Home|About Us|Case Results|Referring Attorneys|Practice Areas|Contact

News

News Stories Featured Here --- One Child's Tragedy Produced Services for Others - The Silver Lining Bisnar Chase Alleges Ford SUV Defective Roof Crush Kills - Fact vs. Fiction Lagging Liability Limits Public's First Amendment Rights Vindicated Coverage of Big Awards Distort View of Legal System Legal Eagles - Orange Coast Magazine New California Offices Opened B & C Petition the Federal Government Saving Grace For Those Wronged By Big Business Expert Witnesses And Motions In Limine Making Motions For Trial-Setting Preference

As personal injury attorneys, we are no strangers to grief. We often deal with people grieving over lost lives, careers, abilities and so on.

We see our clients deal with their grief all the time and although we don't have the training or expertise to provide them with psychological counseling, we do our best to treat them with dignity, respect and sensitivity - and we highly recommend and sometimes insist that they do counseling, especially grief counseling after a death in their family.

One of the most unique organizations we support is called Gary's Place for Kids - an organization that helps children deal with the loss of a loved one. There are very few organizations in the country - let alone in Orange County - that help kids deal with be degree of grief that results from the death of a parent, sibling or close family member. In fact, Gary's Place had its origins in the grief of Gary Tannehill's children.

Gary Tannehill and his wife, Madeline Tucci Tannehill, were long-standing practicing attorneys in Orange County since the 1980s. They had a beautiful home in Mission Viejo, two wonderful daughters, a thriving law practice, good friends and an awesome marriage. Everything collapsed when Gary, at age 49 and only six weeks after getting a clean bill of health from his physician, died when he was struck with fatal arrhythmia while working in his law office.

That was in early 2002 when Madeline at age 46, was left to raise her two daughters, ages 10 and 12. After Gary's death, Madeline found grief support for herself, but struggled to find a similar outlet for her two daughters who badly needed it as well. The only thing even close was an eight-week session, which simply wasn't enough. They needed something that was ongoing, something that would grow and evolve just as they did.

Months after her father's death, 12-year-old Sondra told her mom that she needed a continual support group.

"Like the one you go to Thursday nights," the girl told her mother.

So Madeline set out to research available resources and wondered where she could send her daughters to receive such support. She looked for more than a month when she realized that if she needed one, she would have to establish it herself - not only for her girls, but for other grieving children in Orange County as well.

So Madeline made it happen. On Feb. 13, 2003, she filed the articles of incorporation for the nonprofit public benefit corporation she named after her late husband: Gary's Place for Kids. As with any nonprofit, the fundraising effort had to be significant. Gary's musician friends rallied to Madeline's help with their first of three music festivals in June 2003.

A month later, in July, Gary's Place received its tax exempt status, which Madeline says, happened in record time. In that same month, the organization also received one-year commitments from its first 12 volunteer facilitators who underwent a three-day training to secure certification specializing in children's grief support.

Gary's Place opened its doors on Sept. 8, 2003. In less than a year, the organization had serviced more than 70 families, which said something about the dire need for children's grief support programs. Madeline says her mission is to provide ongoing grief support for children, ages 5 to 18 and their families, helping them to express and process their feelings in a safe and healthy environment, reach grief adjustment and lead productive lives. After all, grief can hold you back, keeping you from moving on with your life. And that can be particularly hard for children who are at a critical developmental phase in their lives.

It's not just the kids, but their grandparents, parents or caregivers also meet concurrently during the time of the children's support group. This is an important component of the foundation's program.

"A family that grieves together, heals together," Madeline says.

The feedback and testimonials she has been getting from families show that Madeline's program is helping immensely with their grieving process. One family member says: "What GPFK offers to our children and the community is phenomenal. They are providing everyone a place to grow and grieve. They help each of us to look for comfort in years to come. I believe in Gary's Place for Kids. I believe in their volunteers. I believe in the service they provide our community."

Gary's Place's accomplishments have been many in the short time they've been here. In 2006, the program became housed at the YMCA of Orange County as part of the Y's community services programs. In June of 2007, they had serviced a total of 150 families. Before they closed for summer 2007, they had a ceremony where each child and adult shared what they would take from Gary's Place to sustain them during their summer break.

Madeline says a number of adults commented how they had gotten this sense of peace from coming to the support groups, by sharing their feelings and emotions with others who understand in a place that's safe, nurturing and comforting. One teen even remarked that she now feels there's nothing she cannot handle in facing her mother's death! What a wonderful and fulfilling accomplishment for Gary's Place. Giving young children such strength and assurance in the face of adversity is indeed remarkable.

Children's grief support groups are held Monday evenings at The Bell Tower Regional Community Center at 22232 El Paseo, Rancho Santa Margarita. The Littles group (5-8 year olds), Middles (9-12 year olds), Teens (13-18 year olds), meet the first and third Mondays of the month, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The sessions take place from September through June.

Bisnar Chase has long been a supporter of Gary's Place. During our June 22, 2005 opening of our new Newport Beach offices, we held a charity silent auction with nearly 40 items --including a Mercedes SL 500 donated by Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, a Wyland painting and Angels and Lakers tickets - to benefit Gary's Place. We sincerely believe in their cause, the terrific work they're doing for kids who have experienced tragic losses. The invaluable help and support they are providing these children with will certainly have positive, lifelong effects on the children giving them a sense of peace and steering them in a positive direction.

Note: This article is based on an account of the organization's activities submitted to us by Madeline Tucci Tannehill, Founder/Development Director of Gary's Place for Kids. For more information or to find out about volunteer opportunities, please call 949-740-0775.

