California Auto Accident Attorney

Uniquely Talented Rolling Hills Estates California Auto Accident Attorney and One Of the Best People to Follow on Twitter in 2011

Sebastian Gibson is an exceptional Rolling Hills Estates auto accident attorney who is uniquely talented to handle your 2011 motorcycle, truck or auto accident. He is also one of the most interesting lawyers and one of the best people to follow on Twitter in 2011.

With over thirty years of experience handling auto accident cases, with law degrees in both California and in Great Britain, and years of international experience in London as well as decades of experience in California, Sebastian Gibson brings a wealth of experience to the table when he negotiates with insurance companies.

The Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson specializes in serious injury auto accidents, truck, motorcycle and bicycle accidents, car accidents involving vehicles of all kinds as well as pedestrian accidents, dog bites and wrongful death vehicle accident cases and the Sebastian Gibson law firm handles these cases throughout Southern California and up and down the coast.

Most attorneys look and sound the same. They tout their trial experience to suggest that what you should want is to have your case proceed to trial when what you really desire is the largest possible settlement without having the horrendous costs and delays resulting from years of litigation.

At the Auto Accident Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson which serves the residents in and victims of accidents in Rolling Hills Estates, we’ve settled numerous million dollar cases and obtained millions of dollars for our clients without the need for trial. Our most serious auto accident cases have involved horrendous injuries and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, but we’ve also been involved in other large cases including copyright and trademark infringement and class actions.

What stands Sebastian Gibson apart from other attorneys is his wit and his humor. A writer of humorous articles for legal newspapers in California and the author of a new book for publication in 2011, Sebastian Gibson is also one of the funniest and most interesting lawyers on Twitter and the web.

The Sebastian Gibson Law Firm website found at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com is consistently graded in the top 1% of all web sites worldwide as graded by websitegrader.com and along with its blog attracts over 16,000 visitors per month who come to the site for useful and free legal information.

If you’re looking for a uniquely distinctive and respected auto accident attorney to handle your case in Rolling Hills Estates who stands apart from the usual dull mundane and uninteresting lawyer who’s website looks like it was made in a factory that produces untrustworthy scales, dull courtroom seats or ominous foreboding concrete steps for gloomy buildings, call Rolling Hills Estates Auto Accident Attorney Sebastian Gibson today at (800) 589-3202 or visit our law firm’s creative and unusual website at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com

His feed on Twitter comprise one of the funniest Twitter feeds you can follow. If you want some funny tweets to start your day, we invite you to follow one of the best people to follow on Twitter in 2011 and one of the funniest persons on Twitter. He’s been called a “legend” and his tweets have been called “brilliant.” See for yourself at www.twitter.com/SebastianStuff

It matters more than you think who you call for your auto accident or other legal matter. When it matters most, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson. When you need a Rolling Hills Estates Auto Accident Attorney, hire a legend.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Auto Accidents | Tagged | Leave a comment

Can An Employee Sue for Invasion of Privacy in California?

Can an employee bring a lawsuit against an employer for damages in California where the employer has invaded the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy by searching through the employee’s desk, texts, e-mails or monitoring their computer for no valid reason? Clearly, the answer is, a resounding “yes.” However, there are some caveats.

In California, an individual has a right to privacy that is protected by the constitution of the state of California. However, in order to prevail in a lawsuit for an invasion of privacy, one mush have had, a legally protected privacy interest (this is usually a given), enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy (this is more difficult and depends on the circumstances and if the employer reserved the right to monitor the employee’s space, computer or communications), and the conduct of the person causing the invasion of privacy must have caused a serious invasion of that privacy (this is the often the most difficult factor to prove).

If an employer did not provide notice to an employee in an employee handbook that the employer had a right to search through e-mails, blogs, computer records and the like or to install cameras in public areas but the invasion of privacy was limited to what was necessary to ensure the safety of the employees and ensure that the company’s business was not being harmed by improper communications, and the invasion was not serious and only involved company public spaces or company electronic devices such as company computers, such an invasion of an employee’s privacy may still be legal. Indeed, it may be difficult to find an attorney willing to take on such a case as an employer’s insurance company may well appeal a verdict that awards significant damages.

