Sign up for our Daily “Ways-to-Play” Email Today

Gallup Economic Weekly: Consumers Remain Cautious

PRINCETON, NJ — Perhaps it was the big East Coast snowstorm, the reduced holiday travel plans, or just a cautious consumer after a difficult year, but self-reported consumer spending continues to run 20% below last year’s depressed weekly comparables.

sell SPDR-Consumer Discretionary (XLY)

buy SPDR-Consumer Staples (XLP);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

The Wall STreet Transcrip – Investing in The Mexico Fund

The Wall STreet Transcrip – Investing in The Mexico Fund

buy Mexico Fund (MXF);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

SGF October 31, 2009 Annual Report SGF October 31, 2009 Annual Report buy Singapore Fund (SGF); Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

JEQ October 31, 2009 Annual Report

JEQ October 31, 2009 Annual Report

buy Japan Equity Fund (JEQ);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

The age of China: Chinese workers will become scarcer (The Economist)

SINCE the 1970s China’s birth rate has plummeted while the number of elderly people has risen only gradually. As a result its “dependency ratio”—the proportion of dependents to people at work—is low. This has helped to fuel China’s prodigious growth. But this “demographic dividend” will peak in 2010.

sell iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 (FXI)

sell SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

JEQ October 31, 2009 Annual Report

JEQ October 31, 2009 Annual Report

buy Japan Equity Fund (JEQ);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

Small-business bankruptcies rise 81% in California

With credit tight and consumers still pinching their pennies, many business owners find they can’t go on.

sell KBW Regional Banking ETF (KRE);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

Playing Ponzi

The legacy of the financial crisis will continue for some years yet in advanced economies

sell iShares S&P/Citigroup International Treasury Fund (IGOV);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

The Iranian Incursion in Context

“Multiple sources have reported that Tehran ordered the incident. The Iranian government is aware that Washington has said the end of 2009 was to be the deadline for taking action against Iran over its nuclear program — and that according to a White House source, the United States could extend that deadline to Jan. 15, 2010.” – Seems already priced in…

sell PowerShares Dynamic Oil & Gas Services Portfolio (PXJ)

sell United States Oil Fund LP (USO)

sell United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (USL);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

Top hedge funds bet on big yields rise

The recent rise in long-term US interest rates comes as good news for several leading hedge fund managers, including John Paulson, who have positioned their trading books to benefit from higher yields on US Treasury securities.

sell iShares Lehman 10-20 Year Treasury Bond Fund (TLH)

sell Vanguard Extended Duration ETF (EDV)

buy Direxion Daily 10-Yr Treasury Bear 3x Shares (TYO)

buy Direxion Daily 30-Yr Treasury Bear 3x Shares (TMV)

sell Long-Term Govmt Bond ETF (VGLT);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

Make Bank on Bank Loans

“With the economy on the mend, though, analysts expect the $500 billion market for bank loans to improve. Analysts forecast that the default rate on bank loans will drop back to around 4 percent in 2010, near the historical average. That could help prices, which tend to rise as default rates go down, says Gunther Stein, chief investment officer for Symphony Asset Management, a large manager of bank-loan funds.”

buy Eaton Vance Floating Rate Income Trust (EFT)

buyFirst Trust/Four Corners Senior Floating Rate Income II (FCT);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

Top hedge funds bet on big rise in yields

Mr Paulson, who made big gains earlier this decade by betting against the subprime mortgage market and whose firm, Paulson & Co, manages $33bn, has said he believes that government stimulus efforts would inevitably lead to higher inflation and a corresponding rise in rates.

buy UltraShort Lehman 20+ Year Treasury ProShares (TBT);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

New Home Sales Plunge 11.3 Percent!