Bisnar Chase lawsuit alleges one of Ford Motor Company's SUV, the Expedition, has inherent defects that can lead to death and permanent disability during a rollover.

Newport Beach, CA. (BusinessWire) December 4, 2007--The personal injury law firm of Bisnar Chase, started a multi-million dollar trial today against automotive giant Ford Motor Company. The suit alleges that Ford knowingly manufactured and sold the Ford Expedition sport utility vehicle (SUV) with a defective roof that collapses during rollover accidents. The plaintiff, Gloria Levesque, was permanently paralyzed on July 25, 2003 when the Expedition she was a passenger in swerved to avoid a collision with a big rig and the Expedition rolled over several times. During the rollover, the roof crushed inward, causing her permanent head and spinal injuries.

The auto product liability lawsuit, Levesque vs. Ford Motor Company, started December 4, 2007, in Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, before the Honorable Ricardo Torres.

"Ford Motor Company's decision to place corporate profits over the safety of their SUV's occupants, demonstrates a callous disregard for the safety of the people who ride in Ford SUVs," says John Bisnar, partner and founder of the Bisnar Chase personal injury law firm. "It is shameful that an American auto maker would willingly ignore known catastrophic injury concerns just to improve their profits."

On the afternoon of July 25, 2003, the Ford Expedition's driver, swerved to avoid a collision while traveling southbound on Interstate 5 in Fresno County. The driver subsequently lost control of her vehicle which then rolled over several times. The roof collapsed causing severe head and spinal injuries to passenger Gloria Levesque.

The suit alleges Ford Motor Company intentionally engaged in conduct that exposed the plaintiff and other users of the Ford Expedition to potentially serious, life threatening danger for its financial interest and demonstrated a conscious disregard for consumers' safety. The plaintiff is seeking a judgment for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering.

"The defendants clearly put profit before people," says Brian Chase, partner and the firm's chief litigator. "This is another example of an automobile manufacturer profiting from the production of a vehicle known to have serious and life threatening defects. For only $30, Ford could have easily strengthened their SUV's roof structure to withstand these types of rollover roof failures. If Ford had chosen to do so, Gloria Levesque would be teaching at her Montessori school as she had for the past 25 years. Instead she is unemployed, permanently disabled, and catastrophically injured.

The lawsuit, originally filed on November 8, 2005, centers on the allegation that Ford manipulates the general public into believing that large SUVs like their Expedition model, are safer compared to other vehicles while knowing that their SUVs have one of the highest rates of rollover injuries and deaths of any vehicle on the road today.

Chase states, "Ford's SUVs are not built strong enough to protect the front seat occupants from being catastrophically injured during a rollover. They know this and have for years. Unfortunately, Ford chose to ignore the inherent safety problems of the Expedition including the rollover propensity and insignificant roof strength."

About Bisnar Chase
Bisnar Chase, LLP, is a California personal injury law firm that represents people who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the loss of a family member. They specialize in automobile defect cases against the world's largest automobile makers. Bisnar Chase is known for its multi-million settlements and judgments for its clients. For more information visit: www.auto-defect-attorneys.com, www.bisnar-chase.com, and www.californiainjuryblog.com.

Contact Information
John Bisnar, Esq
Partner of Bisnar Chase
jbisnar@bestattorney.com
Phone: 949-752-2999

Nobody can drive without auto insurance. Well...nobody is supposed to drive without auto insurance. Governments have mandated for almost a century that drivers must be capable of providing compensation for most damages they may cause while operating a motor vehicle. I think it makes sense. People should be responsible for their actions. This concept of personal responsibility permeates our laws governing how we interact with one another.

However, I feel that the California insurance minimums in place now fails to successfully enforce this ideal. While the costs of medical care, vehicle repair and replacement have drastically increased, the required insurance coverage has remained at the 1967 levels. How can drivers with minimum coverage at 1967 levels possibly be held accountable for potentially sizeable damages? Are the financial risks of driving a motor vehicle being accounted for? Whose interests are being met? And, perhaps most importantly, what should the law be governing financial responsibility and what are the implications for the individual and for society? There are lots of issues to think about, and society's stake in each is high.

So how big is this disconnect? Embedded in California law is the assumption of financial responsibility for drivers of motor vehicles. In fact, the California Vehicle Code provides for 4 ways to establish financial responsibility, the most popular and feasible of which is a minimum amount of liability insurance coverage. Currently, in order to meet the requirements one must carry an insurance policy for at least $15,000 of bodily injury coverage per person, with a maximum of $30,000 for a single accident, as well as $5,000 of coverage for potential property damage.

These are the levels of liability established by the first insurance coverage minimum law enacted in 1967, back when Lyndon Johnson was president and a US stamp cost 5 cents. A lot has changed since then. The cost of a new car has more than tripled. Repair costs for automobiles have increased ten-fold and healthcare costs have grown exponentially. From these facts alone it is clear that the circumstances surrounding auto insurance claims have changed drastically since these laws were established. However, the same law governs how much coverage is sufficient to drive today.

It seems strange that this hasn't evolved over the last 40 years. Surprisingly little support has been voiced for keeping coverage aligned with average damages caused by motor vehicle accidents. Various resolutions have been passed by the Conference of Delegates of California Bar Associations in support of increasing minimums, but there is precious little public dialogue taking place.