(Note, however that installing cameras in private areas such as restrooms, however, will almost always lead to a lawsuit and a settlement, even if an employer did so, allegedly to prevent the loss of business supplies). In an important California Supreme Court Case (Hernandez v. Hillsides), the court stated that workplace privacy violations focus on the nature of any intrusion upon reasonable expectations of privacy and the offensiveness or seriousness of the intrusion, including any justification or other relevant interests.

In those instances in which an employer specifically reserved the right in employee memos or handbooks to provide for reviewing or monitoring electronic communications during the course of company business, or on company devices, an employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy will clearly have been reduced and all but destroy the value of an invasion of privacy case unless the employer far exceeded the scope of what was reasonable and then added to the insult by publicly displayed the results of such monitoring activities for the purpose of humiliating an employee.

The type of case for invasion of privacy in the workplace that a privacy lawyer looks for, therefore, is where there has been no reservation in an employee handbook or in memos reserving the right of the employer to monitor electronic communications or to post cameras or conduct desk searches and where the employer not only performs these tasks but exceeds any legitimate business need to do so, finds materials that the employee clearly sought to keep private and then goes on to publicly divulge or show to others the fruits of these searches or monitoring methods to humiliate or embarrass an employee (and which actions are also likely to inflame a jury).

Similarly, an employer who uses the results of such monitoring to justify the firing of an employee who otherwise would not have been fired may also find themselves the subject of a claim not only for invasion of privacy, but also for discrimination or retaliation.

A recent case by the United States Supreme Court (Quon) has held that while an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy, even though a search by an employer of an employee’s text messages constitutes a search under the Fourth amendment, such a search can be reasonable by an employer and not excessively intrusive. It can also be found, as the court did, to have a legitimate work-related purpose, not be excessive in scope and thus reasonable, especially where the employer has provided the electronic equipment to the employee and has a policy in place reserving the right of the employer to monitor all network activity, with or without notice.

When an employer goes beyond what is reasonable and conducts searches without a work-related purpose, the employer may well cause an invasion of an employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

If you’ve had your privacy invaded either in the workplace or in your private life anywhere in Southern California, call Attorney Sebastian Gibson, a Southern California experienced personal injury lawyer with over thirty years of experience both in the U.S. at (760) 776-1810 or visit our web site at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com You can also e-mail us at SgibsonEsq@aol.com

The CA Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson is experienced in all types of personal injury, invasion of privacy and copyright infringement cases. With the Law Firm of personal injury lawyer, Sebastian Gibson on your side, we will seek the maximum amount for your case, and for everything you’ve undergone.

With offices in the Palm Springs and Palm Desert area, Newport Beach and the Carlsbad area of San Diego, we can assist you with your accident no matter where it occurred in Southern California, from Laguna Beach and Huntington Beach, to Indio and Coachella, to San Diego and Temecula.

If you’ve been seriously injured in an accident or had your privacy invaded or had a protected right such as your privacy invaded or a copyrighted work infringed, call the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson today at (800) 589-3202 and let us use our thirty years of trust and experience in negotiating with and standing up to insurance companies, photographers and employers to handle your case with strength and integrity.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

California Vehicle Code Section 21461 Importance Explained by Lawyer for Auto Accident Victims

A violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21461 is one of the Vehicle Code Sections that can be cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California. This is true whether the accident only caused injuries or if the accident was a fatal accident which caused one or more fatalities.

California Vehicle Code Section 21461 provides:

21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official. (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to acts constituting violations under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or to acts constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500).

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.

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.SebastianGibsonLaw.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 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, 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 21461, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson today at (800) 589-3202.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as this section 21461, 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.

Due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident will almost always receive a greater amount from a settlement, even after attorneys’ fees, if the case is handled from the start by an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer.

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 by calling (800) 589-3202 or you can e-mail the Sebastian Gibson law firm at SgibsonEsq@aol.com
Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

California Vehicle Code Section 21460.5 Importance Explained by Lawyer for Car Accident Victims

A violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21460.5 is one of the Vehicle Code Sections that can be cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California. This is true whether the accident only caused injuries or if the accident was a fatal accident which caused one or more fatalities.