Sales of new homes in the US dropped 11.3% to an annualized rate of 355k units in November.

buy UltraShort Real Estate ProShares (SRS)

sell SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF (XHB)

sell iShares Dow Jones U.S. Home Construction Index Fund (ITB)

sell iShares DJ US Real Estate (IYR);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

Sign up for our Daily “Ways-to-Play” Email Today

Taming the Fat Cats

President Obama seems genuinely, if belatedly, upset about the way America’s voracious bankers leveraged hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts to line their pockets with multibillion-dollar bonuses while American businesses starve for credit.

sell SPDR-Financial (XLF);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

Harder to buy US Treasuries

IT is getting harder for governments to buy United States Treasuries because the US’s shrinking current-account gap is reducing supply of dollars overseas, a Chinese central bank official said yesterday.

sell iShares Lehman 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund (TLT);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

TIPS Give Way to Inflation as Deflation-Adjusted Yields Decline

“The gap between yields on Treasuries and so-called TIPS due in 10 years, a measure of the outlook for consumer prices, closed above 2.25 percentage points four days last week, the longest stretch since August 2008. That’s the low end of the range in the five years before Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed, and shows traders expect inflation, not deflation in coming months, said Jay Moskowitz, head of TIPS trading at CRT Capital Group LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. “

sell iShares Lehman 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund (TLT)

buy iShares Lehman TIPS Bond Fund (TIP)

buy PIMCO Broad U.S. TIPS Index Fund (TIPZ);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

CEOs Paying 56% M&A Premium Shows Stocks May Be Cheap

American companies are paying the biggest premiums on record in takeovers, a sign executives are growing more bullish about profits and stocks even after the biggest rally for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index in 73 years.

buy S&P 500 SPDR (SPY)

buy IQ ARB Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA);
Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

Will the new frugality born of the recession reshape a generation?

“Absolutely I’ve changed my spending habits,” Haley said, as she and her mother came out of a Shoppers Food Warehouse with just a few bags of what she described as “healthy” groceries in a giant shopping cart. “I’m only getting essentials.”

buy SPDR-Consumer Staples (XLP)

sell SPDR S&P Retail ETF (XRT)

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

China targeting 8% growth in 2010

China has announced it is targeting economic growth of 8% in 2010, despite the continuing effects of the global downturn.

buy iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 (FXI);

Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

Alcoa stock rises on upgrade, Saudi joint venture

Morgan Stanley upgraded the stock to “overweight” from “equal weight,” saying it expects Alcoa to report better profitability in its alumina and downstream divisions

buy iPath Dow Jones-AIG Aluminum Total Return Sub-Index (JJU);
Check out how others are using ETFs to capitalize on this news or add your own opinion

