Dos and Don’ts: Avoiding Common Mistakes When Handling California Tort Claims Act Cases (The Verdict, Summer 2025)

Posted on September 13, 2025September 13, 2025 by Lacey

Shaana Rahman recently had an article published in The Verdict (Summer 2025 edition) of the Alameda-Contra Costa Trial Lawyers’ Association.

The topic? avoiding common mistakes when handling California Tort Claims Act cases.

Cases against public entities follow a distinct set of rules. Although there is nothing mystical about pursuing cases against a public entity, if you don’t regularly handle these types of cases you need to understand the potential traps for the unwary or, at least, know when to reach out to someone for help. I frequently get calls from lawyers handling their first public entity case who are caught off guard by the ubiquitous claim denial or realization that their claim was filed after the deadline, either due to a misunderstanding of the claims filing deadline or not identifying a potential public entity claim until it’s too late. Early errors in public entity cases can be fatal to a plaintiff’s case or seriously impede a favorable result. Luckily, almost all of these errors can be avoided by careful planning, a complete understanding of the Tort Claims Act and having resources available if you get stuck.

Here are a couple of highlights:

Spotting a Potential Claim

It can be easy to miss a potential public entity claim without taking a step back. For instance, perhaps you take a case where your client’s vehicle is struck in an intersection controlled by stop signs. The police report confirms the other driver ran the stop sign. At first blush, this seems like a standard personal injury case. However, a year later in deposition the defendant driver testifies he didn’t see the stop sign because an overgrown tree was completely obscuring the stop sign. The driver’s lawyer then shares photos taken of the
stop sign, a list of prior stop sign violation collisions, and several complaints to the city about the obscured stop sign. Your first thought is — did I miss this? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. The flip side of this scenario is getting a call from a potential client with horrific injuries who insists the collision was the city’s fault. You sign it up, sight unseen, and the case sits until it’s time to file the 910 claim. By
the time you get the denial and need to start drafting the complaint, you realize you don’t have any actual theory of recovery or actual evidence. Early investigation is key to both not missing a potential government claim and ensuring you have the evidence you need
to successfully litigate the case. It is good practice to screen your personal injury cases for a potential public entity claim. This may involve an early inspection, interviewing witnesses and investigation into prior incidents. One of the best ways to get evidence of a public entity’s liability is by requesting documents through the California Public Records Act. (Government Code §7920.530 et seq.) Most entities have convenient, free online portals to make these requests. Another free tool is the entity’s own website which
can provide information on various construction projects, council meetings, and policies and procedures. You can also identify a potential public entity defendant by reviewing the registry of public agencies available on the Secretary of State’s
website or the county clerk’s website. (See, Government Code §53051 et seq.) If you are evaluating a collision case, the California Highway Patrol collects data on collisions. The CHP database is called the Statewide Integrated Traffic System (SWITRS). You can request the CHP provide you with a list of collisions at a particular location, specifying the time period. The SWITRS report will show
basic information, including the potential cause of the collision. You can use this information to uncover a history of similar collisions at an intersection. If this history corresponds with complaints to the entity about the particular danger, that may be indicative of a potential failure on the part of the entity. If you uncover physical evidence during your investigation, such as the existence of surveillance footage, you will want to send a letter requesting that the evidence be preserved. Once you have some evidence tying the entity to liability, you can evaluate the viability of the claim against the defenses and immunities provided in the Government Code. The next
step is complying with the claim filing procedures.

Mistakes to Avoid in Pleading

Taking the time to draft a thorough claim will aid in avoiding pleading errors that can open the door for a demurrer. The facts and basis for each cause of action in the complaint must reflect those set out in the claim. If the complaint goes far afield of the contents of the claim, that could give rise to a demurrer. Another way to avoid demurrer is to plead with specificity as to the specific statute applicable to a public entity. Here again, similar to the claim, it benefits you to reveal as many facts as possible and theories you have to meet the threshold for statutory liability of the public entity. Additionally, the complaint should provide facts to establish that the cause of action
is outside of any statutory immunity that is available to the public entity.

Read the full article in The Verdict (Summer 2025 edition) of the Alameda-Contra Costa Trial Lawyers’ Association.

California Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Victory for Bicyclists in Whitehead v. City of Oakland

Posted on May 2, 2025May 2, 2025 by Rahman Law PC

Ruling Strengthens Legal Protections and Reinforces Cities’ Responsibility to Maintain Safe Roads

Oakland, Calif., May 2, 2025 — In a powerful affirmation of bicyclists’ rights, the California Supreme Court has ruled in Whitehead v. City of Oakland (case S284303) that public entities cannot rely on liability waivers to avoid responsibility for dangerous road conditions. The decision marks a major legal milestone for bicycle safety and public accountability across the state.

The case involved cyclist Ty Whitehead, who suffered a traumatic brain injury during a charity training ride after hitting a large, obscured pothole on Skyline Boulevard in Oakland. Although Whitehead had signed a release form as part of the event, the Court ruled that such waivers cannot excuse a city from its statutory duty to maintain safe public roads. The Court unanimously found that exempting cities from liability in these cases violates California Civil Code section 1668, which prohibits contracts that waive responsibility for a violation of the law.

A pivotal amicus curiae brief supporting Whitehead was submitted by renowned bicycle attorney Shaana Rahman, founder of Rahman Law PC in San Francisco. Rahman authored the brief on behalf of San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, California Bicycle Coalition (CalBike), and Bike East Bay, offering the Court a critical perspective on the real-world impact of road hazards on bicyclists and the importance of holding cities accountable for infrastructure safety. The brief helped underscore how releasing cities from liability would endanger cyclists and undermine public safety efforts statewide.

“This decision is a win not just for one rider, but for every Californian who uses a bike to get around,” said Shaana Rahman, bike lawyer and founder of Rahman Law PC. “It sends a clear message that cities must take their responsibilities seriously—especially when it comes to keeping cyclists safe.”

The ruling clarifies that municipal liability cannot be sidestepped through fine print and reaffirms that cyclists are entitled to the same legal protections as any other road user. It is especially significant at a time when more Californians are choosing bicycles for health, transportation, and environmental reasons.

Organizations across the state have applauded the Court’s decision. Shaana Rahman is calling it “a critical step forward for equity, accountability, and the safety of all who share our roads.”

Court Docket Info (PDF): https://www.rahmanlawsf.com/wp-content/uploads/Ca-Supreme-Court-Bike-Opinion_Whitehead-v.-City-of-Oakland-S284303.pdf

About Rahman Law PC

The personal injury lawyers at Rahman Law PC are powerful advocates for people who have been injured through no fault of their own. What makes Rahman Law PC different from other personal injury law firms is they care about what happens to their clients; they aggressively advocate for their clients’ interests and have a personal relationship with each client, taking the time to listen and figure out solutions that make sense from a legal point of view but also from a human perspective. By providing the highest quality legal services to those who have been injured or have suffered wrongdoing at the hands of other individuals, corporations, or public entities, the personal injury attorneys and trial lawyers at Rahman Law PC have a proven track record of results and have successfully recovered millions of dollars for clients throughout California. Rahman Law PC offers clients attentive service backed with big firm experience, making them ready to take on any opponent. To learn more about the personal injury lawyers at Rahman Law PC, visit https://www.rahmanlawsf.com or call (415) 956-9245 in San Francisco, (805) 619-3108 in Paso Robles, California.

E-Bike Speed and Dangers for Minors

Posted on August 16, 2024August 16, 2024 by Rahman Law PC

At Rahman Law, we want to support the use of bicycles and advocate fiercely for pedestrian and cyclist safety. Better regulations are a part of that safety. e-Bikes are new and therefore lack a solid foundation of safety regulations just yet. Unfortunately, this places minors at risk for fatal injuries due to reaching speeds that shouldn’t be accessible to them on an e-bike because while laws differ widely in different states, counties, and cities regarding e-bikes, what doesn’t differ is the universal law that speed kills.

When we look at automotive collisions with pedestrians and cyclists, we know that the risk of serious injury to a pedestrian doubles between 16 MPH and 23 MP H. Similarly, a pedestrian in a collision with a vehicle has a 10% chance of being fatally injured at 20 MPH but a 40% chance at 30 MPH. Even worse, the risk jumps to 80% at 40 MPH. With an e-bike, the rate of increase in severity of injuries is thought to follow a similar rate of increase, though studies are still in progress.

e-Bikes that may be used by minors under the age of 16 typically have a requirement not to go above 20 MPH and manufacturers largely comply with that. These are considered Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes. But teenagers are smart. Some e-bikes only put a speed regulation on the motor, so as soon as you pedal with the motor, you can go faster. Other e-bikes have a governor, but cutting a cable might disable it easily. There are also apps out there to help navigate around the speed limitations put on by a manufacturer. Apps are easy to use.

