Today’s story will be of special interest to students who attend California State University Channel Islands and live on campus in a residence hall. For those who cherish Freedom of Speech and Expression, it is now a safe place to live.

Until just a few days ago, it wasn’t, and here’s why

Policies enacted earlier this year by the school’s administration created a real, life-long danger to students who resided on campus, and as you will see, this is no exaggeration.

Upon checking into their dorm, the school’s administrators forced them to wear the equivalent of a mental dog muzzle, knowingly and flagrantly violating the single most important right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Freedom of Speech.

In a place where open, free debate and discussion must be encouraged, CSU Channel Islands’ administrators made it clear they did not believe these rights should be allowed in its residence halls.

They threatened students with action all the way to expulsion for daring to engage in the kinds of discussions so essential on a college campus, and they did it by making legitimate, protected speech illegal.

Welcome to the Residence Hall – Now Shut Up or Risk Expulsion!

Ask anyone who lived on campus during college days about the exciting discussions over just about any topic under the sun that would come up with room mates, or friends in the dorm. Animated, passionate debate is the spice that makes university exciting, enriching students’ lives in so many ways.

Learning to listen to opinions which differ from our own–especially when accompanied by sarcastic put-downs and pointed language–these things are preparation for dealing with the world outside campus walls. College students quickly learn that other people have strong opinions and are not shy about making those opinions known, often with strong, derogatory language.

Anyone who can’t tolerate being told that they are an idiot for thinking a certain way will face a life of conflict. It is good to be told off, to have our reasoning challenged; it makes us think.

But when a student fears punishment for exercising the most important right the founders of this country gave, then debate, and voicing contrary opinions are stifled. When it becomes “Watch out for what say, and for what you think,” then we are all in trouble.

When a university makes normal speech punishable, then a long winter has settled upon that campus. So, for a moment, picture yourself as a Channel Islands student in the dorm cafeteria, about to get into a debate over the President’s policies with supporters and people who hate the man.

You are just about to accuse one of the students of being “a roaring idiot who is full of @#$#% when someone says, “Stop! Read these Resident Hall rules before saying a word!”

Labeled Derogatory Comments as Harassment

In violation of a standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Davis decision of 1999, the Resident Handbook stated, “Harassment includes, but is not limited to, verbal harassment–epithets, derogatory comments, or slurs–and visual forms of harassment, such as derogatory posters, cartoons, drawings, symbols, or gestures.”

Talk about an elephant squashing Free Speech! Violate those rules and you could get yourself punished, all the way up to expulsion!

And just what is the legal standard for harassment?

As the Court stated in Davis, “Harassment in education is behavior that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.”

Telling a dormitory resident that he’s a moron for “feeling that way” opens the door to the moron showing them by using the school’s power to find harassing behavior and kick someone out of school!

A School Lawyer Who Did the Right Thing

When this dangerous, twisted, illegal language came to my attention, I contacted the school’s attorney, Marc Mootchnik, who admitted that it did violate the Davis decision and promised to do what he could to make things right.

Unlike lawyers who will support a client who he knows is wrong, Mootchnik kept his word. That language is now gone from the handbook, and while not perfect, does appear to meet the Davis standard, and states:

“Harassment and bullying do not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.”
And if Mootchnik had not prevailed? Professor Lyle Sussman of the University of Louisville had this comment:

“Recall the conversations we had in our respective student union, cafeteria, dormitory rooms, and walking to and from classes. Those conversations might have resulted in our suspension/expulsion if they occurred at Cal State Channel Islands, 2019.”

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Cal State University Channel Islands dorms now are safe appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

For a moment, I would like you visualize the unthinkable.

It is 5 AM. The phone rings. A somber voice identifies himself as a police detective and asks if you know “Sammy.” “Of course,” you reply, “What’s wrong?”

“I am so sorry to tell you this, but he was murdered sometime last night or early this morning. There is very little information, but can you come here to identify his body?”

“Sure, but how, how could this happen? He was living in a gated community? How could this have happened? No! No! Not Sammy.”

Then shock sets in. Disbelief, numbness, “This isn’t real. This can’t be real! Please, God, I’m dreaming. This is a nightmare, right? I’ll wake up. Sammy’s fine. He has to be!”

Nov. 30, 2017

Thursday, Nov 30, 2017, is a day that will haunt the memories of all who knew 26-year-old attorney Marcos Vargas. This rising star in the Bakersfield legal community was found brutally murdered outside of his apartment, and to this day, his killer remains unknown.