In June of 2003, the Santa Clara County Bar Association sponsored one such resolution supporting an increase of the current levels of required insurance to $30,000 per person for bodily injury, with $60,000 per accident, and $10,000 in property damage coverage, to be implemented over several years incrementally. A similar resolution, with the Bar Association of San Francisco County as proponent, goes so far as to suggest increases to $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident, as well as $20,000 in property damage. However, the attempt at actually amending the Vehicle Code, by Bill 456 introduced in the 2003-2004 session of the California Assembly, died in the hands of the Insurance Committee later that year. In accordance with Article 4 Sec. 10(c) of the California Constitution, because the bill was not passed prior to Jan 31 of the following year, it was labeled inactive and neither house can act upon it.

It is unclear what this lack of activity for or against this change means about the interests involved. There have been few attempts to update the coverage minimums over the past 40 years as medical care and auto repair rates skyrocketed. Does this mean that entrenched interests have successfully squashed any potential threats to the stability of the status quo? Or does this mean that no one has anything significant to gain from changing the requirements?

The associations in favor of updating the minimums claim to base their analysis on the much publicized exponentially increased costs of healthcare and auto purchase and repair. The argument goes back to the original justification for the original coverage requirements. Because the 1967 establishment of coverage minimums cites actual costs of damages as the basis from which requirements are to be drawn, it is only logical to update those minimums as costs change. Neglecting to do so is to introduce deficits into the financial responsibility model; if the required coverage cannot come close to covering costs, then the requirement should not be sufficient to establish financial responsibility required by the California Vehicle Code!

Opponents to the changes and the related resolutions focus mainly on the implications of enforcing new requirements. There are two main arguments; one accounting for changes in premiums, and a second that addresses potential effects on uninsured motorist activity. A common claim is that the benefits of higher coverage are outweighed by the expected increases in premiums. If every driver is required to purchase more insurance, they are also being required to pay higher monthly payments to their insurance provider mitigating any savings they might see. Proponents do not argue with this supposition. However, they do contend that with more coverage, there will be a smaller deficit between damages incurred every year and those covered by insurance policies, the remainder of which is paid by the injured party. If coverage could account for a greater proportion of actual damages, drivers would suffer less risk of incurring the costs of damages exceeding policy coverage, and damages would be paid from the policies of those who are financially responsible.

The second argument in opposition to increasing coverage requirements emphasizes the likelihood that instead of paying higher premiums, many drivers will instead drive without insurance. This may indeed be a major concern. There are always people who can barely afford insurance, and even a small increase in monthly payments will push some people who are currently covered to discontinue their policies. This increase in uninsured motorist activity will increase the number of accidents for which at least one party has insufficient insurance coverage, if any at all. Any given incident might be potentially more dangerous in terms of financial damages incurred by all parties involved. This issue is unique in that it is purely practical, and it shouldn't affect the average liability claim, nor the amount covered by insurance policies at the new requirement level. The potential for increased costs incurred at the hands of uninsured motorist is separate from the ideal of financial responsibility implemented through the insurance minimum requirement. However, this reality must be taken into account, because the inability to perfectly enforce the liability minimum allows risk to be disproportionately distributed to those who have more insurance.

Diversifying risk across the population of insured drivers is a circumstance that continues partially because it is in the interest of insurance companies to permit it, a situation somewhat unique to the insurance industry. Auto insurance coverage is one of few consumer products required to be purchased but offered exclusively by for-profit companies. And, in the case of insurance, the consumer is attempting to decrease her risk of financial liability, while the company is trying to do the same by insuring those least likely to make claims and spreading the remainder of the risk over a large population. However, those who are deemed more likely to cause accidents are charged higher premiums. This sounds familiar; people are responsible for supporting their personal estimated liability. But, imperfect enforcement highlights an important caveat. Many people cannot afford insurance, especially at the higher premiums associated with the proposed coverage levels. What this reflects is that driving possesses an inherent baseline of risk, no matter who is driving, and the required proof of financial responsibility for that baseline of risk exceeds the means of many Californians.

Many would say that financial responsibility means that if one cannot afford to be financially responsible for potential damages, one should not engage in activities where there is risk of damages. In other words, if you don't want to do the time (or can't pay the fine), don't do the crime. There are a few potential responses to this line of thinking. Because uninsured motorist activity is certain to occur and (according to some) is sufficiently large to negate benefits of increasing minimum liability, some believe the limits should not be raised. It may be a purely practical consideration that flies in the face of the ideal of financial responsibility, but it is too significant to ignore based on principle alone. However the role of financial responsibility is important in rooting California law beyond just the vehicle code. For individuals living together in interdependent communities, it is vitally important that all are held accountable for the risk and damage that they individually incur upon others. This is how appropriate caution and risk-aversion is achieved. Something should be done to preserve accountability, but the issues are complicated. The current liability limits do not do enough, but the practical implications of increased coverage requirements must be addressed.

But how dramatic would the increases need to be? According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, medical care costs in 2007 are 6.9 times what they were in 1967. Transportation costs, which include repair and insurance, are approximately 5.4 times what they in 1967. Taken together, these factors work out to be about the same as the aggregate consumer price index over that period. In other words, they haven't undergone an unusually large increase when compared to other expenses.

Over the same time period, the average bodily injury claim has increased from $1,432 to $11,271, and the average property damage claim has increased from $241 to $2,690. The fact that these figures have increased beyond the index for their categories further supports the conclusion that the changes in medical care and repair costs are not insignificant, and that accidents these days are more dangerous than ever. In 1967, the $15,000 bodily injury coverage was 10.5 times the average claim amount. The $5,000 property damage coverage was 20.7 times the average claim. Applying the same ratios to the current average claim amounts, the proportional coverage should be $118,346 per person in bodily injury coverage, with a $236,691 maximum per accident, and $55,683 in property damage coverage.