Many cities are creating educational campaigns to help teach parents about the risks of e-bikes for minors and of going too fast on an e-bike in general. We don’t let minors under the age of 16 drive cars capable of going at high speeds for good reason. Allowing minors to go 20+ MPH on an e-bike (which can be categorized as a ‘motor vehicle’ depending on motor size and laws in your area) poses huge risks to the rider and the public. Law enforcement may be at a disadvantage in enforcing speed laws for e-bikes when it can be hard to determine the age of a cyclist, so this is something parents must be aware of before another e-bike fatality happens to a minor.

If you have a teenager who rides an e-bike (or even rents one periodically), be sure they understand the need for safety. The includes wearing a helmet, riding at safe speeds, and staying off of the sidewalks.

If you want to do more for your community to advocate for e-bike safety, subscribe to a non-profit doing work to bring about better regulations for e-bike safety for minors and all riders, like PeopleForBikes. Part of the battle we face in advocating for e-bike safety is that bikes are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, but motor vehicles are regulated by the NHTSA and e-bikes fall into a gray area where they might be one or the other. The oversight of e-bikes is currently under review by both of these agencies which makes now a great time to make your voice heard. E-Bikes offer more people the opportunity to ride who may not be physically capable of riding a traditional pedal-powered bike, but safety for the rider and the community around them needs to come first.

Vision Zero 2.0 in San Francisco

Posted on June 10, 2024August 16, 2024 by Rahman Law PC

San Francisco was the second city in the United States to adopt a Vision Zero resolution back in 2014. The pledge was to reach zero severe and fatal traffic accidents within 10 years. Walk San Francisco, a non-profit we love supporting, advocated heavily to bring about Vision Zero in San Francisco. As of the writing of this post in May of 2024, San Francisco is already up to 13 fatalities this year. That is 13 fatalities over the goal and the year is not finished. The most recent fatality was just this month and the collision was in an area declared a “High Injury Network” by the Vision Zero plan. It’s time for Vision Zero 2.0 in San Francisco and we’re sponsoring Walk SF to help lead the way.

A Recap of Vision Zero in San Francisco

Since 2014, there have been 300 catastrophic collisions resulting in fatalities in San Francisco (there may still be some under investigation). 2022 was a record-breaking year that hadn’t been seen since 2007 with the most fatalities during the Vision Zero initiative. As we all know too well, nothing moves quickly in government settings, including the release of data. The most recent report from the San Francisco Department of Public Health in collaboration with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the San Francisco Police Department was published in May of 2023 (hopefully the next report will be available soon) and recapped Vision Zero at the end of 2022. In fact, the report only counted 39 fatalities for 2022 as two fatalities were still under investigation. The report looked at demographics, modes of travel, collision factors, and even time of day to look for correlations beyond the already identified High Injury Network. Pedestrians continue to be the highest group impacted by San Francisco’s unsafe streets with the most fatalities each year.

San Francisco Traffic Fatalities from 2005 to 2022

Bringing Vision Zero 2.0 to San Francisco

As we mentioned earlier, we’re sponsoring Walk SF for Vision Zero 2.0 advocacy. It’s clear the efforts made in San Francisco over these last 10 years haven’t been enough. Other cities in the United States and around the world are making similar efforts and having much higher success rates. Why not San Francisco? Red tape, delays, leadership (or lack thereof), slow data analysis, lack of funding, lack of support, and maybe even a fear of change or backlash from drivers. You can take your pick from these and many other factors that might contribute to the lack of success so far in Vision Zero.

What we’re calling for, along with Walk San Francisco, is a renewed pledge to Vision Zero as Vision Zero 2.0. Let’s learn from the inadequacies and be brave enough to examine the failures and make the tough decisions needed for success in having zero fatalities in San Francisco streets. If we take a hard look at what we’re doing in San Francisco as compared to other cities having success with their Vision Zero resolutions, we can make Vision Zero 2.0 a success in San Francisco.