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) — The Australian dollar fell, extending the worst weekly performance among the most-traded currencies, on speculation an improving U.S. economy will prompt the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary policy.
New Zealand’s dollar declined toward a more than one- week low before a government report on Dec. 23 forecast to show American consumers earned and spent more in November. Declines in the so-called kiwi may be limited before a report the same day estimated to show New Zealand’s economic growth accelerated in the third quarter to 0.4 percent.
“The markets will now look for any good economic data coming out of the U.S. as potentially signaling earlier Fed rate hikes,” said Khoon Goh, senior economist at ANZ National Bank Ltd. in Wellington. “The key risk facing the Australian and New Zealand currencies is whether or not the U.S. dollar rally has further to extend.”
Australia’s currency fell 0.3 percent to 88.72 U.S. cents as of 4:10 p.m. in Sydney from 89.02 cents in New York on Dec. 18, when the currency completed a 2.5 percent weekly decline. It bought 80.10 yen from 80.55 yen. New Zealand’s dollar weakened 0.2 percent to 71.01 U.S. cents from 71.15 cents last week. It dropped 0.4 percent to 64.13 yen.
U.S. household purchases probably rose 0.7 percent for a second month and incomes climbed 0.5 percent, the most since May, according to the median estimate of 60 economists surveyed by Bloomberg before a Commerce Department report Dec. 23. Combined sales of new and existing homes last month may have reached the highest level since May 2007, other data due this week may show.
New Zealand is scheduled to report on Dec. 23 gross domestic product data for the third quarter.
Benchmark interest rates are 3.75 percent in Australia and 2.5 percent in New Zealand, compared with 0.1 percent in Japan and as low as zero in the U.S., attracting investors to the South Pacific nations’ higher-yielding assets. The risk in such trades is that currency market moves will erase profits.
Rates, Futures
Australia’s dollar will likely find support toward 88 U.S. cents, while New Zealand’s currency will be bought near 70.50 cents and then 70 cents, Goh said. Movements in the currency markets may be volatile because of thin liquidity before the Dec. 25 Christmas holiday, he said.
Futures traders decreased their bets that the Australian dollar will gain against the U.S. currency to the lowest since July, figures from the Washington-based Commodity Futures Trading Commission show.
So-called net longs, the difference in the number of wagers by hedge funds and other large speculators on an advance in the so-called Aussie, compared with those on a drop, was 40,983 on Dec. 15, versus 46,682 a week earlier.
The Australian dollar, the second-best performer among the 16 most-traded currencies against the greenback, advanced for a record 10 straight months till Nov. 30. It has lost 3.1 percent in December.
Christmas Break
“The collapse of the Aussie, the most symbolic currency of the dollar-carry trade, is casting doubts over the sustainability of gains in other higher-yielding currencies for now,” said Minoru Shioiri, chief manager of foreign- exchange trading at Mitsubishi UFJ Securities Co. in Tokyo. Higher-yielding currencies are “increasingly vulnerable to position adjustments before the Christmas and New Year break.”
New Zealand’s annual immigration growth accelerated to the highest level in more than five years in November, adding to signs consumer spending and demand for housing may speed the economy’s recovery from a recession.
The number of permanent migrant arrivals exceeded departures by 20,021 in the year ended Nov. 30, Statistics New Zealand said today. The figure is up from 18,560 in the 12 months through October and is the most since the period ended July 2004.
New Zealand’s two-year swap rate, a fixed payment made to receive floating rates, rose to 4.52 percent from 4.50 percent last week.
Australian government bonds fell. The yield on 10-year notes added seven basis points, or 0.07 percentage point, to 5.42 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The price of the 5.25 percent security due March 2019 slipped 0.50, or A$5 per A$1,000 face amount, to 98.77.

(CFD.net.au – Contract for Difference, Share, Forex, ETFs, Commodities Traders) – government’s budget, slid 2.3 percent to $78.63 a barrel. Stocks in the U.S., the buyer of about 80 percent of Mexican exports, slumped on concern the government will phase out a tax credit for homebuyers and Bank of America Corp. will have to sell shares. “We’re seeing again the oil prices prices going down, we’re seeing Stocks in the U.S. going down, basically risk aversion is going up again,” said Eduardo Vazquez , an analyst at research firm Harbor Intelligence in Monterrey, Mexico. The peso extended losses after RBC Capital Markets recommended Investors sell the currency as concern builds that the country’s credit rating will be cut. The peso “has been an outperformer in recent weeks but we believe this outperformance is highly at risk to being unwound,” analysts led by Nick Chamie wrote in a note. They also cited “less supportive U.S. equity technicals” as a potential driver for peso declines. The peso rose 0.2 percent in the five days ended Oct. 23, the third straight weekly gain. It has advanced 2.1 percent in the past month amid speculation lawmakers will pass 2010 budget legislation that will narrow a widening fiscal deficit. Budget Debate “Big banks such as RBC trying to get a call for lower levels in the Mexican peso versus the U.S. dollar — that’s definitely helping this movement toward lower levels in the Mexican peso,” said Rodrigo Covian , a Latin America fixed- income trader for Bulltick Securities Corp. in Miami. Mexico’s lower house on Oct. 21 approved the income portion of the 2010 budget and tax laws designed to strengthen finances and avert a credit rating downgrade as revenue and oil output fall. Senators from the Institutional Revolutionary Party, the largest party in the lower house, later announced plans to pare the tax increases in a revised bill, which would send it back to the lower house. ‘Quite Vulnerable’ “Any new development on the fiscal side is going to be an important driver on the Mexican peso,” said Paresh Upadhyaya , who helps manage $21 billion in currency assets as a senior vice president at Putnam Investments LLC in Boston. “Any hint of disappointment, Mexico will become quite vulnerable.” Senator Carlos Lozano de la Torre, a member of the party known as PRI, said last week a 2 percent consumption tax and the lower house’s measure to raise the sales tax from 15 percent to 16 percent is “dead.” Instead of boosting public revenue through sales taxes, the PRI may propose to do so in part by raising the estimated price of crude in the 2010 budget to $65 a barrel from the $59 a barrel approved by the lower house, Lozano said. PRI state governors will pressure their party’s senators to avoid a “more watered down” reform ahead of next year’s election, Deutsche Bank AG analysts led by Gustavo Canonero wrote in a note today. “Ten state elections are scheduled for next year and the PRI stands to win in at least seven of them,” Canonero wrote. “A very bad fiscal reform would result in reduced transfers to the states and compromised chances to win those elections.” The 2010 budget legislation will leave public finances “vulnerable” over the medium term, Morgan Stanley said in an e-mailed report. Mexico’s central bank sold $250 million to buy pesos at an auction at an average weighted price of 13.2478 per U.S. dollar today, the bank said on its Web site. Yields on Mexico’s 10 percent bond due December 2024 rose seven basis points, or 0.07 percentage point, to 8.36 percent, according to Banco Santander SA. The price fell 0.66 centavo to 113.97 centavos per peso. To contact the reporter on this story: Catarina Saraiva in New York at asaraiva5@bloomberg.net Last Updated: October 26, 2009 18:01 EDT Mexican Peso Falls Most in Three Weeks as Oil, U.S. Stocks Drop – Bloomberg.com