He was a tenant at a very high-end luxury apartment complex which describes itself as “A gated, luxurious, and social community.” Of interest, their website also states, “We have a 24/7 On-Site Courtesy Patrol.”

“But a patrol car can’t be everywhere at the same time,” you’re thinking, “What about video surveillance which might have recorded the crime itself, given law enforcement time to respond, grabbed a picture of the killer and a vehicle! Did they have video cameras?”

Oh, yes they did, but several were not working, and as we would learn, this is fairly common even in luxury, gated apartment complexes. Does that failure to maintain the cameras provide any possible basis for a lawsuit by family members against the owners or their property management company?

Negligent security

We take for granted that supermarket and underground parking lots will be well lit at night and that entryways to most commercial buildings use non-slip materials. The list of safety and security features is vast and won through legal battles stretching back over a century, all under the heading of Premises Liability.

When there is a failure to provide adequate security, and a person suffers loss or injury as a result, a lawsuit claiming “negligent security” may follow. Winning or losing is determined by answers to these questions:

(1) Was the incident foreseeable?

(2) If so, were reasonable steps taken to prevent it from occurring?

(3) If they were not, was there a causal connection between that failure and the

(4) Even if everything had been done correctly, would this have prevented the harm? If the answer is no, the case will be lost.

The problem with insecurity cameras

We ran this homicide case by Marvin Fuller, President of Bakersfield-based M &S Security. He shared his feelings about apartment house owners and property managers, thoughts echoed by owners of security companies across America we spoke with.

“While it is getting better, owners and property managers are known for refusing to invest in and maintain quality video surveillance equipment,” Fuller states, adding, “Even when state-of-the-art systems are purchased, customers frequently reject either on-site or professional, remote monitoring. This is false economy for a number of reasons.

“First, any system will fall into disrepair if not maintained. Cameras will fail, and the camera you need is the one that went down. Of course, you never knew that because no one was monitoring,” he points out.

“Next, vandalism is the most common nuisance in apartment buildings. By monitoring entrances, exits, parking lots and exterior surroundings, law enforcement can be notified, respond and, hopefully, prevent property damage or theft, or apprehend those responsible.”

Limitations on where cameras may be aimed

The law in all states is clear: where there is an expectation of privacy, video surveillance is not permitted. The best example of this would be Google Street View, as their cameras roam what is out in the open around the globe.

“Public spaces, such as the common areas of residential buildings – front and rear yards open to the public, laundry areas, rec rooms, hallways and parking facilities – are the precise areas which lend themselves best to high-tech surveillance cameras and other security systems,” Fuller observes.

“But if a landlord secretly videos a tenant inside their apartment, this is an obvious invasion of privacy and a crime,” he notes.

But what if the victim’s rental agreement promised state-of-the-art video surveillance which was aimed exactly where the crime occurred? We are still left with issue of causation. Fuller could not think of a case, nor could we locate one, anywhere, finding civil liability for a murder based on non-functioning video surveillance equipment.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Can a landlord be civilly liable for a tenant’s murder? appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

The Firestone Grill family of restaurants in Cambria, San Luis Obispo, Fresno and Bakersfield has been voted by customers as having hands-down the best BBQ, tri-tip, burgers, fries, onion rings and salads found anywhere on the planet and we agree. The food is amazing, portions large, prices reasonable and management even tosses in “a little something extra” for employees which can last a lifetime.

It is that “little something extra” which led to the following email:

“After my first day at work, returning home, my ears were ringing and it was difficult to understand speech for several hours. Most of my co-workers describe the same things, and none of us have had any type of a hearing problem before working here.

“To say that the restaurant is noisy is an understatement. It has an open-kitchen, less than 10 feet from where cashiers take orders. The noise level is so loud, that to be heard, we have to yell at each other When placing orders, customers are constantly asking us to speak louder as they can’t hear us over the background noise, and we often have trouble hearing them.

“My father reads your column in the Hanford Sentinel and suggested I ask for your recommendations. I love the job but something tells me this is not a safe working environment. What do you recommend? Thanks, “Charlie.”

We visit the Bakersfield Firestone Grill

If you read the many positive reviews for the Firestone Grill, “Popular but very noisy” pops up. That’s no exaggeration. Several YouTube videos give an accurate picture of the extreme levels of noise.