San Francisco started with Quick-Build Programs for reducing catastrophic injuries and fatalities in the High Injury Network areas, but most of the projects turned out to not be very “quick.” The delays in the projects have expanded the timeline beyond the 10-year goal. If we renew our pledge with Vision Zero 2.0 in San Francisco, we believe we can be successful. We need to move beyond the “quick” Band-Aids and address the root of what could be called a disease for San Francisco as more people have been killed in collisions so far this year than by homicide. Looking at New York, who also started Vision Zero in 2014 like San Francisco, banning right turns on red lights, reducing speeds, and adding more speed cameras to aid the Police with enforcement did show a significant drop in pedestrian deaths. We know banning right turns on red lights isn’t a small ask, but perhaps what we need to ask isn’t “can this be a quick fix,” but instead ask, “is this a necessary fix?” When lives continue to be lost, we want to look at necessary interventions, even ones that may not be so popular with drivers like ending right turns on red lights. San Francisco needs to be safe and end collision-related fatalities more than it needs to get you to work on time when you got out the door late.

How You Can Help Make Vision Zero 2.0 a Reality

Start with a visit to Walk San Francisco’s Vision Zero Campaign page. On the right, you’ll see a menu of resolutions by district. You’ll be able to quickly and easily send a letter to your district’s Supervisor thanking them for supporting Vision Zero and asking them to renew their efforts. Let them know why safe streets matter to you.

Next, we need a plan of action from City and Government Leaders. S.B. 961 just passed at the State Senate and is going to the Assembly. Bills like this that target the root of the problem, like speeding drivers in this case, are going to be necessary as part of a plan of action. Do your part and VOTE for action items like S.B. 961 when they become available for a vote. And when they start working their way through the government, send letters of support to your leaders and ask for their support in making positive changes that will save lives. If you don’t know what’s coming up in government that might save lives for people in San Francisco, check out the news page from Walk SF. They will frequently post not only what’s coming but whom to contact with your support or request for change. They also frequently have something posted on their Take Action page.

What is S.B. 961?

SB 961 would require all cars and trucks manufactured or sold in California starting in 2027 (except emergency vehicles) to have ‘Intelligent Speed Assistance’ technology. All new vehicles in Europe will have this starting this summer. SB 961 would require audio and visual warnings to the driver when the vehicle is being operated in excess of 10 MPH over the speed limit.
If passed, SB 961 would bring needed safety technology into the vehicle fleet in California and likely our entire country, just like when seat belt laws started at the state level.

If you or a loved one have been in a traffic collision with injuries, know that we’re not only advocating for change, but we’re also personal injury attorneys in San Francisco ready to help fight for your rights. Consultations are free.

What You Need To Know About California’s New Daylighting Law

Posted on March 9, 2024August 16, 2024 by Shaana A. Rahman

At the end of 2023, California Governor Gavin Newson signed into law SB 413, making it illegal in California to park within 20 feet of the approach of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, whether or not there is a red curb painted or a sign.

What is the ‘California Daylighting Law’ is all about?

The new law (SB 413 or the ‘California Daylighting Law’) amends Section 22500 of the California Vehicle Code, adding a new section to the law prohibiting stopping, standing or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of any marked or unmarked crosswalk or within 15 feet of any crosswalk with a curb extension. For now, cities can only issue a warning if the law is violated, unless the area has already been painted red or a sign erected. On January 1, 2025, violators can be cited.

Daylighting, or removing visual barriers within a minimum of 20 feet of a crosswalk or intersection, makes everyone on the street easier to see.

Why do we need this law for pedestrians?

Until AB 413 was passed, California was one of only 10 states that did not have a law restricting parking near crosswalks, despite the high rate of pedestrian injuries and fatalities. The law allows cities to implement a pedestrian safety concept called daylighting which increases visibility for both pedestrians crossing the street and drivers approaching an intersection. With daylighting, pedestrians no longer have to edge into the intersection to try and peek around parked cars for approaching traffic. Daylighting increases safety for drivers too as it gives drivers a clear view of the intersection, allowing them to see if someone is waiting to cross, well before they reach the intersection. This also helps drivers more readily identify children, who are less visible at intersections behind parked cars, who are waiting to cross the street.

Preventing fatal pedestrian injuries

Some cities, like San Francisco began implanting daylighting in 2015, after adopting Vision Zero, a nationwide movement putting safety first to decrease traffic deaths to zero by 2024. San Francisco started their program in some of the high injury network streets where there are the most concentrated numbers of severe and fatal pedestrian injuries. By 2019, San Francisco had implemented daylighting in the collection of intersections throughout the city where more than two-thirds of all severe and fatal traffic crashes happen.