Source: By Catarina Saraiva Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) — Mexico’s peso dropped the most in three weeks as prices for

TOKYO—Bond yields fell after the Bank of Japan said it won’t “tolerate” a year-on-year change in the consumer price index of 0% or below.

The remark will likely give long-lasting supporting to bond prices, pushing down yields, as it suggests the central bank will keep implementing accommodative monetary policy for a prolonged period, analysts said.

“The comment was a surprise, and it led the market to bet the BOJ will be forced to introduce further easing policy steps if the economy deteriorates or the yen rises sharply again,” said Naomi Hasegawa, a strategist at Mitsubishi UFJ Securities.

The benchmark 10-year yield shed 0.01 percentage point to 1.235%.

In a released document, the BOJ said policy board members’ understanding of medium- to long-term price stability is “a positive range of 2% or lower,” and the board “does not tolerate a year-on-year rate of change in the CPI equal to or below 0%.”

The BOJ usually revises its view in April, and it previously said its understanding was a range of “approximately” 0% to 2%.

But analysts said the BOJ’s comment doesn’t necessarily mean action is imminent. Rather, it is a clarification to show that the central bank’s policy is in line with that of the government, as Tokyo has recently pressured the BOJ to ease its policies further to combat deflation.

“The BOJ’s previous statement on long-term price stability could be taken as if the BOJ is tolerating a negative CPI if it’s slightly below 0%, so the BOJ, I think, just wanted to adjust the statement to avoid possible confusion and clearly express that it also is a deflation fighter,” said Yasunari Ueno, chief market economist at Mizuho Securities.

The debt trap

Long-time observers of the Japanese economy are beginning to worry publicly that the country is slowly falling into a government debt trap.  The last time I recall this sort of talk was in the late Eighties, when commentators worried that pre-Euro Italy was in the same bad shape.

What is a government debt trap?  The general idea is that the government debt situation spirals out of control as the cost of servicing government borrowings rises dramatically, through some combination of high interest rates and the volume of government debt outstanding.

Caveats

The easiest way to explain the phenomenon is to give an illustration.  I’m going to keep it very simple.  Governments have become very crafty at keeping items like the cost of a war, or of senior citizen benefits, or explicit or implicit guarantees for failing “government-sponsored” enterprises.  But I’m going to ignore that.

I’m also not going to have the country in my illustration grow over the years.  Naturally, if GDP–and therefore tax receipts–grow, but government expenditures remain flat (fat chance!), then the situation I’m about to describe may gradually improve.  If, on the other hand, government expenditures grow at the same rate as tax receipts, the situation becomes worse.