We recently took eight visiting law students from France and Sweden to the Bakersfield branch for lunch. Upon opening the door, it felt as if we were in a subway station, the noise was deafening, and I got a look from them that meant, “Beaver, where have you brought us?”

Over lunch, attempting to have a normal conversation with people seated across the table was pointless.

Using a calibrated, Extech Sound Level Meter, I measured 85 decibels at the counter where orders are placed. That’s like standing two feet from a loud vacuum cleaner, a food blender or 40 feet from a moving freight train. 83dB were measured as far from the kitchen area as it was possible to get.

“At 85 dB over an 8 hour shift some type of hearing protection can be required by Cal OSHA,” Long Beach-based workers compensation attorney Tom Nantais commented.

Specializing in occupationally caused hearing loss, he added, “With ears ringing after each day’s work, Charlie has already given you evidence that her hearing may have been damaged. As she is asking for a recommendation, mine would be to get out of there!

”What do ringing ears mean?

We asked Nantais to explain the significance of Charlie complaining about her ears ringing, then having trouble hearing and understanding speech

“When exposed to noise, the ear’s sensitivity level will decrease as a means of protection and only sounds louder than a certain level will be heard. This is called a temporary threshold shift. Usually the next day normal hearing returns, but over time the loss becomes permanent. So what happens temporarily at early exposure to occupational noise, over time, working in such loud environments as you measured, significant and permanent hearing loss results.”

Special problems concerning restaurants

While federal and state noise regulations in most industries are routinely enforced, Nantais finds that bars and restaurants are in a unique position:

“Pick the industry and OSHA can come in and require a hearing loss prevention program, but in the case of food service it is not practical. You can’t do the job and wear hearing protection at the same time. So, restaurant owners who care about their employees need to find ways of lowering the din – initially, with proper design or afterwards, with things like carpet, wall and ceiling echo-reducing treatments. “

These things also make good business sense as restaurant reviews now rate the level of noise.

“There is no excuse for intentionally exposing your employees to damaging levels of sound,” Nantais strongly maintains, and believes that, “Charlie and any employee working in similar, noisy environments needs to discover if their hearing has been damaged.”

How do you find out? “Health insurance will cover a hearing evaluation test. No health insurance? Then go to Costco. As they sell hearing aids, you’ll have no problem obtaining a free hearing test with a print out of the results.”

If any of the issues in today’s story ring a bell—even if it has been years since you worked in a noisy environment–then by all means a visit to www.gaylordnantais.com is well worth your time.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Hearing damage doesn’t always come from industrial work appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

March 3, 2026  • By Dennis Beaver

“Vincent’s” tone of voice sounded urgent: “Mr. Beaver, I run a construction company in the Pacific Northwest, and we are facing a situation that I hope you can help us with.

“I’ve read your column in Kiplinger for years and recall two stories where you pulled rabbits out of a hat, convincing people to do the right thing.

“In one, you persuaded a badly near-sighted carpenter to get a pair of eyeglasses (Can an Employer Fire an Employee for Not Wearing Glasses?), and in the other, a married father with a young daughter refused to wear a motorcycle helmet (Employee Refuses to Wear a Motorcycle Helmet: Can He Be Fired?). You spoke with him, and he actually sold the bike!

“I hope you can work your persuasive magic with ‘Nicole,’ our wonderful-to-work-with 45-year-old crane operator. She has hearing aids but won’t wear them! Adequate hearing is crucial for recognizing warnings, such as horns, sirens and shouted instructions, on noisy job sites.

“Nicole is becoming a risk to other employees who work with her. Her family tells me about serious communication issues at home, and she is the family’s breadwinner, earning over $80,000 a year. Finding a high-paying job like hers, in our area, isn’t easy.

“Maybe you can get through to her — and, by the way, everybody in the office, including Nicole, reads your column, because I print each week’s story and leave it in our break room, so you would not be a stranger to her. You are my last hope.”

I agreed to try, but first I needed to understand the dynamics of someone in Nicole’s shoes and find out how I could enlist her family as a tool for change.

For the record, simply having a hearing impairment is not grounds for termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but that protection is not absolute. An employer could fire a crane operator for refusing to wear hearing aids if it created a “direct threat” to safety that cannot be eliminated through reasonable accommodation.

How do you motivate someone with a hearing problem to get help?

I spoke with Dr. Greta Stamper, a clinical and research audiologist and chair of the Audiology Division at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.

“How do you begin the conversation with someone who might or might not recognize their hearing problem?” I asked her. “Also, how do you motivate them to get help, or even wear hearing aids if they already have them?”