Won’t this California Daylighting Law remove parking spaces?

In moving cities toward a new mindset where streets are shared by pedestrians, cyclists, transit and cars there will always be trade-offs between safety and convenience. The reality is at some point during an average day, most of us will be a pedestrian, whether we define ourselves that way or not. Whether you drive and park your car to run and errand and cross a street, or are car-free and walk everywhere, you are a pedestrian and now there is a law in California that will help improve the chances that you can get from one side of the street to the other safely.

The “Big Wiggle”: Changing the Way We Prioritize Pedestrian-Friendly Streets May Be the Cure for San Francisco

Posted on February 13, 2024August 16, 2024 by Shaana A. Rahman

Recently, the San Francisco Chronicle’s Pilot Proposal Contributors, through its SFNext project, posited an interesting idea to revitalize downtown San Francisco. (“Could this idea for pedestrian-friendly streets bring new life to downtown S.F.?”, San Francisco Chronicle, 11-13-23; https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/pedestrian-streets-downtown-18457711.php) The post (and some pre) pandemic issues plaguing San Francisco from Civic Center Plaza to the Financial District have been much talked about, making local headlines on what seems like a daily basis. The Chronicle Contributors boldly suggest that the solution to revitalize these areas of the city can be found in the creation of the “Big Wiggle”, which they liken to a “cousin” of the Wiggle on the west side of town, a route for cyclists from the Panhandle through Golden Gate Park. The Big Wiggle as imagined would instead be pedestrian focused, carving out car-free and enjoyable paths for pedestrians from Civic Center Plaza to Embarcadero Plaza, an idea that is particularly timely in light of the Governors Highway Safety Association report showing the U.S. is at a 40-year high for pedestrian fatalities.

The idea of creating safer, more enjoyable spaces for pedestrians is not a new one in our town.

Non-profits WalkSF and Livable City have been advocates for safer pedestrian access to city streets, and effective conduits to making necessary changes in partnership with the City and County of San Francisco. The concept of the Big Wiggle seems to build on the years of pedestrian advocacy work, initiatives like Vision Zero and the renewed dialogue surrounding the use of public spaces. As the Chronicle Contributors gently walk us through the turn-by-turn descriptions of what pedestrians would experience traipsing through the Big Wiggle, you can feel the ideals of renewal and rebirth in places that now seem forgotten by those in charge of governing our city. The Big Wiggle is more a reimagined landscape for our city, rather than a stodgy public works project and would entail buy-in not only from city officials but by the private sector, and of course residents. The idea is a bold call to action directed at the powers that be in San Francisco government, but the call is not to tackle this as an en masse project, but to use it as a guiding principle to start minor projects focused on a few pedestrian-only streets.

While the call for even small-scale pedestrian friendly car-free spaces is often met with a chorus of complaints about traffic congestion, lack of parking and the increased “burdens” to drivers, in reality San Francisco has carved out such spaces, and done so successfully at various points and times. The question now is will San Francisco meet the moment, not with band-aid fixes of intermittent street cleaning and SFPD sweeps for grand conventioneers and political royalty, but with a thoughtful plan to re-imagine San Francisco for its residents and regular folks visiting to enjoy the brilliance of San Francisco? Time will tell.

Is Riding a Bike on the Sidewalk Safe or Even Legal?

Posted on October 24, 2023October 24, 2023 by Rahman Law PC

In California, someone riding a bicycle may move out of the bicycle lane when “reasonably necessary” to avoid hazardous conditions, even if they are moving slower than traffic (Cal. Veh. Code § 21208). When vehicle traffic is heavy and few pedestrians are in sight, it might be tempting to ride on the sidewalk to avoid road hazards, but as personal injury attorneys here in California, we want to share a few thoughts about riding a bike on the sidewalk. Ask yourself if it’s really safe to ride a bike on the sidewalk? Or, for that matter, if its even legal where you are?

