigating Police or CHP Officer or a Sheriff’s Deputy to be the fault of another driver as a result of his or her violation of Vehicle Code Section 27360, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson as soon after an accident as possible before important evidence disappears, such as skid marks that are washed away with the rain.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as Section 27360, and will represent you to obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries.

In over thirty years of practice, Attorney Sebastian Gibson has obtained millions of dollars in settlements and multiple million dollar or larger settlements. We handle auto accident cases on a contingency fee basis so there is no fee payable unless we win your case and obtain either a settlement, an arbitration, mediation, jury, judge or court award.

If you’ve been injured in an auto accident, call to speak with a lawyer at our offices for a free personal injury consultation by phone. You can speak to Attorney Sebastian Gibson personally by phone or you can e-mail Sebastian Gibson at sgibsonesq@aol.com or visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com

Let us pause, for a moment, to consider the wisdom we might glean from Twitter. Or, as Mark Sample puts it:

The new 7th edition of the MLA Handbook *still* does not know how to cite videogames.

No, really, that’s actually someone’s real tweet. But here’s the thing: It’s not crazy. One of my favorite dialogues on freedom takes place between a nano-enhanced supercop and a black Australian bartender named Isaac at a Triad-operated nightclub in Hong Kong amid a nanotechnological plague, in the video game Deux Ex.

But just think about it for a minute. Or, as Sample elaborates:

But not only does the MLA seem unprepared for the new texts we in the humanities study …

Imagine a dissertation on the sociopolitical impact of myths distilled through video games, which are, after all, part of massive and growing influential artistic and entertainment markets. And imagine it without a useful citation for a single one of the video games.

I’m just sayin’ ….

But it gets even stranger:

… the association actually took a step backward when it comes to locating, citing, and cataloging digital resources. According to the new rules, URLs are gone, no longer “needed” in citations.

To the one, isn’t the URL vital to a citation? To the other, I suppose this will make things easier. To yet another, I keep wondering if the blogosphere is ever going to get around to citing anything properly.

And therein lies a key to understanding what’s going on with the MLA. Apparently, we tend to think of such bodies as authoritative; we expect their decisions and advice to be informed and constructed around the context of improving communication. But, apparently, the MLA is something like a dictionary. Persistent vulgar use seems to count for something. How else do we explain the change from two spaces after a full stop to one? With variable-width fonts and word processors, the whole thing with two spaces just seems futile. And when you add in that HTML really doesn’t like consecutive blank spaces, what’s the point?

One of the things about hyperlinks is that they tend to break. Sure, there are websites out there that remain mostly stable. BBC News, for instance, and The Washington Post are very easy to work with, but Google’s hosted news wires are very transitory. Popular usage sees internet-based authors throwing out formal citation altogether; an embedded hyperlink suffices for the vast majority of bloggers, and bulletin-board participants often don’t even bother embedding the things.

Sample reflects the expectations people tend toward bodies like the Modern Language Association—

In a strange move for a group of people who devote their lives to studying the unique properties of printed words and images, the Modern Language Association apparently believes that all texts are the same. That it doesn’t matter what digital archive or website a specific document came from. All that is necessary is to declare “Web” in the citation, and everyone will know exactly which version of which document you’re talking about, not to mention any relevant paratextual material surrounding the document, such as banner ads, comments, pingbacks, and so on.

—but if we view the decision as a response to vernacular, it makes a certain sort of sense. One of the problems the internet era has brought us is that language becomes exceptionally unstable. People tend to argue that variable spellings and diminished syntax suggest the flexibility and dynamism of language, but I always thought of it in an evolutionary context; if the adaptations do not strengthen and facilitate communication, the language can die out. Perhaps a dramatic suggestion, I admit. It is easier, and perhaps more useful to say that it seems to me that innovations within a language ought to facilitate communication, not denigrate it.

Making citation schemes easier does not necessarily make them better. Reducing the amount of identifying information for an electronic source is not, in the end, helpful. I can’t wait for the arguments over what the Wikipedia article actually said.

I don’t know. I just wanted to make a joke about the wisdom of Twitter. Something about the dangers of obscurity goes here.

-bd