Compared to the resolutions passed by the CDCBA and the California Assembly Bill mentioned above, this increase is huge! Even if the coverage amounts were only adjusted for inflation, they would still be 6.1 times what they were in 1967, which is still 3.5 times the amount proposed by California Assembly Bill 456. So why are these numbers so out of synch with the legislation that has been proposed?

It looks like these proposals must be taking other factors into account, such as negative public reception and cost to the poor. The idea of such a huge jump in cost to the insured does raise the question: could this limit increase really work when 13% of Californians are living below the poverty line (approx. $19,000/yr for a family of four) in cities that are much more reliant than they used to be on motor vehicle transportation? If the lowest income Californians cannot get to their places of employment, there will be other social costs, and they might not be small.

Still, the numbers show that the deficit to financial responsibility if the limits stay the same is huge. Is it consistent with the principles of California law to force higher income earners to bear the risk caused by underinsured motorists? What would be required and what would be feasible seem to be entirely irreconcilable! Various communities have tried to do one of two things in order to address these practical implications: make improvements to the existing framework or provide entirely new frameworks that adjust the role of and reliance on personal financial responsibility. Each of the proposals has relevant affects, and each has its own benefits for the audience it is trying to reach. However, not one of them balances the various needs of society sufficiently.

A few years ago, the Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights experienced a victory when the bill they sponsored in support of amendments to the California Insurance Code was passed by the Insurance Committee, Congress, and finally signed by the Governor. Proposition 103 included measures governing the conduct of insurance companies operating within the state in areas including cancellation policies, use of driving records, and the systems used to assign premiums. Many of the proposed changes were aimed at making insurance costs more aligned with the actual risk that they insured against. They did this by limiting the factors influencing rates to those which more directly affect the insured's potential for involvement in an accident including driving record, miles driven annually, and number years of driving experience (among other things). The proposition also provided a legal definition for a "good driver" and established a required discount for good drivers as defined. What these amendments serve to do is more accurately charge risk premiums to those who are most likely to cause accidents. This is entirely consistent with a policy of personal financial responsibility. However, it does not help to account for the gross discrepancy in risk allocation where it really matters, in the actual distribution of damages when an accident happens.

Insurance companies have introduced an entirely different approach to addressing the issues of coverage and assignment of risk. "No fault" is a system by which all parties are eligible for benefits, but no "fault" is assigned, and thus there is no option to sue for compensation. Under this framework, there are limits on both claims and maximum damages paid to victims of accidents. The idea is that by spreading the risk over a large population, charging all parties, and serving all parties with no regard to "fault" would allow for less risk for each individual while also lowering premiums paid. However, opponents of this rule argue that by capping damages and limiting claims, the no-fault system is essentially limiting consumer rights to open courts. Furthermore, a study conducted by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights found that implementation of this type of system resulted in both limited access to benefits and higher premiums in states where the system has been tested. They also take issue with studies in favor of no fault systems, pointing out that projections approximating lower premiums are faulty, unrealistic, and incomplete.

The appeal of the "no fault" system is obvious: everyone receives benefits. This concept has the potential to ease bureaucratic red tape since there is less controversy as to who is at fault or who is covered by the policy. However, this system has practical and theoretical holdups. Besides limiting rights and perhaps failing to deliver on its promise of lower premiums, the entire framework flies in the face of the personal financial responsibility model that underlies California law. For these reasons, Proposal 200, the "Pure No-Fault" Initiative which would have eliminated fault in all non-criminal accidents, was rejected by California voters in 1996.

Another program proposed by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights addresses the practical concern for those in the lowest tier of household incomes. Many people in California support their families on poverty-level incomes but require vehicle transportation to maintain their employment. In sprawling metro areas, the market for low-paying work has adapted to the increased levels of mobility, spreading out opportunities and making vehicle transportation more necessary for those competing in that labor pool. To respond to the difficult circumstances of this particular demographic, the California Low Cost Automobile Insurance Program allows certain qualified applicants to obtain liability insurance with lower levels of coverage that still establish financial responsibility sufficient to satisfy California law. This "Lifeline Policy" provides liability coverage of $10,000 per person, $20,000 per accident, and $3,000 in property damage, which is sufficient to cover 85% of accidents according to the Department of Insurance. No subsidy would be required for this program, so only the low-income policy holders will incur the financial costs of this program. In fact, estimates at decreases in uninsured motorist claims as a result of this program, and potential decreases in uninsured motorist and collision premiums to regular policy-holders, are estimated at $100-$200 million.

The same issues brought up by other proposed programs are relevant here. It is true that this program is not entirely aligned with the principle of personal responsibility. Some drivers would be adding similar risk but contributing less to mitigating damages. In addition, this accommodation would uphold the current conditions that make vehicle transportation so important for this demographic, thereby supporting the circumstances that make this program necessary. However, the program has been tailored to limit these drawbacks. Policies would be available only to low income earners who are "good drivers." A pilot California Low Cost Auto Insurance Program was administered as a result of SB 171 (1999) by the California Auto Insurance Assigned Risk Plan in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas where the need for low-income transportation was most tied to the workings of that labor market. It is now being rolled-out to all California counties. The program thus addresses the practical implication of high insurance premiums on the welfare of the community through decreased mobility of an important demographic.