Also, in theory at least, governments run deficits in downturns and surpluses in upturns, so that over a business cycle they are breakeven.  I’m going to ignore this reality as well. (This is kind of scary.  It’s like I’m turning into an academic!  I hope it wears off soon after this post.)  Take the “years” I’m talking about as being an average of what happens over a business cycle.  Bear with me through the initial part.  I’ll inject a dose of realism at the end.

Here goes–

Illustrations

Let’s make the following assumptions about a country:

CASE  1

annual GDP         100

tax receipts             30

govt expenditures        35

govt debt        0

interest rate on govt debt       5%.

This situation is relative benign.  The government runs a primary deficit (tax receipts minus government expenditures, before debt service) of 5.  Interest expense on that debt is .25, so the overall deficit is 5.25.  Interest expense makes little difference to the overall deficit.  The deficit is also structural, not cyclical; that is to say, it won’t go away as the business cycle develops.

Let’s look at something more interesting.

CASE 2a

Everything is the same as in case 1, except that government debt is now 100.(this might arguably be the UK or US in a few years).

The primary deficit remains 5, but now we also owe bondholders another 5 in interest expense.  So the government has to borrow 10 to cover expenses.

In year 2, we have the primary deficit of 5, but government debt is now 110, so interest expense is 5.5.

If this same situation persists through year 10, then government debt is over 200 and interest expense alone is 10.

At this point, in order to get the budget into primary balance, the government would have to cut expenditures by about 15%.  To get into overall balance, expenditures would have to go down by 40%. What are the chances of that happening?

CASE 2b

The same as case 1, except interest rates are 10% and outstanding government debt is 150.  (This is, more or less, the Italy of the late 1980s.)

In year 1, the primary deficit is 5 and interest expense is 15, so the government has to borrow 20 to cover expenses.

In year 2, the primary deficit is 5, interest expense is 17 and total debt rises to 216.

If we follow this progression out to year 5, debt rises to 270 and interest expense is 24.

In year 7, interest expense exceeds tax receipts!!!

Who’s going to lend to this country, even in year 1?  Well, there are the people who lent to Nakheel in Dubai, but they’ve got enough trouble as it is.  And, PT Barnum’s beliefs to the contrary, would there be enough of them in any event?

CASE 2c

The same as case 1, except debt is 200 and interest rates are 1.5%.  (This is more or less today’s Japan)

In year 1, the primary deficit is 5 and interest expense is 3.  Total government debt rises to 208.

In year 5, the primary deficit is 5, interest expense is 3.6 and total debt is just under 250.

In year 10, the primary deficit is 5, interest expense is 4.2 and total debt is just under 300.

In this case, the overall government debt is gigantic, equalling 10 years’ tax receipts.  How will the government ever be able to pay this money back? Note, however ,that the government can achieve overall budget balance relatively easily, by cutting expenditures/raising taxes by a little over 10%.  The biggest danger is that bondholders decide not to roll over existing debt at current interest rates.  If interest rates–and therefore interest expense– go up, or if the government is unable to pay current maturities from the proceeds of new debt sales, big trouble arises very quickly.

(A little) realism injection

1.  If we can figure out, at least in general directional terms, the possibility of severe future trouble in just a few minutes, so too can any potential government bond investor.  So the government in question begins to have difficulty in rolling over existing debt long before the year 10 situations emerge.

2.  Legislators, or their aides, understand the developing problems as well.  But their desire to bring government largesse to their constituents–and thus assure their reelection–typically overwhelms and desire to cut expenditures or raise taxes.  In the “benign” case, they stick their collective heads in the sand.  In the worse case, they deliberately foster inflationary policies, on the thought that this lowers the real value of what the government needs to pay back.  This throws gasoline on the fire.

3.  Off balance sheet liabilities make the debt situation worse.

4.  All the bond issuance by itself is inflationary, as is the currency weakness that ensues as foreigners sell their holdings an repatriate the money, or simply hedge the local currency exposure they have.

