This case involved a motorcycle accident that occurred while Plaintiff was returning
from a trip to Laughlin. Plaintiff was riding as a passenger on Defendant’s motorcycle
when the rear spokes failed ejecting Plaintiff off the motorcycle.

Defendant had purchased the subject motorcycle from Defendant motorcycle shop
and then purchased the spokes for the motorcycle from Defendant shop owner who
installed the spokes. Based on information and belief, the manufacturer-distributor of the
spokes were Defendant manufacturer.

Prior to leaving on his trip to Laughlin, Defendant motorcycle rider had taken the
subject motorcycle to Defendant’s shop for a safety inspection since the bike had a missing
spoke on the rear rim. Defendant motorcycle rider had informed the service writer that he
was going to Laughlin Run and that he had noticed that a spoke had broken from the rear
wheel. During the same visit, the service writer also informed Defendant Motorcycle rider
that the subject motorcycle was due for the 1000 mile service and the service was
performed.

The employee of Defendant motorcycle shop admitted that he checked Defendant
Motorcycle rider’s spoke tightness during the 1,000 service, making minor adjustments to
the spokes as necessary. When Defendant motorcycle rider picked up his motorcycle from
Defendant’s motorcycle shop, the service writer informed Defendant motorcyclist that
“Maybe we’ll see you in Laughlin” and that he was “good to go.” Additionally, in the
recommendation section of the repair invoice, the motorcycle shop Defendant provided to
the motorcyclist the vague and ambiguous notation that “everything on service seems
good, customer has one missing spoke on rear rim.” When Defendant motorcyclist
reviewed the recommendation section, he interpreted the recommendation to mean that
a safety inspection had been performed and the spoke was inclusive in that inspection.

In route to Laughlin, several additional spokes broke. Defendant motorcyclist
stopped at another motorcycle shop and had the spokes repaired.
When returning from Laughlin, Nevada to California on the I-40 highway at
approximately 65 mph, the rear wheel spokes broke, puncturing the rear tire causing the
motorcycle to loose control and eject plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s motorcycle expert who had forty-two (42) years of experience in the field of
maintenance and repair of motorcycles was of the opinion that even with one missing spoke,
if the Subject Spokes had been properly tightened and trued and if no manufacturing
defect existed, the Subject Spokes would not have broken leading to the subject accident.
Additionally, defendants failed to properly warn Defendant motorcyclist that the Subject
Spokes which, were after-market stainless steel spokes, were not as strong as stock spokes.
The court in Janofsky v. Garland, (1941) 42 Cal. App. 2d 655, 658 held that when a
[person/entity] makes repairs and gives a deceptive appearance of safety and leads one to use the
[product] in a way which but for the repairs one would recognize to be dangerous, the [person or
entity] is liable for resulting injuries.

Following the accident, Plaintiff had to be air-lifted to the hospital in Needles,
California for emergency care and then transferred to Hoag Memorial Hospital with a
comminuted right olecranon fracture. At Hoag Memorial Hospital, Plaintiff had to
underwent surgery involving a open reduction internal fixation of her right olecranon
fracture.

During surgery the fracture fragments from the fracture were identified and noted
to be severely comminuted. Portions of the bone had to removed. The fragments were
mobilized and held in place with K wires. Additionally, wires were placed through the bone
and then around the fracture and under the triceps tendon. Pins were inserted to stabilize
the fractures. Following the surgical procedure Ms. Del Grosso had to undergo physical
therapy.

This accident involved a tragic car versus pedestrian accident, wherein Defendant
recklessly ran through the crosswalk, at a residential intersection, and struck Plaintiffs in
the middle of the crosswalk. As a result of the collision, the entire family sustained severe
injuries.

At the time of the accident, all four (4) plaintiffs were crossing the intersection in a
marked crosswalk. Defendant was traveling southbound delivering pizza for his employer,
and claimed that he did not see any of the plaintiffs. A witness was traveling northbound
and approaching the subject intersection when he noticed the Plaintiff’s family entering the
crosswalk from the northeast corner and walk westbound. The witness noticed that
Defendant did not appear to see the Plaintiffs so he began to honk his horn to warn of the
accident. Defendant nevertheless failed to notice the entire family and struck the entire
family in the crosswalk.

Plaintiffs’ minor daughter testified that her parents had taught her to always look
both ways whenever crossing the street. Plaintiff’s daughter further testified that on the day
of the accident prior to entering the crosswalk, she looked both ways and only saw a
vehicle at a far distance. Plaintiff’s daughter further testified that she had no warning
whatsoever prior to being struck.