California Vehicle Code Section 21460.5 provides:

21460.5. (a) The Department of Transportation and local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may designate a two-way left-turn lane on a highway. A two-way left-turn lane is a lane near the center of the highway set aside for use by vehicles making left turns in both directions from or into the highway. (b) Two-way left-turn lanes shall be designated by distinctive roadway markings consisting of parallel double yellow lines, interior line dashed and exterior line solid, on each side of the lane. The Department of Transportation may determine and prescribe standards and specifications governing length, width, and positioning of the distinctive pavement markings. All pavement markings designating a two-way left-turn lane shall conform to the Department of Transportation’s standards and specifications. (c) A vehicle shall not be driven in a designated two-way left-turn lane except when preparing for or making a left turn from or into a highway or when preparing for or making a U-turn when otherwise permitted by law, and shall not be driven in that lane for more than 200 feet while preparing for and making the turn or while preparing to merge into the adjacent lanes of travel. A left turn or U-turn shall not be made from any other lane where a two-way left-turn lane has been designated. (d) This section does not prohibit driving across a two-way left-turn lane. (e) Raised pavement markers may be used to simulate the painted lines described in this section when those markers are placed in accordance with standards established 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.

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.SebastianGibsonLaw.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 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, 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 21460.5, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson today at (800) 589-3202.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as this section 21460.5, 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.

Due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident will almost always receive a greater amount from a settlement, even after attorneys’ fees, if the case is handled from the start by an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer.

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 by calling (800) 589-3202 or you can e-mail the Sebastian Gibson law firm at SgibsonEsq@aol.com
Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

California Vehicle Code Section 21460 Importance Explained by Lawyer for Auto Accident Victims

A violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21460 is one of the Vehicle Code Sections that can be cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California. This is true whether the accident only caused injuries or if the accident was a fatal accident which caused one or more fatalities.

California Vehicle Code Section 21460 provides:

21460. (a) When double parallel solid lines are in place, no person driving a vehicle shall drive to the left thereof, except as permitted in this section. (b) When the double parallel lines, one of which is broken, are in place, no person driving a vehicle shall drive to the left thereof, except as follows: (1) That the driver on that side of the roadway in which the broken line is in place may cross over the double line or drive to the left thereof when overtaking or passing other vehicles. (2) As provided in Section 21460.5. (c) Either of the markings as specified in subdivision (a) or (b) does not prohibit a driver from crossing the marking when (1) turning to the left at any intersection or into or out of a driveway or private road, or (2) making a U-turn under the rules governing that turn, and either of the markings shall be disregarded when authorized signs have been erected designating offcenter traffic lanes as permitted under Section 21657. (d) Raised pavement markers may be used to simulate painted lines described in this section when the markers are placed in accordance with standards established 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.

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.SebastianGibsonLaw.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 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, 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 21460, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson today at (800) 589-3202.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as this section 21460, 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.

Due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident will almost always receive a greater amount from a settlement, even after attorneys’ fees, if the case is handled from the start by an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer.

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 by calling (800) 589-3202 or you can e-mail the Sebastian Gibson law firm at SgibsonEsq@aol.com
Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

California Vehicle Code Section 21457 Importance Explained by Lawyer for Auto Accident Victims

A violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21457 is one of the Vehicle Code Sections that can be cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California. This is true whether the accident only caused injuries or if the accident was a fatal accident which caused one or more fatalities.

California Vehicle Code Section 21457 provides:

21457. Whenever an illuminated flashing red or yellow light is used in a traffic signal or with a traffic sign, it shall require obedience by drivers as follows: (a) Flashing red (stop signal): When a red lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, a driver shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering it, and the driver may proceed subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign. (b) Flashing yellow (caution signal): When a yellow lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, a driver may proceed through the intersection or past the signal only with caution.

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.

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.SebastianGibsonLaw.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 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, 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 21457, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson today at (800) 589-3202.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as this section 21457, 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.

Due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident will almost always receive a greater amount from a settlement, even after attorneys’ fees, if the case is handled from the start by an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer.

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 by calling (800) 589-3202 or you can e-mail the Sebastian Gibson law firm at SgibsonEsq@aol.com
Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

California Vehicle Code Section 21452 Importance Explained by Attorney for Car Accident Victims

A violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21452 is one of the Vehicle Code Sections that can be cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California. This is true whether the accident only caused injuries or if the accident was a fatal accident which caused one or more fatalities.

California Vehicle Code Section 21452 provides:

21452. (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately thereafter. (b) A pedestrian facing a steady circular yellow or a yellow arrow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, is, by that signal, warned that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall not enter 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.