Safety Considerations

Too often, cyclists are hit and killed by vehicles and California is in the top three states for pedestrian and cyclist fatalities due to collisions. Speed is often a contributing factor, but most fatalities from a collision involving a cyclist occur in urban areas. The reality is that many cyclists are not seen by drivers until it is too late. Riding on a sidewalk where the driver of a vehicle isn’t expecting you may mean they are not looking for you. If a car is backing out of a driveway, they might be looking for coming traffic on the road without looking for a bike coming down the sidewalk. Trucks coming in and out of alleys making deliveries are also a high-risk factor for a cyclist on a sidewalk as the buildings along the alley may block their view of you on the sidewalk. Being seen is vital for cyclists. Nearly 25% of bicyclist fatalities in California happen at intersections.

Additionally, sidewalks don’t have the same advantages of maneuverability as the roadways. Even if there’s a bike lane, a cyclist can enter the vehicle travel lane(s) as needed to avoid hazards. Trees and landscaping, uneven surfaces, benches, mailboxes, and other things take up a lot of real estate on the sidewalk, and can create unexpected obstacles with little room to avoid them.

Pedestrians also don’t anticipate faster moving bicycles or scooters and combined with the limited space a sidewalk provides can lead to devastating collisions with those on foot.

Legal Considerations

Local governments in California are allowed to make their own regulations when it comes to the use of bikes, skates, and scooters on sidewalks. For example, in San Francisco, children under the age of 13 may ride a bike on the sidewalk (unless otherwise posted) per the San Francisco Transportation Code, Section 1007. In San Luis Obispo, California, the Municipal Code Section 10.72.100 restricts all people from riding a bike on the sidewalk. However, the City of San Luis Obispo has re-opened discussions within the Active Transportation Committee on allowing bikes to ride on the sidewalk, believing ticketing cyclists for riding on the sidewalk to be a deterrent from riding as a way of commuting. San Luis Obispo has set a goal of raising the share of commuter trips by bike to 20% by the year 2030 and is actively implementing new safety measures and bike lanes for that purpose. San Francisco is also working diligently to make the streets safer for cyclists. As a result, it would be best to keep an eye on the regulations and policies in these and other cities in California for the legal implications of riding a bike on the sidewalk.

Children Riding Bikes on the Sidewalk

Many children learn to ride a bike on two wheels in a driveway or residential area with minimal vehicle traffic. They will also likely have parental/guardian supervision while learning to balance and pedal. As children become more comfortable riding on their own, they may be hesitant to ride in the street, which is understandable as cars are much bigger and faster than a child on a bike. In some areas in California, like San Francisco, it may be legal for a child to ride their bike on the sidewalk, but the same safety considerations that we outlined above apply to children, too. Even in a residential area, there will be cars going in and out of driveways. Parked cars, trees, and other objects may limit the visibility of the sidewalk to a driver as they navigate a driveway and children can be even harder to see as they are not as tall on a bicycle as an adult. And keep in mind, most fatal collisions with a bicycle happen between 6:00 and 9:00 PM, which may be when people are returning home from work and children may be out riding in their neighborhood. Children may also be tempted to use the sidewalk when the commute on a bike going to and from school as they may think the route is safer or more familiar, but they will then face the same challenges as an adult riding a bike on the sidewalk with limited maneuverability, reduced visibility at intersections, and increased hazards.

Sadly, children under 14 make up 37% of all fatal bicycle collisions each year and one of the hardest things we ever have to do as bicycle accident attorneys is represent the family of a child who lost their life while riding a bike.

Be sure to talk to your children about the safety considerations of where they ride, even if it is legal in your area for them to use the sidewalk on a bike.

If you or a loved one has been injured while riding a bike, contact us today for a free consultation.

free san francisco personal injury lawyer consultation

Pitfalls of Rideshare Service Apps

Posted on July 20, 2023August 16, 2024 by Rahman Law PC

When it comes to rideshare apps like Uber and Lyft the benefits to using them as a passenger may seem pretty obvious: a ride home when you’re too tired to drive; a lift to get you closer to your destination when a parking lot is full; a shuttle between a train station or airport and a hotel when you’re traveling… Unfortunately, these idealized use cases tend to blind many riders to the pitfalls and risks behind using a rideshare service.

In most cases, the rider doesn’t experience a problem, so we continue to believe these Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) are safe, or a “safer” alternative to driving yourself. There are other factors that contribute to our perception of these services as safe, and one of the biggest is the suppression of information from the rideshare companies themselves.

Let’s examine some of the most common pitfalls of rideshare service apps and what might make you think twice about deeming them as safe.