5.  It makes a difference whether the government is bought by locals or foreigners.  In the first case, the current generation is borrowing from its sons and daughters, saddling them with debt that finances current consumption.  Foreign buyers can come and go much more quickly, so the need to finance a portion of the government’s debt externally usually makes the situation more volatile.  One exception:  my observation (and, remember, I’m a stock guy) is that in past debt crises in the US, domestic investors have been much quicker to withhold their funds than foreigners.

6.  Case 2b is the more “normal” development path of debt running wild.  Case 2c, Japan, is unusual in that Japanese savers continue to commit money to the bond market despite very low nominal interest rates.  Observers have attributed this to a self-reinforcing circle of economic weakness, as follows:

a.  Government policy expresses the social desire to preserve a traditional way of life.  So Tokyo’s actions tend to preserve the status quo.  In particular, highly inefficient, money-losing companies are not allowed to fail or to be bought by more competent management.  This action damages the prospects for healthier firms and results in low economic growth and possible deflation.

b.  To stimulate growth, the government engages in (basically worthless) public works projects, which require public borrowing.  Because the economy flirts with deflation, nominal yields are low.

c.  Citizens recognize the situation and save heavily, rather than consume, in order to have funds for retirement.  Since most publicly-traded companies have poor profit prospects, the equity market is seen as too risky.  Bank deposit rates are effectively zero.  This leaves government bonds, even with a 1.5% coupon, the best alternative.

The big risk to Japan, therefore, is that one day domestic savers find another vehicle for their savings and want their money back.  This is unlike the “normal” case, where rising nominal interest rates are typically the country’s undoing.

We thought it would be interesting to breakdown BofA/ML’s Ten Themes for 2010 to educate investors to the power of ETFs and to further illustrate ETFDesk’s WaysToPlay feature.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s Ten Themes for 2010:

Now let’s take a closer look at each theme. We break down each theme and suggest ETFs to match the investment strategy.  We suggest checking out our Quick Find and Screener tools to perform similiar ETF searches and screens.

————————————-

Theme 1) Government balance sheet risk: ML strategists cite IMF data that “total public debt as a % of GDP will exceed 100% in advanced economics.” ML thinks 10yr Treasury yields will be above 4% by end of ‘10.

WaysToPlay this theme: Materials equities ( XLB SPDR-Materials, UYM Ultra Basic Materials Proshares), Emerging Mkt stocks ( EEM iShares MSCI-Emerging Markets, VWO Vanguard Emerging Mkts ETF), Short 10yr rates ( PST UltraShort Lehman 7-10 yr Treasury, TYO Direxion Daily 10yr Treasury Bear 3x), intermediate term investment grade bonds ( LQD ishares GS InvesTop Corp Bond Fund)

Theme 2) Rising Taxtion: ML cites US budget deficit as well as health care reform and a second stimulus package as rationale for higher incomes taxes on both state and local levels in 2010.

WaysToPlay this theme: General obligation bonds and muni bond ETFs as well as CEFs ( NUV Nuveen Municipal Value Fund, MYD BlackRock MuniYield Fund, Inc., NPI Nuveen Premium Income Municipal Fund, NPM Nuveen Premium Income Municipal Fund 2)

Theme 3) Alternative Yield Strategies: Higher taxes chasing people out of typical dividend plays and see tax deferred strategies benefiting here.

WaysToPlay this theme: Tax advantaged strategies (HTD John Hancock Tax Advantage Dividend Income and large cap plays (IEO iShares Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Index Fund)

Theme 4) Financial sector rehabilitation: Financials will benefit from low rates here in the US with steep yield curves elsewhere in the world. They also believe that the normalized earnings power of many financials has been underestimated.

WaysToPlay this theme: Mega cap financials in global markets ( IXG iShares S&P Global Financials)

Theme 5) Corporate cash flow beneficiaries: BofA Merrill thinks that large cash piles will be deployed in the form of M&A, dividends, and capital spending.

WaysToPlay: Companies that will benefit from capital spending, including temporary staffing companies and the industrial sector. They also like small caps in the sectors of health care and technology. ( MNA IQ ARB Merger Arbitrage ETF

Theme 6) Rising Global Growth: Global policy stimulus as well as higher capex obviously and feel the growth will be led by emerging markets.