The role of personal responsibility in the actual happenings of the vehicle and insurance world is grossly trivialized, especially compared to its role in California vehicle and insurance law. Changes such as Prop 103 continue to fine tune the inner workings of the relationships between insurance providers and their insured, as well as their respective relationships with the state. However, the liability coverage minimums which act as the baseline for establishing financial responsibility for actions undertaken while driving remain the most influential factor in maintaining or furthering the role of personal accountability under the law.

It is important that all relevant interests are taken into account; California law should enforce personal financial responsibility while also mitigating negative consequences for social welfare. But this cannot mean allowing outdated and insufficient policies to continue well after conditions change such that they fail to enforce the principles for which they were initially established. The numbers are clear, and the current conditions are in no way sufficient. Often principles and policies will overlap and often they will conflict. This requires creative solutions to address interests as best is possible.

Current liability coverage limits not only fail to enforce personal financial responsibility but also uphold a system where risk and cost is dispersed disproportionately. And while increasing coverage minimums will increase uninsured motorist activity and potentially upset labor mobility, the Low Cost Auto Insurance Plan and better minimum coverage enforcement can mitigate these practical implications. The effects of raising liability requirements have positive and negative aspects, but with the information that we have, it is clear that coverage minimums are grossly outdated and lead to unjust burdens of risk in society. With minimums, premiums will go up, but this is only a reflection of increases in costs that have been veiled by deceptively low coverage minimums over the past 30 years. Society is suffering, and these higher premiums would facilitate a smoother and more gradual payment of the real costs drivers as a whole are already being hit with in the form of insufficient liability coverage. This is the cost of personal responsibility. The California Vehicle Code should promote appropriate assignment of that cost. Otherwise, why have a minimum coverage limit at all?

back to top

Public's First Amendment Rights Vindicated; Crash Victims No Longer Barred from Challenging Credibility of Expert Witness

Victims of auto crashes are no longer forbidden from seeing, discussing, and questioning auto industry expert witness Robert Gratzinger about a scathing court decision finding that Gratzinger and the American Honda Motor Company (Honda) "deliberately" destroyed evidence in a high-stakes auto safety case. The blistering 36-page decision, which sanctioned Honda for trying to "win by cheating," was unsealed in a legal challenge by the national public interest law firm Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ). The decision finds Honda and Gratzinger "wrongfully and intentionally altered the most significant physical evidence in the case."

"The public has the right to know about the unethical conduct exposed in this decision," said TLPJ Staff Attorney Rebecca E. Epstein, who argued the case. "People left in wheelchairs by crashes will no longer have to sit in silence while Mr. Gratzinger testifies for Honda, Ford, Toyota, and Mazda. We applaud Judge Garbolino's decision to end this untenable and unjust situation."

The sanctions decision, issued on October 3, 2002, by Placer County (California) Superior Court Judge James D. Garbolino, found that Gratzinger had "deliberately" obliterated key evidence in Davis v. Honda, a lawsuit based on a March 1999 accident in a Honda Civic that left plaintiff Sarah Davis, then 17 years old, a quadriplegic. The court found that by intentionally destroying marks showing that Davis had been wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident - the "single most critical issue" in the case - Honda had "attempted to rob" the plaintiff "of her right to litigate on a level playing field." As a sanction, the court held Honda liable for Davis's injuries and ruled the jury would only decide how much in damages Honda paid Davis.

One week later, the parties settled the case and, to facilitate the settlement, the court entered an order sealing and vacating the sanctions decision. The extraordinary sealing order banned all publication and sharing of the decision, and prohibited anyone from even mentioning the sanctions decision in any legal proceeding. As a result, automotive engineer Gratzinger has been shielded from questions about his actions in Davis and has continued to serve as an expert witness for automakers in crash cases around the country.

TLPJ's motion challenging the sealing order was granted on October 26, 2005, but the order granting it was mailed and just received. The unsealing order vindicates the public's First Amendment rights and opens the way for crash victims' attorneys nationwide to question Gratzinger's credibility. The scathing sanctions decision in Davis, the sealing order, TLPJ's motion challenging the sealing order, and the 7-page order amending the sealing order and making the sanctions decision public can all be viewed on TLPJ's web site at www.tlpj.org.

TLPJ challenged the secrecy order on behalf of the Center for Auto Safety, a national consumer group that works to improve automobile safety, and attorneys representing car crash victims in Tennessee and Mississippi. Attorney Patrick M. Ardis of Wolff Ardis, P.C., in Memphis, Tennessee, represents Bettye Maxwell in Maxwell v. Ford Motor Company, a lawsuit filed on behalf of Maxwell's husband, who was killed in an August 2001 crash in a Ford F150 pickup truck in DeSoto County, Mississippi. Gratzinger was called as an expert witness in the Maxwell case, but, because of the secrecy order, the presiding judge prevented Maxwell's lawyers, including Ardis, from questioning Gratzinger about his conduct in the Davis case. Attorney Lee T. Griffin of Pajcic & Pajcic in Jacksonville, Florida, represents Todd Irish in Irish v. Ford Motor Company, a lawsuit filed after Irish was rendered a paraplegic as a result of a November 2002 accident involving his Ford pickup truck. Gratzinger has been named an expert witness in the Irish case as well.

"Because of this unsealing decision, the truth can now be known and told," said Griffin. "If the defendants in our case continue to use Mr. Gratzinger as an expert witness, the jury will now get to hear that this man was found by a court to have intentionally destroyed key evidence in a similar case."