“The problem needs to be identified before there can be any motivation to do something about it,” she said, and suggested an approach using these or similar questions:

• Have you noticed that you are struggling to hear me or don’t notice when the microwave beeps?

• Remember last week at the meat market when they called your name, but you didn’t respond?

• When we are watching TV, you turn the volume really high and use closed captioning. You never did this before. Why do you think you do it now?

“Once you have their attention,” Stamper said, “if they’ve never had their hearing evaluated, then suggest, ‘This might be a good time for a hearing evaluation.’ If they already have hearing aids, ask, ‘Can you help me understand why you don’t want to wear them?'”

Stamper added, “It is important to discover the why — the obstacle stopping them from addressing their hearing issues. Some people do not see a problem. For others, there is a perceived stigma of aging. Without some internal motivation to move forward, it is unlikely that anything will change.”

Behind the scenes with Nicole’s family

Vincent, the reader who reached out about Nicole’s issue, cares deeply about his employees and their families. He arranged a Zoom session for Nicole’s parents and me the day following my interview with Stamper.

For over an hour, they poured out their hearts about the daughter who is their sole source of support. They clearly love her and are worried about what would happen if she lost her job, but they have no idea why she is refusing to wear hearing aids.

I asked them to describe her demeanor when arguments break out, as they do in every family. “How does Nicole react when this happens? Does she participate? Think of her body language. Is she involved in the argument or discussion? Describe her facial expressions. Do family arguments seem to frighten her?”

“Yes, always. The louder we talk, the more upset it makes her,” Nicole’s mother replied.

They gave me a clue. It was time to speak with Nicole.

Zooming with Nicole — it’s all about the noise

The afternoon of February 25, it was a chilly 40 degrees in much of the Pacific Northwest, where Vincent’s company is located. It was 75 here in Bakersfield, California. Within minutes, some of our Southern California warmth made its way into Vincent’s office, where Nicole was on our Zoom call.

“Vincent wants you to convince me to wear hearing aids, right, Mr. Beaver?” she asked.

“Partially correct, Nicole. Partially. And with your help, we are going to make a whole bunch of people as happy as can be, beginning with you, because I think I know why you don’t want to wear hearing aids. Noise — loud, aimless, jarring sounds drive you up a wall, right?”

“How did you know, Mr. Beaver? It’s true! I hate those hearing aids when my family gets into yelling contests, and when I wear them on job sites, it feel like my head is in a metal trash can and someone is banging on it with a hammer.”

“Nicole, our office has several clients who have recently purchased hearing aids with noise-reducing AI technology, and they just love them. I know for sure that Vincent will buy them for you, so please ask him to join us.”

She found Vincent and brought him back into his office, and I briefed him on what he could do for Nicole, her family and his company. He agreed.

I’ll keep you in the loop on what happens next.

Dennis Beaver Practices law in Bakersfield and welcomes comments and questions from readers,
which may be faxed to (661) 323-7993,
or e-mailed to Lagombeaver1 – at – Gmail.com.

The post How a Simple Clue Unlocked a Workplace Safety Crisis: All We Had to Do Was Listen appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

Recently, I received an email from “Ivan,” a young university graduate with a business degree and IT specialization. He and several friends from college established an IT service company in the Midwest, with an eye toward emulating “the relaxed work-should-be-fun image that many tech companies in Silicon Valley portray.”

“My father is a CPA,” Ivan wrote, “and tells me this would be risky and that no one talks about the fun factor’s share of work-related injuries while scaring away visiting clients. What is your recommendation? I think all employees need to enjoy their workday, and some horseplay is healthy. Thanks, Ivan.”

Sure, some horseplay at work is healthy, but a concussion isn’t. We’ve all seen images of a happy, playful workplace presented by tech companies — employees dashing around on Rollerblades, basketballs hurling through the air, an atmosphere more like an elementary school playground than a serious business enterprise. Indeed, more than one business writer has asked, “Where is the adult supervision? Doesn’t anyone among these young start-up CEOs care about workplace safety?”

I checked in with Marinor Ifurung, a senior human resources consultant with KDG Law in Southern California. “There are real consequences when a work environment invites accidents,” she said, “and that’s something HR consultants are critically aware of. Zooming around the office on Rollerblades — accidentally knocking a co-worker to the floor — or someone getting hit in the head by a basketball thrown by an employee encouraged to make the workplace a fun place predictably results in injury, medical costs, time off work and financial loss to the employer.”