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.SebastianGibsonLaw.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 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, 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 21452, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson today at (800) 589-3202.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as this section 21452, 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.

Due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident will almost always receive a greater amount from a settlement, even after attorneys’ fees, if the case is handled from the start by an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer.

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 by calling (800) 589-3202 or you can e-mail the Sebastian Gibson law firm at SgibsonEsq@aol.com
Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

California Vehicle Code Section 21451 Importance Explained by Attorney for Car Accident Victims

A violation of California Vehicle Code Section 21451 is one of the Vehicle Code Sections that can be cited as being the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California. This is true whether the accident only caused injuries or if the accident was a fatal accident which caused one or more fatalities.

California Vehicle Code Section 21451 provides:

21451. (a) A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk. (b) A driver facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, shall enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by that green arrow or any other movement that is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. A driver facing a left green arrow may also make a U-turn unless prohibited by a sign. A driver shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk. (c) A pedestrian facing a circular green signal, unless prohibited by sign or otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, may proceed across the roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown. (d) A pedestrian facing a green arrow turn signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, shall not enter 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.

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.SebastianGibsonLaw.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 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, 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 21451, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson today at (800) 589-3202.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as this section 21451, 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.

Due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident will almost always receive a greater amount from a settlement, even after attorneys’ fees, if the case is handled from the start by an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer.

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 by calling (800) 589-3202 or you can e-mail the Sebastian Gibson law firm at SgibsonEsq@aol.com
Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

California Vehicle Code Section 22103 Importance Explained by Personal Injury Car Accident Attorney

A violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22103 is one of the Vehicle Code Sections often cited as the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California. This is true whether the accident only caused injuries or if the accident was a fatal accident which caused one or more fatalities.

California Vehicle Code Section 22103 provides:

22103. No person in a residence district shall make a U-turn when any other vehicle is approaching from either direction within 200 feet, except at an intersection when the approaching vehicle is controlled by an official traffic control device.

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.

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.SebastianGibsonLaw.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 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, 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 22103, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson today at (800) 589-3202.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as this section 22103, 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.

Due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident will almost always receive a greater amount from a settlement, even after attorneys’ fees, if the case is handled from the start by an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer.

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 by calling (800) 589-3202 or you can e-mail the Sebastian Gibson law firm at SgibsonEsq@aol.com
Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

California Vehicle Code Section 12500 Importance Explained by Personal Injury Auto Accident Attorney

A violation of California Vehicle Code Section 12500 is one of the Vehicle Code Sections often cited as the primary collision factor for an auto accident in California. This is true whether the accident only caused injuries or if the accident was a fatal accident which caused one or more fatalities.

California Vehicle Code Section 12500 provides:

12500. (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver’s license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code. (b) A person may not drive a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver’s license or endorsement issued under this code for that class, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code, or those persons specifically authorized to operate motorized bicycles or motorized scooters with a valid driver’s license of any class, as specified in subdivision (h) of Section 12804.9. (c) A person may not drive a motor vehicle in or upon any offstreet parking facility, unless the person then holds a valid driver’s license of the appropriate class or certification to operate the vehicle. As used in this subdivision, “offstreet parking facility” means any offstreet facility held open for use by the public for parking vehicles and includes any publicly owned facilities for offstreet parking, and privately owned facilities for offstreet parking where no fee is charged for the privilege to park and which are held open for the common public use of retail customers. (d) A person may not drive a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that is not of a type for which the person is licensed. (e) A motorized scooter operated on public streets shall at all times be equipped with an engine that complies with the applicable State Air Resources Board emission requirements.

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.

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.SebastianGibsonLaw.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 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, 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 12500, call the Law Offices of Sebastian Gibson today at (800) 589-3202.

At the Law Firm of Sebastian Gibson, we specialize in California auto accidents caused by violations of the California Vehicle Code, such as this section 12500, 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.

Due to how insurance companies treat individuals without an attorney, a person injured in an auto accident will almost always receive a greater amount from a settlement, even after attorneys’ fees, if the case is handled from the start by an experienced and reputable personal injury lawyer.

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 by calling (800) 589-3202 or you can e-mail the Sebastian Gibson law firm at SgibsonEsq@aol.com
Additionally, we invite you to visit the Sebastian Gibson law firm website at www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment