With so many pedestrians getting struck by motorists lately, I was wondering what’s happening to make these incidents happen. Well, I had the first hand experience this past Friday to see a pedestrian almost get creamed by a motorist. Maybe more of the fatalities were similar situations to the one I witnessed.

I was out with two new instructor trainees, training them to become driving instructors, when I spotted a pedestrian jogging toward the crosswalk from my right; against the light no less. I honked my horn approximately 6 times to get him to stop before he reached my path, but he continued to run across the crosswalk in front of me. I had to brake to avoid hitting him when I saw that he was ignoring my horn. The driver approaching from the other direction didn’t brake until the very last second, missing the pedestrian by mere inches. Why couldn’t that driver see the pedestrian sooner? The intersection was clear from obstructions, so spotting the pedestrian would have been easy, provided they were looking.

This experience was a good learning tool for the two new instructors. First, they now realize for certain why it’s important to scan all intersections before entering them. This allows us to spot problems from other drivers and pedestrians. Second, they also realize why we can’t assume that people will always respond to honking. That pedestrian looked our way, but continued running across the crosswalk. It looked like he wanted to catch his bus. Half a second later and he would be catching his ambulance.

As a pedestrian, we also need to follow the rules and wait for the crosswalk symbol to let us know when it may be safe to cross the road. We must also look for traffic before crossing the road. We’ve all seen drivers run red lights and stop signs, so why rely on the symbols and signs to tell us it’s safe to cross? Compare the vehicle’s movement to the stationary items they’re passing to determine if they are stopping or not.

It’s time to use logic and common sense to keep ourselves safe on the roads; both as a driver and as a pedestrian. Start looking for dangers well before you reach them before you become a danger to yourself.

Are you paying enough attention to your driving to notice the unusual situations arising? The normal routines we do every day of our lives change every second once we add weather, pedestrians and other road users. Are your ready for these changes?

We’ve had a number of pedestrians struck locally as of late and the results have been fatalities for most of them. There has been almost one pedestrian fatality a day over the past couple of weeks and this leads me to think that we, as drivers, need to pay closer attention to what we’re doing. We can’t fall into a routine because we’re so used to driving the same roads every day.

Have you ever had to change your normal driving route on one certain day because of a meeting, but found yourself making the same turns you would normally make because of routine? Did you get upset with yourself? What makes drivers fall into such a routine that they stop thinking like a responsible driver?

Years ago, while I was retraining a licensed driver, we were approaching a stop sign and needed to do a routine stop. This was a new location for this specific stop sign as the city was trying to slow down the traffic by having the drivers stop a few more times. The driver I had in my vehicle wasn’t slowing down at all, even though I had asked him to brake. I eventually had to apply my dual brake to stop him. He became very defensive and agitated that I had stopped him. He was adamant that the stop sign wasn’t there a few days ago when he was on that same road and used that as his excuse as to why he didn’t stop. Why didn’t he notice the sign now though? Was he even paying attention to it?

It was very difficult for me to get through to him that things will change every second while driving; especially traffic. He kept giving me the excuse that the sign wasn’t there before. What does that have to do with not seeing it now and responding to it? As drivers don’t we need to constantly be aware of all of the changing traffic so we can stay ahead of it all; including when pedestrians walk when they shouldn’t?

Not all pedestrians are innocent either. Some will walk against the light and expect drivers will stop. Life doesn’t always work out that way. Each person has to think and act safely. Pedestrians have to ensure its safe to cross. Even if the pedestrian crossing light says they are allowed to cross, it doesn’t mean it’s safe to cross. Even though the light turns green for drivers, it doesn’t always mean its safe to proceed.

Look for the changes in location traffic control devices so they won’t surprise you and look for pedestrians crossing where and when they shouldn’t so you can respond to them early. We need to constantly pay attention so we can all stay alive on our roads.

The city of Opelika is cracking down on signs.  Mayor Gary Fuller says signs are littering his communities rights of way and utility poles.

The Mayor says the city has an ordinance prohibiting sings from being placed in those locations, but it’s rarely enforced.  However, he says that will soon change.  “After us picking up thousands of signs just in the past year, that’s fire department, police, I’ve been out picking up signs, public works, I have asked the City Council in December to put some teeth in it,” says Opelika Mayor Gary Fuller.