WaysToPlay this theme: Exchange traded funds (ETFs) with exposure to both US and European cyclical plays: large cap industrials and materials ( XLI SPDR-Industrial, EXI iShares S&P Global Industrials Sector Index Fund, XLB SPDR-Materials, MXI iShares S&P Global Materials Sector Index Fund

Theme 7) The emerging market consumer

Higher savings rates in other countries as well as the revaluation of the RMB in China which they claim will make the Chinese “5% richer.”

WaysToPlay: Asian banks, mega-cap multinational plays as well as emerging market forex versus the US dollar ( CEW WisdomTree Dreyfus Emerging Currency Fund, PGD Barclays Asian & Gulf Currency Reval ETN)

Theme Commodity price inflation: While we have already seen strong signs of this occurring, they feel the theme plays into 2010 due to emerging market demand strength as well as supply constraints. As far as gold is concerned, ML argues that diversification in reserve currency by other central banks (particularly in emerging markets) should yield higher gold prices.

WaysToPlay this theme: Exchange traded funds (ETFs) with exposure to gold or global energy stocks ( GDX Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF, GDXJ Junior Gold Miners ETF, GLD streetTRACKS Gold Trust, IXC iShares S&P Global Energy)

Theme 9) The return of active management: decrease in market volatility will see “greater differentiation in asset price performance.”

WaysToPlay this Theme: Actively managed funds and high quality stocks ( FAD First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund, QAI IQ Hedge Multi-Strategy Tracker ETF, PQY PowerShares- Active Alpha Q Fund)

Theme 10) Alternative energy: Apparently this theme will be back with a vengeance after falling out of the spotlight when oil prices crashed down from record highs. Bank of America Merrill Lynch believes that this is a long-term secular theme and that emerging market trends will help fuel this growth. Obviously, higher oil prices will drive further investment into alternatives as well.

WaysToPlay this theme: Exchange traded funds (ETFs) that give you exposure to the vast spectrum of alternatives (wind, solar, nuclear, etc): (PBW PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy Portfolio, TAN Claymore/MAC Global Solar Energy Index ETF, GEX Market Vectors Alternate Energy ETF, FAN First Trust ISE Global Wind Energy ETF)

Of course you can track Merrill’s call overtime BofA/ML : Ten Investment Themes For 2010

Many of you have heard of the book 10-10-10, a Life-Transforming Idea, Here’s our take on it.

10-10-10 An Investment-Transforming Idea

10 Ideas, 10% Discounts, 10% yield.

Closed-End Funds present investors with an opportunity to take advantage of an inefficient market.  By this we mean buying assets at a discount to their Net Asset Value (NAV).  Obviously one must consider what the underlying assets of the fund are, but in general purchasing assets at a discount can give you many advantages including:

Increased yield benefit – If you buy an asset at a 10% discount that yields 10%, you attain a 1% yield benefit.

Potential narrowing of discount – If you buy an asset at a 10% discount and the discount narrows to 5% you pocket the difference.

Activism and conversion to Open-End Fund - The potential for activism or open ending can narrow a funds discount, however,  investors should not buy a fund solely on this criteria.

Institutional borrowing rates – A funds borrowing costs are less than yours.  i.e., If you are looking to margin 20% of your holdings  your best bet is to find a fund with 20% leverage as their costs to borrow would be significantly lower than yours.

The screen below is our first 10-10-10. (Click on it to enlarge)  We would not just buy these based solely on this criteria, but it’s a good place to start to find value. You can do your own screens for ETFs and CEFs at www.etfdesk.com.  Happy Hunting.

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

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

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

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

California Vehicle Code Section 23104 provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Vehicle Code Section 23103 provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Vehicle Code Section 21651 provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Vehicle Code Section 20002 provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Vehicle Code Section 20001 provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Vehicle Code Section 34501.2 provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Vehicle Code Section 27360.5 provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Vehicle Code Section 27360 provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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