You’re putting your safety into the hands of an average driver. This driver is an independent contractor who has most likely not completed any additional driver training to ensure rules of the road are followed and that you remain as safe as possible. The driver could be aggressive, show signs of road rage, or simply be too distracted by the app on their phone telling them about their next pickup opportunity. Typically, someone who is a professional driver has undergone additional training that highlights the differences between just getting in your car to run to the store and driving in a commercial setting.
The driver isn’t usually being paid fairly. When all of the time and costs to operate are taken into account, many drivers say they earn less than minimum wage. So if you feel like they’re in a rush to drop you off to go get the next rider, it’s probably true. The drivers need to maximize their earnings which leads many to speed. And we say this one all the time: speed kills. The State tried to protect drivers by making them employees, but Proposition 22 (which was sponsored by Uber) reversed that.
You have no control in-the-moment. We have a team member with a service animal. Although the rideshare services all have a policy that service animals are allowed provided that they, too, abide by the rules (which a real service animal will without any issues), the driver can still prevent you from entering their car for any reason by simply locking their doors and driving off. She waited at a train station in Los Angeles where not one, not two, but three drivers refused her with her service animal. Or they may pick you up and not take you to your destination. They are behind the wheel and you lose your control. You can complain to the TNC, but that doesn’t mean anything will come of it, despite the fact that they have records of which drivers responded to your request in the rideshare app. Yet another pitfall of rideshare apps.
More traffic and impact on the environment. Studies have been conducted and there is a statistically significant increase in traffic congestion brought on from these rideshare service apps – as much as 13.4% in San Francisco County. This is also what leads many to believe rideshare is the root to the current rise in traffic fatalities.

These are just some of the many pitfalls of rideshare apps. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough data made public due to gag orders placed on lawsuits and settlements from these service providers to accurately represent the odds of something going wrong the next time you use an app to hail a ride from a TNC. If you’ve been hurt while using a rideshare, or involved in a collision with a rideshare service driver, you may already be aware of these pitfalls and the uncertainty in identifying the party(ies) responsible.

As rideshare accident attorneys in California, we can help. Consultations are free.

Cyclist Accidents – Personal Injury Lawsuit FAQs

Posted on March 20, 2023June 8, 2024 by Rahman Law PC

We take our work in the bike community seriously and we are always here to talk to cyclists and answer questions about what to do if you’ve been injured or had your bicycle damaged in a car crash. Sometimes, we just help cyclists navigate a claim on their own with an insurance company (you can download our free toolkit to help you with your property damage demand to get the insurance company to pay for your bike here), but sometimes having a lawyer in your corner is the best option. Here are answers to some of the questions we get asked most often.

Is there a statute of limitations on a personal injury lawsuit?

Yes. Generally, in California, you have two years from the date you were injured to file a lawsuit. However, there are some types of personal injury cases like those involving public buses (MUNI or SamTrans), trains, or other transit (BART) that have much shorter deadline to file a lawsuit, and require a claim to be filed first within 6 months of an injury, before a lawsuit can be filed. If you’ve been in a bike crash it can give you piece of mind to call us as soon as you can to get the information that applies to your specific facts.

Should I get a police report if I’m hit by a car?

In an ideal world, police officers will automatically prepare a police report in every traffic collision. Sadly, it is not a perfect world. If police are sent to the scene of a collision and are told no one was injured, most officers will not do a report. If the call to 911 says no one was injured, the police will usually not be sent to the scene either. Understandably, cyclists just hit by a vehicle are often in shock and do not understand if they are actually injured. It’s important to try to take a moment to assess not only if you feel pain but if you just don’t feel right, you should request an ambulance. If the police won’t do a report, if possible to gather as much information as possible at the scene like names of witnesses, the license plate number of the vehicle that hit you, the name of the driver and insurance information. If you’re able pull out your phone and snap a quick picture of their insurance card and driver’s registration as these two documents will have a lot of the information you need You can also go to the nearest police department and file a counter report.

Can I recover lost wages?

Yes. If you missed work as a result of your injury, even just the day of the accident, it is possible to recover lost wages. This is actually quite common in a bicycle accident resulting in an injury. There may be time spent in a hospital, time recovering at home, or frequent doctor visits that force you to step away from work. Be sure to keep track of the hours you miss as a result of your injury.

Can I recover medical expenses?

Yes. If you were injured as a result of a cycling accident, you are entitled to all past and future medical expenses, even if your health insurance company paid for those expenses. Your health insurance provider may cover your medical bills initially, but be sure to keep records of your visits and co-pays If you were injured, the first thing you will want to do is seek medical attention. It is so important to take care of yourself. Many people feel confused about if they should or shouldn’t go to the doctor after an accident. If you’re hurting or are worried about a potential injury like a concussion, seek help.

Can I recover the cost of my bicycle and helmet? What about a broken phone?

Yes. If you have been in an accident while riding your bicycle and as a result your helmet, bike or other personal property, like your phone, gets damaged, you are entitled to be reimbursed for these expenses. If you were not injured but had your property damaged, take a look at our free toolkit on writing a property damage demand letter to the insurance company. If you get stuck, give us a call.

Do I need a lawyer if I’m injured?

We get this question a lot. Here’s our best answer – there are some cases where we feel that having a lawyer just won’t add value to your case—meaning you would do better handling it on your own. There are other cases where we believe we can really help you. But more importantly we will have a long conversation with you and discuss what is right for you. We never look at whether a case is “big enough” or “small enough”, we take each person who calls us as a unique situation and try to find a solution that makes sense.

How much does a personal injury lawsuit consultation cost?

Our personal injury lawsuit consultations are free. You can contact us here to get started or call us at either our San Francisco office at (415) 956-9245, or at our Paso Robles office at (805) 619-3108.

What if I got hurt because of road conditions and not a collision with a car?

We handle many cases that involve dangerous roads poorly maintained or designed by cities, counties or the State. These cases are very complex and because of that, it’s important to contact us as soon as possible so that evidence can be preserved.

New Year, New Law for Pedestrians

Posted on January 24, 2023July 20, 2023 by Rahman Law PC

Pedestrians are safest in crosswalks. However, crossing the street outside of a marked crosswalk is still something pedestrians do and is commonly known as jaywalking–crossing between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic signal devices or law enforcement where there is no crosswalk. California law has historically prohibited jaywalking allowing police officers to issue citations for a moving violation to pedestrians carrying a fine of up to $250.00. (California Vehicle Code section 21955).

Unfortunately, California has seen an inequitable number of jaywalking fines going to minority groups, which is part of what started the momentum behind the “Freedom to Walk” act signed in by Governor Gavin Newsom. Phil Ting, a San Francisco assembly member helped write the legislation along with fellow assembly member Laura Friedman of Glendale. Mr. Ting commented that “minority groups don’t need to be harassed by law enforcement.” Data from the California Racial Identity Profiling Act shows that Black people in San Diego are 4.3 times as likely to be cited for jaywalking as white pedestrians and 3.7 times as likely to be cited by the Los Angeles Police Department. Effective since January 1, 2023, the new law restricts police officers from stopping pedestrians for jaywalking unless “a reasonable person would realize there is an immediate danger of collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power” (which would be something like a bicycle). The new act, AB-2147, also applies to pedestrians walking against a traffic light or pedestrians not walking closest to the left side of the road.

The key here is “reasonable person.” A police officer may still issue a ticket to a pedestrian that violates the laws that apply to pedestrians if they believe you are going to cause a collision.

AB-2147 was enacted to rectify the disparity of the imposition of monetary fines on minority groups and the targeting of individuals for minor infractions of the law. The changes to the law decriminalizes jaywalking and the law now can’t be used as a pretext to detain someone. But, there are still laws on the books that require pedestrians to use crosswalks, obey traffic signals and other basic traffic laws. The sad fact is that even when pedestrians follow safe practices for walking and crossing the street, including using crosswalks and obeying traffic signals, pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. are high. 2022 was a record-breaking year for pedestrian fatalities with an estimated 7,485 pedestrian deaths in the United States, the most in four decades. San Francisco saw 13 pedestrians killed in 2021, and on average more than 500 are severely injured each year. So while we support the goal behind AB-2147 to end targeting of racial minorities and low-income communities, we believe that whenever or wherever you are walking you need do whatever you can to stay safe and stay visible to cars. We support Vision Zero and we won’t stop advocating for pedestrian safety until we see ZERO pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities each year.

If you or a loved one wishes to speak with a pedestrian accident lawyer in California, please contact us. Consultations are free. We have offices in San Francisco and Paso Robles, California.

Smart.

Fierce.

Dedicated.

Experienced.