Car Accident Leaves Two Pedestrians Dead

A two-car accident that occurred on March 31, 2009 killed two pedestrians and left one other in critical condition.  The collision occurred on the border between Los Angeles and West Hollywood, near the intersection of Fountain and La Brea, killing a 65 year old woman at the scene.  The other two pedestrians, a man and woman in their 50’s, were hospitalized and listed in critical condition.  The second woman died just hours later.  The victims were allegedly in the pedestrian crosswalk when they were struck.

The surviving victim and the family of the two others may have legal claims both against the drivers of the two vehicles, as well as the City.  Stephen Jamieson, partner with the Playa Del Rey, California law firm Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson, and co-host of the weekly televised talk show Legal Help Live says while it is apparent that the drivers of the vehicles must be considered when evaluating who is liable for this tragedy, it is also necessary to evaluate if one or the other City may also be liable, or perhaps CALTRANS, for a dangerous condition of public roadway.  Like any claim against a governmental entity in California, such a claim must be appropriately filed in an adequate manner against the correct entity(ties) not later than 6 months from the date of the accident or the victim’s rights may be forever lost.

Stephen Warren Solomon and Ralph B Saltsman on Internet Dating

Internet dating websites bombard us daily. “CraigsList” and “Seeking Arrangement” and “E-Harmony” and “Match.com” are all trying to draw men and women who want sex, companionship or marriage to view their sites and join their programs. No one can open the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times without seeing articles and ads enticing the reader into the chase. How many fatal attractions, rapists or other unsavories are lurking in any of these services lying in wait to cause injury or emotional damage? No one really knows. Who is legally liable when patron becomes victim by meeting then dating an internet contact when that victim is stalked, raped, or murdered?

Beyond the actual criminal actor, one obvious target for legal liability is the Web company. But those businesses are shielded by legal immunities constructed to protect web providers. If a website has done nothing to verify information provided by a participant, shouldn’t the law hold the site liable when that participant harms another lured by that site? One could argue that the providers need to determine the accuracy of information before it’s out on the internet. The legal theory is not much different then for the car dealer who sells defective automobiles or for the restaurant that serves contaminated food. Those businesses may be liable for damages caused. Even in commercial “speech” the First Amendment protects the internet, but those commercial internet systems should not be wholly absolved from the responsibility of providing basic customer protections. In our instantaneous electronic society, the concept of buyer beware does not provide adequate basic protection from injury or death arising from internet contacts. Of course, it will take an act of Congress strike a better balance.