Defendant was traveling at the rate of speed of 30-35 mph through a residential
intersection with a speed limit of 25 mph when he struck the entire family. Defendant
admitted to the reporting officer that prior to reaching the subject residential intersection,
he noticed another vehicle traveling the opposite direction with its high beams on which
caused him to “squint and reduce his vision”. Defendant further admitted that as he
approached the intersection, traveling at 30-35 mph, he then heard something strike the
front of his vehicle and then shatter his windshield.

California Vehicle Code § 21950. Right-of-way at crosswalks provides:
(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the
roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his
or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and
walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate
hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or
unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked
crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or
take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to
safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising
due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any
unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

 Defendant blamed the witness for flashing his high beams to alert him and also tried
to blame the City claiming an unsafe crosswalk.

This action involved an car vs car accident, wherein the Defendant negligently
crossed through a stop sign on Olympic Boulevard and broadsided Plaintiff’s vehicle who
was traveling eastbound on Olympic Boulevard. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff’s
vehicle was pushed into the sidewalk striking a pole and causing the airbag to be deployed.

 Despite the fact that Plaintiff was wearing her seat belt, the severity of the impact
and deployment of the airbag caused her to lose consciousness and to sustain severe
injuries including but not limited to a fracture of her C2 vertebrae.

The reporting officer found Defendant to have been the cause of the accident by
violating California Vehicle Code, §218029(a) for failing to yield the right of way to Plaintiff.
The reporting officer also noted that Plaintiff’s vehicle had sustained major damage and
to be undriveable. Plaintiff’s vehicle was declared a total loss.

At the time of the accident, Defendant was within the course and scope of
employment.

As a result of the accident Plaintiff sustained severe injuries requiring neck surgery
at the C2 level as well as a subsequent throat surgery which had occurred as result of the
intubation from Plaintiff’s C2 cervical surgery. Additionally, Plaintiff was diagnosed as a
surgical candidate for shoulder surgery. The Plaintiff also suffered brain injury as
evidenced by the loss of consciousness. Plaintiff was diagnosed to have an impaired
memory which severely impacted her life not only requiring her to stop working but
requiring her to write reminders for herself. Plaintiff frequently misplaced objects and in
particular had difficulty remembering names and telephone numbers. Plaintiff also had
difficulty with concentration as well as having difficulty with multitasking and word finding.
Plaintiff also found herself to lose her train of thought in the middle of her conversations.

As a result of the injuries sustained from the accident, Plaintiff was unable to and/or
had difficulty engaging in her normal daily activities such as grocery shopping, cleaning her
house, sleeping, and working.

The success of your case may depend on your actions.  The following is a list of suggestions:

 Seek Immediate Medical Attention:  If you have suffered injuries, seek immediate medical care so that a physician can begin treating you for your injuries.  It is important to describe to the doctor the intensity and location of your injury(s).  You should be open and honest with the physician by informing the doctor of any previously related injuries.  It is important for you to follow your doctor’s advice and attend your medical appointments.  If any new injury(s) develop, immediately advise your physician. 

Have An Attorney Present If You Are Asked to Provide A Statement:  Adjusters or attorneys for the opposite side may request information from you.   It is best that you refer them to your attorneys office to arrange any discussion. Any request by either your own or the opposing insurance company to fill out an accident report should first be cleared by and through your attorney.

Take Photographs/Video:  If possible, it is important to document the incident/injury(s) with photographs-videotape. For example:  If you have been involved in an auto accident, take photographs-videotape of the vehicle(s), scene-location of the accident etc.  If you have been injured as a result of a defective product, photograph-videotape the defective product etc.  If you have suffered injury as a result of a dangerous property, photograph-videotape the condition on the property that caused your injury etc.  

Pain and suffering: Keep a log of all your pains and aches.   This log will be a good way to refresh your memory and it will keep your lawyer informed of the status of your medical progress.

a.  Document any new pains, no matter how slight, that occur in your body.  You should also report such pains to your doctor so that he/she may properly evaluate and treat your injuries.

b.  If your treating doctor refers you to other doctors, inform your lawyer of the name(s) and address(es) of such doctor(s). 

      I.  All information which you have, including the names of your doctors, is confidential and should not be given out.

      II.  If you have been treated in the past by any doctor for any condition, it is important that your lawyer have the information.

Document your Expenses:  Keep a record of all expenses connected with your case.  Save bills and receipts: doctors bills, medication bills, repair estimates, etc. and promptly mail them to your attorney.  If you miss time from work, you are entitled to be compensated for your loss of income.  You MUST keep track of the time you have lost.

 Keep your attorney notified of all new developments:   Inform your lawyer of any new information that comes to your attention, regardless of whether you feel the information would help or harm your case.

 Should you have any further questions, you can speak directly to an experienced Lawyer at the Law Offices of David Azizi.  Contact us for immediate assistance at (800) 991-LAW2.