TLPJ Cooperating Counsel Dina Micheletti of Fazio I Micheletti in Pleasanton, California, said, "We're delighted that Judge Garbolino has affirmed the importance of protecting the public's First Amendment right of access to court records. His compassion for Sarah Davis and his outrage at the behavior of Honda's expert witness and Honda itself are very evident in the unsealed sanctions decision."

TLPJ's legal team also includes Jeffrey Fazio of Fazio I Micheletti, TLPJ Executive Director Arthur H. Bryant, and TLPJ Brayton-Baron Fellow Leslie A. Bailey. The challenge is part of TLPJ's Project ACCESS, a 15-year-old project against excessive court secrecy, and the group's new Access to Justice Campaign, a nationwide initiative to keep America's courthouse doors open to all.

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice is the only national public interest law firm dedicated to using trial lawyers' skills and resources to advance the public good. Founded in 1982, TLPJ utilizes a nationwide network of more than 3,000 outstanding trial lawyers to pursue precedent-setting and socially significant litigation. It has a wide-ranging litigation docket in the areas of consumer rights, worker safety, civil rights and liberties, toxic torts, environmental protection, and access to the courts. TLPJ is the principal project of The TLPJ Foundation, a not-for-profit membership organization. It has offices in Washington, DC, and Oakland, CA. TLPJ's State Coordinators for California are Ingrid Evans in San Francisco, tel. 415-677-1234; and Sharon Arkin in Newport Beach, tel. 949-720-1288. The TLPJ web site address is www.tlpj.org.

back to top

In most such cases, the verdicts are either later rejected or the amounts are severely lowered.

By Myron Levin
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

August 15, 2005

When a jury sticks it to a huge corporation, it's always big news. A crushing verdict of $4.9 billion against General Motors Corp. in Los Angeles drew massive media coverage, as did a $5-billion award in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case and a $144.8-billion thrashing of the tobacco industry in a Florida class action.

Mega-verdicts such as these have helped fuel legislative campaigns to overhaul the legal system by limiting lawsuits and jury awards. Driving the crusade for what business groups call tort reform is the notion that frivolous suits and jackpot judgments are strangling the economy.

While acknowledging that excesses no doubt occur, many legal observers say there is no evidence that people are filing more lawsuits or that juries are getting more generous - indeed, there is some data to the contrary. And mammoth verdicts, in the rare cases in which they occur, almost always are tossed out or sharply reduced later.

Feeding the perception of a crisis in the legal system, they say, is the way the news media cover the courts.

After the big headlines, critics say, the media often drop the ball, losing interest in what happens later. Published studies of news content and a Times examination of major recent cases show that when the immense verdicts were overturned or dramatically reduced, the news frequently was banished to the inside pages or simply not reported.

Legal experts and media observers say such coverage gives a distorted picture of the civil justice system while lending credence to fears of irrational jury awards. News coverage has reinforced the message "that the system's out of control, and that juries are using the tort system to redistribute wealth in some unjust and unprincipled way," said Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at UC Berkeley.

The popular view that there are more lawsuits and bigger damage awards than ever before is not supported by available evidence.

A 35-state survey by the National Center for State Courts found that the number of tort filings declined 4% from 1993 through 2002 despite population growth. And in the nation's 75 largest counties, the median award to victorious plaintiffs was $37,000 in 2001 - much less than the inflation-adjusted median of $63,000 in 1992, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice.

If such context is absent from news reports, it's not because of media bias but "the holler of the dollar," said William Haltom, a professor of politics and government at the University of Puget Sound and co-author of "Distorting the Law: Politics, Media and the Litigation Crisis."

News coverage is "in favor of the noteworthy and the attention-arresting," Haltom said. Journalists "are expected to produce something that someone is going to want to watch, listen to or read."

"From the media's perspective, extremes are news," New York University law professor Stephen Gillers said. The humdrum workings of the legal system, with its minor traffic cases and contract disputes, he said, is "completely distorted by the emphasis on what I would call the grotesque or extreme cases."

At the same time, no one would argue for covering fender-bender suits instead of big cases with broad implications. And plaintiff victories are legitimately more newsworthy because they change the status quo - moving money around and exposing dangerous products or financial wrongdoing.

But that can give a skewed impression of what typically happens in the courts, because research shows that news coverage shapes perceptions of the frequency of events.

For example, surveys show that people generally believe they face a greater risk of dying from widely publicized disasters such as fires and murders than from diseases like diabetes - when the opposite is true. Haltom said "it's reasonable to presume that people who read about all sorts of plaintiffs' victories get an inflated notion of how often plaintiffs win."

Certainly, plaintiffs prevail less often in the real world than they appear to in the news media. Consider:

• A 1999 survey by Rand Corp.'s Institute for Civil Justice found auto liability cases were 12 times more likely to draw news coverage when plaintiffs won than when defendants did, a difference the study called "very stark." In its review of 351 trials conducted during the 1980s and '90s, the institute found that 38 of 92 plaintiff verdicts, or 41%, were featured in news reports, versus 9 of 259 verdicts for the defense - or about 3%.

A plaintiff win "is perceived to be more newsworthy than a headline that says 'jury rejects arguments that a product is unsafe,'" said Theodore Boutros Jr. of law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, who has represented Ford Motor Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and various news organizations, including The Times.

Reflecting the pattern was news coverage of a June 2004 verdict in which a San Diego jury ordered Ford to pay $367 million to Benetta Buell-Wilson, who was paralyzed when her Explorer SUV rolled over and its roof collapsed. Ford previously had won a dozen similar Explorer cases but the media hardly batted an eye. Ford's victories received a smattering of coverage, mainly in business and legal publications, whereas the Buell-Wilson verdict was widely reported by the mainstream news media.

• A 1995 article in the Hofstra Law Review showed that personal injury verdicts reported in the New York Times and Newsday were dramatically higher than typical awards in the New York courts. According to the survey, awards covered by the New York-based papers over a five-year period were 13 times and 9 times higher than average, respectively.

• A 1996 survey of leading magazines such as Time, Newsweek and Fortune showed that plaintiff verdicts were "considerably overrepresented" in reports on civil litigation. The examination of 249 articles by Daniel S. Bailis and UC Berkeley's MacCoun found that plaintiffs were victorious in 85% of cases cited in the articles, compared with a real-world average of no more than 50%. Damage awards cited in the articles were also several times above the norm, leaving "little doubt that the selective reporting practices . provide a tremendously distorted picture of the jury award distribution," the study said.

A review of some recent high-profile cases by The Times showed newspapers that extensively covered huge damage verdicts seemed to lose interest when the awards were slashed or overturned. The review involved a computer database survey of articles about the cases and follow-up queries to newspaper librarians.

One such story was the $5-billion punitive damage award in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case. At the time of the verdict in September 1994, front-page reports appeared in such major dailies as The Times, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, Detroit Free Press, Dallas Morning News, Seattle Times and St. Petersburg Times.

When a federal appeals court overturned the award in November 2001, three of the 10 papers reported it on the front page.

When a Los Angeles jury in July 1999 ordered General Motors to pay a then-record $4.9 billion in compensatory and punitive damages to six people burned when the gas tank of their Chevrolet Malibu exploded after a rear-end collision, the story made the front page of leading U.S. papers - including the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit Free Press, San Francisco Chronicle, Ft. Worth Star Telegram, San Jose Mercury News and The Times.

Coverage was sparser a few weeks later when the trial judge trimmed the punitive damages to a still-huge $1.2 billion. Two of the 10 papers ran the story on the front page.

Then in July 2003, while the case was on appeal, it was settled for an undisclosed sum. Brief items appeared in four of the papers, while no mention could be found in the other six.

When a Florida jury socked top cigarette makers with a $144.8-billion punitive damage award, it was the lead story for many print and broadcast outlets. Front-page reports on the July 2000, verdict appeared in The Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Dallas Morning News, San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle and Indianapolis Star, among others.

When a Florida appeals court overturned the award in May 2003, two of the 10 papers ran front-page reports.

Other cases reviewed by The Times showed a similar pattern.

"Journalists, by and large, are not as good as they should be in keeping up with what happens after a large verdict - even though they know full well from experience that the verdict will most likely be cut dramatically," said Tom Goldstein, a professor of journalism and mass communications at UC Berkeley. "There surely is less of an attention span than there should be."

back to top

"What we do is about making society a safer place and saving lives. It's not solely about the money, which greatly contributes to repairing the lives of our clients," says Brian Chase. "We accomplish this by holding wrongdoers accountable for their negligence and assisting their victims in putting their lives back together," adds John Bisnar, who has been representing accident victims since 1978.

BISNAR & CHASE, LLP is one of California's Premier Personal Injury law firms and is headquartered in Newport Beach. Managing Partners, John Bisnar and Brian Chase are expert personal injury attorneys and have consistently achieved multi-million dollar results for their clients.

The past year has been filled with achievements. BISNAR & CHASE recovered a substantial, confidential, amount from Ford Motor Company for their use of faulty seat belts in their vehicles, which resulted in paralysis and, ultimately, the death of a young girl. BISNAR & CHASE is seeking a recall of the faulty seat belts. For more about this case and faulty seat belts see www.seatbeltlaw.com.

In December 2000 the firm recovered $2.5 million from the State of California, on behalf of a young mother who was paralyzed as the result of a dangerous condition in a State park. After the settlement the State corrected the dangerous condition and has hopefully hightened it's compliance with their own safety guidelines. The woman's former attorneys, after months of representation, told her she had no case.

"By holding wrongdoers accountable for the harm they cause, we create an economic incentive for people and companies to operate in a safe and prudent manner. Personal Injury Attorneys, who operate with this philosophy, are the great equalizers of our society." John Bisnar

BISNAR & CHASE have represented many clients, mostly children, who have been victims of vicious dog attacks. In order to assist the public with more information on this growing danger and what to do in case of an animal attack, see www.aboutdogbites.com.

The firm recovered nearly $3 million for a man severely burned while on the job, which resulted in safety changes by the defendant. They recovered over $2 million for another man who was seriously injured on the job, after his previous attorney advised him his maximum recovery would be $15,000.00. In 1999 BISNAR & CHASE fought an injury case all the way to the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court heard Mr. Chase's arguments, the Court adopted his position as the law in California.

Based on the firm's excellent reputation in the legal community, many of their cases are referred by other lawyers. BISNAR & CHASE takes pride in being the Personal Injury Department of many lawyers who practice other areas of law or do not have the resources or legal expertise to handle serious and catastrophic injury cases.

To provide the best legal representation to their clients, BISNAR & CHASE limits the types and number of cases it accepts. Representation is limited to injury accidents and insurance bad faith claims, including auto, traffic and aircraft accidents, nursing home negligence/abuse, dog bites, defective products, premise liability, failure to warn and on-the-job injuries.

"I specifically went to law school to become a personal injury trial attorney. It is what I love, what I do, and what I am." Brian Chase

The partners, John Bisnar and Brian Chase, are both Pepperdine Law School graduates. They are active in their communities as well as in esteemed legal circles and are members of the local, state and national trial lawyers associations. Mr. Chase is Treasurer and Education Chair of the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association (OCTLA) and is on the Board of Directors of the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC). Mr. Chase regularly lectures to groups of lawyers on the topics of personal injury and litigation.

back to top

BISNAR & CHASE Petition the Federal Government for a Total Recall of Faulty Seatbelts!

BISNAR & CHASE, during aggressive representation of the family of a 14 year old girl who died as the result of injuries sustained in an accident wherein she was wearing her seatbelt, uncovered previously undisclosed information which confirms the ongoing known use of faulty seatbelts by major US automobile manufacturers. Armed with this new and vital information, BISNAR & CHASE have petitioned the Federal Government for a Total Recall of these seatbelts in an effort to save future lives! For full disclosure of details and to read our Press Release and case results, please visit our new informational website dedicated to providing this information to the public at www.seatbeltlaw.com.

back to top


"I can't believe I'm doing this, but it's time somebody came out in defense of.... the oft- disparaged and frequently misunderstood plaintiff's attorney. Note I said 'plaintiff's attorney,' not 'corporate attorney.' Those guys can rot in you- know-where. Why so harsh? Well, I'll put it this way. When the Ken Lays of the world realize that they are not completely dishonest enough - when their own capacity for evasiveness and chicanery just won't get the job done - would you want to be the one guy they think is morally bankrupt enough to get them off the hook?... There are no plaintiff's lawyers without plaintiffs....Yes, there are outrageous claims demanding outrageous sums of money. But there are laws and regulations in place that (should) punish lawyers and plaintiffs who bring bad faith claims.... As for sky-high damage judgments, they are handed down by juries and judges, not lawyers....So, if you're looking for someone to blame for the state of civil litigation, don't be so quick to single out the lawyers. Blaming the lawyer for the lawsuit is like blaming the gun for the bullet hole....there was a time when innocent victims had no access to the courtroom....Let's say you were the obvious victim of a corporation's negligence - the food server gave you a cup of bleach instead of Sprite - and you were severely injured. Assuming you would ultimately prevail, could you afford to hire an attorney, pay his retainer up front and continue to pay his hourly fees, expenses and court costs for however long it took to be compensated for your injury? Furthermore, if the restaurant's parent corporation knew you were financing your litigation, how inclined would they be to expedite your claim or your lawsuit? Now flip that around. If the corporation knew your lawyer was working for free unless and until his client prevailed - and prevail you would, with bleach burns on your esophagus as evidence - do you think they would they be a bit more motivated to do the right thing? I do. Plaintiff's lawyers give the common man access to the courthouse, access to justice. It's that simple. And corporations, like the politicians who are owned by them, have a single, overriding objective - to eliminate that access, to increase the distance between themselves and the public, to conduct their affairs free of scrutiny and liability. Make no mistake, the corporate greed and moral ambivalence that brought us sweat shops, unsafe products and institutional discrimination are still with us. Human nature has not changed. And the only thing that keeps some of these people in line is the very real threat to their bottom line. And if the courthouse doors close even a little bit, you're fooling yourself if you think you could never be left standing out on the lawn."

Wichita Fall(TX) Record News, 8/05/2002



Brian D. Chase (Bisnar | Chase, LLP) and Scott D. Raphael (Litigitechnology, Inc.)

Introduction

Since well prior to the 1986 Discovery Act, parties were at best committed to guesswork in ascertaining what expert discovery would be permitted at trial based on pretrial inadequacies in the disclosure of expert witnesses, of the scope of expert witnesses' opinions, the transactional nature and source of acquisition of the expert's opinions, and the adequacy of the expert's deposition testimony as to the scope of his anticipated trial testimony. This followed largely from the lack of any meaningful guidance by the Courts or the Legislature on these subjects.

The cost of this uncertainty was not insignificant, with many practitioners discovering only for the first time on a motion in limine at trial that their entire pretrial case strategy would be entirely altered or severely compromised by the wholesale exclusion (or admission) of all or part of both proper and improper expert testimony...

click here to read the rest of this article.


back to top


Brian D. Chase (Bisnar | Chase, LLP) and Scott D. Raphael (Litigitechnology, Inc.)

Introduction

The adage "time is money" was never more appropriately applied than to personal injury litigation. Twenty years ago, prior to adoption of Delay Reduction Act/"Fast-Track" measures in California's trial courts, cases frequently could not receive trial settings for years after the complaint was filed, often requiring waivers of the five-year deadline for trial in larger California counties to ensure that a courtroom could be secured for the trial. Delay Reduction measures have dramatically changed the picture, with most superior courts now setting cases for trial within 12 to 18 months of the filing of the complaint. Notwithstanding the significant reduction in trial delays, plaintiffs typically do not resolve their cases unless and until a firm trial date is set, and protracted delays mean delayed resolution and delayed funding of a settlement or judgment.

There are, however, certain statutory instances in which a trial date may be set under Code of Civil Procedure section 36 within as little as 120 days of seeking the preference. An understanding of when and how these preferences are made properly available for a plaintiff is not only strategically important to satisfactory handling of the client's case; the attorney can be held liable for malpractice for failure to pursue an available statutory trial preference. See, e.g., Granquist v. Sandberg (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 181...

click here to read the rest of this article.


back to top

HOLDING WRONGDOERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DAMAGES THEY CAUSE SINCE 1978

---

Bisnar | Chase 2006-2008 - Super Lawyers is a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 60 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Bisnar | Chase has received this award for three consecutive years.

---