Starting in February the city will begin enforcing the sign ordinance.  That’s a $250 fine for each sign placed on the cities right of way or on a utility pole.

www.ScottELangley.com

Woman, Dog Hit by Car While Walking on W&OD Trail : Falls Church Times.

An interesting article regarding a pedestrian and her dog that was hurt when a car hit them in Northern Virginia. The pedestrian was walking the Washington & Old Dominion Trail and was hit while using the crosswalk to cross the street.

There are apparently some confusing and misleading signs along the trail that lead many drivers to think they have the right-of-way in the crosswalk. This is not true. According to Virginia law, pedestrians always have the right-of-way in a crosswalk unless there are pedestrian control signals that indicate otherwise. Meaning that a pedestrian doesn’t have the right-of-way if he has a “Don’t Walk” signal displayed.

The Virginia Laws Pertaining to Pedestrians are available at bikewalkvirginia.org

If you have been hit by a car while you have the right-of-way, you need a good Richmond, VA accident injury lawyer. Wayne O’Bryan’s book Accident Injury Book: Hidden Inside Secrets Big Insurance Companies Don’t Want You to Know About Your Injury Claim will help you know how to handle the insurance adjuster. The book is free for Virginia residents.

One of the big issues in the realization of a smart grid in this country is a simple one: access.  To effectively build a new power distribution infrastructure will require right of way and access to new areas that are not currently served by the existing electrical grid. Many of the locations for wind farms and solar arrays are in remote areas.  Getting a contiguous connection between the generation of power and consumers is important to making the smart grid a reality.  There have been issues with fiber optics being laid along railroad right of ways and issues with power lines in Oregon and SW Washington.

A lot of progress has been made on this front in Europe.  Recently The Guardian reported on planning from the EU to build a continent-wide supergrid to connect wind farms in the North sea, solar arrays in North Africa, and other power sources with hydropower storage and consumers.

Sun, wind and wave-powered: Europe unites to build renewable energy ’supergrid’

• North Sea countries plan vast clean energy project • €30bn scheme could offer weather-proof supply

All those involved also have an eye on the future, said Wilkes. “The North Sea grid would be the backbone of the future European electricity supergrid,” he said. This supergrid, which has support from scientists at the commission’s Institute for Energy (IE), and political backing from both the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Gordon Brown, would link huge solar farms in southern Europe – producing electricity either through photovoltaic cells, or by concentrating the sun’s heat to boil water and drive turbines – with marine, geothermal and wind projects elsewhere on the continent. Scientists at the IE have estimated it would require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the Sahara and the deserts of the Middle East to meet all Europe’s energy needs.

The DESERTEC Foundation

This new effort to unite the energy sources and users in Europe is also aligned with another venture: The DESERTEC foundation.   Their goal is to build a high voltage DC grid to connect CPV plants in the Sahara and Middle East with consumers in Europe.  In the middle of December, the World Bank allocated $5.5B to help jump-start this initiative to get a 1GW section going.  This is very encouraging.  My only concern is the combination of CPV which needs water to turn to steam in the desert.  But, nothing is insurmountable, I wrote about  few months back in California…

On the home front, an advance in the smart grid came out of Minnesota.  Minnesota Power bought rights to a high voltage direct current line (HVDC) between their customers and wind power in North Dakota.  HVDC lines are the backbone of the smart grid due to their superior loss over large distances.  Additionally, keeping the power in DC form requires one less conversion.  That keeps the second law of thermodynamics happy.

Minnesota Power reaches milestone in renewable energy efforts
with purchase of interstate transmission line

Duluth, Minn.—Minnesota Power, an ALLETE company (NYSE: ALE), has finalized the purchase of a 465-mile transmission line, signaling a new era of renewable energy transport and development for the Company.

The grid is really a massive challenge.  It will require the cooperation of private landowners, private industry, government agencies, and NGO’s.  Not all news will be good.  There will be trial and error, but in the end  we will all benefit if it’s done right.  The Europeans appear to have a good start, and hopefully we will follow in the States…

-Rob

Bend, OR
January 6th 2010

Who has the right of way?

Avoid accidents by understanding the rules of the road.

Most Americans drive with confidence and ego, sure that their interpretations of traffic rules are correct.  But the law is the law.  Understanding commonly misunderstood laws can save lives, even your own.

Generally, traffic signals or signs guide us in an intersection.  However, there are several instances where “right of way” is confusing.

The following rules apply when two cars reach an intersection at the same time:

• If the vehicles are at right angles to each other, the vehicle on the right has the right of way.
• If the vehicles are opposite each other, and one is turning left, that vehicle must wait until the other has passed.  If both are turning left, they may turn simultaneously.  Likewise if both are going straight.
• At a “T” Intersection, vehicles on the road that goes straight have the right of way over those on the road that ends at the T.

Other right-of-way laws include the following:

• When turning right on a red light, vehicles must come to a complete stop before proceeding, and must yield the right of way to pedestrians and bicyclists within a crosswalk and to other traffic using the intersection.
• Traffic facing a green arrow signal must also yield the right of way to pedestrians and bicyclists within a crosswalk and to other traffic in the intersection.
• Traffic moving within a roundabout has the right of way to those merging in.
• Emergency vehicles with sirens on always have the right of way in an intersection.  Drivers en route must pull to the right and stop as soon as safely possible to let such emergency vehicles pass.
• When merging with traffic, vehicles must enter at the same speed traffic is moving and should never stop at the end of the ramp.  Rather, merging vehicles should slow down on the ramp to allow room to speed up before merging.  Merging vehicles must yield to traffic already moving on the roadway.  It is illegal to cross the solid white line to merge early.

This came from an online radio interview I did awhile ago, which was based from Chicago.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/vehicle-vibes-radio/2009/12/29/are-you-really-a-safe-driver

In an earlier post I commented on why I think cyclists, in general, have a vested interest in observing the rules and courtesies of the roads we have to share with motor vehicles and pedestrians.  Walking across town today I witnessed a cyclist that certainly wasn’t doing anything to improve relations between cyclists and those afoot or in cars.  He was also putting his own life at risk as well as endangering that of small child.  I have to admit that part of me was tempted to shout at him to get off the road.

Before I go on I want to make it clear that I’m not advocating an type of servile kowtowing on the part of cyclists.  We have just as much right to use the road as any one else.  I’m certainly not denying that non-cyclists out there do stupid things, often intentionally, that annoy us and put as at risk.  I just can’t understand why so many people think that the correct response is to simply flout the rules of the road and the kind of sensible behaviour that helps keep those of us on two wheels visible and safe.  I have not time for people who try to tell me that cyclists should be restricted to cycle lanes and paths only, insisting that where these do not exist we should be prevented by law from riding.  Likewise I have no tolerance of cyclists who jump pavements or, on shared pedestrian and cycle routes scream, curse and weave through frightened pedestrians at dangerous speeds.  This brings me to what I witnessed this morning.

For very mundane reasons I found myself walking across the city at rush hour this morning.  Traffic was fairly heavy and there were quite a few pedestrians and cyclists about.  I was enjoying the fact that, for what felt like the first time in weeks, I was outside and there wasn’t even a hint of rain.  As I crossed an intersection a cyclists of about my age on a rather expensive hard-tail mountain bike joined the road I was on.  Given that he was pulling a small trailer of the sort meant for transporting children and that, as I was able to verify as he passed me, there was indeed a child in the trailer you can imagine my surprise when he jumped a curb onto a crowded pavement reserved for pedestrians only.  As I pondered whether  shaken baby syndrome could be cause by such a bumpy ride he proceeded to bellow at the people around him to ‘move,’ ‘get out of my way damn it’ and ‘for fuck’s sake let me past’ until he was forced to a complete stop by a few woman pushing prams and a pair of men carrying some obviously heavy delivery into a shop.   The guy was livid at this delay and while I was too far off to hear what he’d said, it was clear that the women in the prams hadn’t been willing recipients of his abuse.

Their exchange lasted 30 seconds or so and terminated, as I drew near,  with the cyclist shouting something about fat slobs before carrying on his way.  Keep in mind he was transporting a child.  Having imparted his final, weight-based barb the man with the fancy bike and technical clothes rode back into traffic right in front of bus which was forced to slam on its brakes.  When the driver sounded the horn the man looked back and put two fingers up.  Coming to an intersection maybe 20 metres down the road he then cycled up the left side of line of cars which were at a standstill and then made to turn right.  Rather than wait for a gap this man, child in tow, began to try and force his way between the two taxis at the front of the queue slapping the second-in-line on the bonnet and demanding to be let through.  For understandable reasons the second taxi driver did allow him to pass in front of his car when the lead vehicle was able to cross the intersection.

Busy as he was shouting abuse at a driver who I’m sure would have gladly run him down this cyclist didn’t look to see if anyone was turning into the street he was leaving, crossed into the oncoming lane and was almost run down by another taxi.  I thought I was about to see a father and child killed by a cab.  Clearly the driver did as well given the way the blood had drained from his face.  The cyclist’s reaction, the one in the oncoming lane who’d been braking the law and treating all other road and pavement users and scum interfering with his life: ‘look where you’re going, I have a child in back you arsehole!’  Clearly this guy was providing a fantastic role model for his offspring.

This is an extreme example of wilful stupidity and risk taking on the part of a cyclists but it is also, unfortunately, of a type that that I see all to often.  There are plenty of cyclists out there who know exactly how they should be riding and are smart enough to know that certain risks aren’t worth taking and that, as frustrating as it is, they will sometimes have to allow the right-of-way to a vehicle or pedestrian.  When cyclists insist on treating this shared environment as a personal race-track they do all of us getting about on two wheels a huge disservice.  It’s hard enough to convince otherwise open-minded people that we have just as much right to be on the road as anyone else.

Please, stop making it worse.

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 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

When California Vehicle Code Section 24604 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 24604 provides:

24604. Whenever the load upon any vehicle extends, or whenever any integral part of any vehicle projects, to the rear four feet or more beyond the rear of the vehicle, as measured from the taillamps, there shall be displayed at the extreme end of the load or projecting part of the vehicle during darkness, in addition to the required taillamp, two red lights with a bulb rated not in excess of six candlepower plainly visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the sides and rear. At any other time there shall be displayed at the extreme end of the load or projecting part of the vehicle a solid red or fluorescent orange flag or cloth not less than 12 inches square.

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 24604, 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 24604, 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 24002 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 24002 provides:

24002. (a) It is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in an unsafe condition, or which is not safely loaded, and which presents an immediate safety hazard. (b) It is unlawful to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is not equipped as provided in this code.

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 24002, 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 24002, 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 23270 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 23270 provides:

23270. (a) No person shall commence to tow any vehicle or other object on any vehicular crossing unless authorized to do so by the Department of Transportation and unless the towing is done by means of a tow truck as defined in Section 615. No person, other than a member of the California Highway Patrol or an employee of the Department of Transportation, shall, by means of pushing with another vehicle, propel any vehicle or object on a vehicular crossing. No person, other than an employee of the Department of Transportation, shall, on any vehicular crossing, tow any vehicle or other object except a vehicle or object constructed and designed to be towed by a vehicle of a type similar to that being used for this purpose. (b) The California Transportation Commission shall, by regulation, establish the maximum towing fee which may be charged by any person authorized to tow a vehicle pursuant to subdivision (a). No authorized person shall charge a fee for towing a vehicle which is in excess of the maximum fee established by the California Transportation Commission. (c) The Director of Transportation may grant a special permit to any person to tow any vehicle or object over and completely across any vehicular crossing when in his or her judgment the towing vehicle is so constructed and equipped that the vehicle or object can be towed across the vehicular crossing without endangering persons or property and without interrupting the orderly traffic across the vehicular crossing. (d) The prohibitions of this section shall apply only on those vehicular crossings upon which a towing service is maintained by the Department of Transportation.

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 23270, 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 23270, 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 23116 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 23116 provides:

23116. (a) No person driving a pickup truck or a flatbed motortruck on a highway shall transport any person in or on the back of the truck. (b) No person shall ride in or on the back of a truck or flatbed motortruck being driven on a highway. (c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply if the person in the back of the truck is secured with a restraint system. The restraint system shall meet or exceed the federal motor vehicle safety standards published in Sections 571.207, 571.209, and 571.210 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (d) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) do not apply to any person transporting one or more persons in the back of a truck or flatbed motortruck owned by a farmer or rancher, if that vehicle is used exclusively within the boundaries of lands owned or managed by that farmer or rancher, including the incidental use of that vehicle on not more than one mile of highway between one part of the farm or ranch to another part of that farm or ranch. (e) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) do not apply if the person in the back of the truck or the flatbed is being transported in an emergency response situation by a public agency or pursuant to the direction or authority of a public agency. As used in this subdivision, “emergency response situation” means instances in which necessary measures are needed in order to prevent injury or death to persons or to prevent, confine, or mitigate damage or destruction to property. (f) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply if the person in the back of the truck or flatbed motortruck is being transported in a parade that is supervised by a law enforcement agency and the speed of the truck while in the parade does not exceed eight miles per hour.

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 23116, 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 23116, 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 22454 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 22454 provides:

22454. (a) The driver of any vehicle, upon meeting or overtaking, from either direction, any schoolbus equipped with signs as required in this code, that is stopped for the purpose of loading or unloading any schoolchildren and displays a flashing red light signal and stop signal arm, as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 25257, if equipped with a stop signal arm, visible from front or rear, shall bring the vehicle to a stop immediately before passing the schoolbus and shall not proceed past the schoolbus until the flashing red light signal and stop signal arm, if equipped with a stop signal arm, cease operation. (b) (1) The driver of a vehicle upon a divided highway or multiple-lane highway need not stop upon meeting or passing a schoolbus that is upon the other roadway. (2) For the purposes of this subdivision, a multiple-lane highway is any highway that has two or more lanes of travel in each direction. (c) (1) If a vehicle was observed overtaking a schoolbus in violation of subdivision (a), and the driver of the schoolbus witnessed the violation, the driver may, within 24 hours, report the violation and furnish the vehicle license plate number and description and the time and place of the violation to the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction of the offense. That law enforcement agency shall issue a letter of warning prepared in accordance with paragraph (2) with respect to the alleged violation to the registered owner of the vehicle. The issuance of a warning letter under this paragraph shall not be entered on the driving record of the person to whom it is issued, but does not preclude the imposition of any other applicable penalty. (2) The Attorney General shall prepare and furnish to every law enforcement agency in the state a form letter for purposes of paragraph (1), and the law enforcement agency may issue those letters in the exact form prepared by the Attorney General. The Attorney General may charge a fee to any law enforcement agency that requests a copy of the form letter to recover the costs of preparing and providing that copy. (d) This section also applies to a roadway upon private property.

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 22454, 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 22454, 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 22451 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 22451 provides:

22451. (a) The driver of any vehicle or pedestrian approaching a railroad or rail transit grade crossing shall stop not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail and shall not proceed until he or she can do so safely, whenever the following conditions exist: (1) A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device or a flagman gives warning of the approach or passage of a train or car. (2) An approaching train or car is plainly visible or is emitting an audible signal and, by reason of its speed or nearness, is an immediate hazard. (b) No driver or pedestrian shall proceed through, around, or under any railroad or rail transit crossing gate while the gate is closed. (c) Whenever a railroad or rail transit crossing is equipped with an automated enforcement system, a notice of a violation of this section is subject to the procedures provided in Section 40518.

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 22451, 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 22451, 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 22450 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 22450 provides:

22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway. (b) The driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign at a railroad grade crossing shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before crossing the first track or entrance to the railroad grade crossing. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local authority may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution providing for the placement of a stop sign at any location on a highway under its jurisdiction where the stop sign would enhance traffic safety.

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 22450, 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 22450, 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 22406 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 22406 provides:

22406. No person may drive any of the following vehicles on a highway at a speed in excess of 55 miles per hour: (a) A motortruck or truck tractor having three or more axles or any motortruck or truck tractor drawing any other vehicle. (b) A passenger vehicle or bus drawing any other vehicle. (c) A schoolbus transporting any school pupil. (d) A farm labor vehicle when transporting passengers. (e) A vehicle transporting explosives. (f) A trailer bus, as defined in Section 636.

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 22406, 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 22406, 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