She added, “HR is often faced with the human side — the emotional side — of workplace safety not being taken seriously, from mom-and-pops to the largest corporations. Often, it is the last thing newly formed companies spend much time” thinking about.

Ifurung and her colleagues Tiffany Cutler and AnduAlem Yohannes talked with me about the nuances of these issues.

Maintaining a safe work environment is legally required

Cutler: In all states, OSHA requires employers to have measures in place to establish a safe work environment: Work must be accomplished in a safe manner, the worksite itself must be a safe environment. What safe is, or what is required to meet that definition, is occupation-specific and often modified by various state laws.

It is one reason that anyone going into business who plans on hiring employees should obtain guidance from an employment lawyer or an HR consultant who works with new businesses.

So often, people who start their own businesses discover the hard way that safety violations are costly.

Yohannes: OSHA’s mantra, “A Safe Workplace is Sound Business,” recognizes that safety is an investment in an employer’s most valuable asset — its employees. Prevention of injury and illness is simply good business, and this requires a dedication of resources — not just to keep the business owner out of trouble — but to encourage a culture of safety on the job.

Glaring safety failures and consequences

Ifurung: One of the most disturbing situations we see are employers not carrying workers’ compensation insurance. Most people would think workers’ comp is a given, but you would be surprised at those who feel they don’t need it. The excuse is often, “We’re too small and don’t need it, but if we do, then we’ll get it.”

The consequences of their failure (or frugality or even lack of concern for their employees) can dwarf the cost of the insurance. They can include the employer being held personally responsible for the cost of medical care, including future treatment, lost wages, penalties into the thousands of dollars, and, in some cases, actually going to prison.

Also, a “stop order” may be issued in some states that prevents the company from functioning until it has obtained workers’ comp insurance.

Surprise safety visits by state or OSHA investigators who are looking for noncompliance issues often result in fines. Also, employees are encouraged to anonymously report safety violations to OSHA.

Lack of safety training and reporting

Ifurung: A lack of safety training is a well-documented factor in workers’ comp claims. Employees are told to “work safely,” but are not trained in how to use potentially dangerous equipment. Safety training should never be a “one-shot” deal; it should be continuous.

Cutler: Senior managers and line managers should have the same goals, and workers’ safety should be seen as mission-critical. Companies could develop reward systems, and then safety would become continuous, and people would not become complacent.

Yohannes: A clear policy for reporting injuries — or even closes calls — needs to be established so employees know what their obligations are and who they should go to. It is essential to make clear that there will be no retaliation or discrimination just because a worker reported a workplace injury or safety risk.

How to become informed of your obligations

How can entrepreneurs with no prior experience with workplace safety issues become informed?

Ifurung: There are many workplace safety consultants that provide training and facilitate compliance with safety regulations with the aim of reducing the risk of accidents and injuries. Most workers’ compensation insurance companies conduct seminars and free webinars. These resources have a large online presence, so that’s a good place to begin.

Concluding our discussion, she added, “Safety is everyone’s job. According to OSHA, 80% to 90% of serious injuries are caused by human error that can be prevented by giving site safety training. More than 99% of all accidents are preventable.”

Dennis Beaver Practices law in Bakersfield and welcomes comments and questions from readers,
which may be faxed to (661) 323-7993,
or e-mailed to Lagombeaver1 – at – Gmail.com.

The post How Much Fun Is Too Much Fun When You’re in the Office? appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

With homage to Ralph Nader, author of Unsafe at Any Speed, a landmark in consumer advocacy and journalism, today’s story looks at just how little the major auto manufacturers care about safety by forcing us to take our eyes off the road to navigate often confusing touchscreens and turning us into distracted drivers.

While most people think of Tesla as the first automobile with all functions contained in a 17-inch touchscreen, first place actually goes to the 1986 Buick Riviera with its Graphic Control Center for climate control, radio, graphic equalizer, trip calculations, gauges and vehicle diagnostic information. It is “a bad joke,” automotive journalist Brock Yates wrote in September 1986. It “does nothing that a conventional array of knobs, buttons and analog instruments could not do in a fraction of the time.”

Buick dropped it three years later.

Studies confirm touchscreens are more distracting than buttons

Studies in the U.S. and Europe demonstrate just how dangerous touchscreens are. In 2022, the Swedish auto magazine Vi Bilägare proved that physical buttons are safer than touchscreens, having tested a dozen vehicles at highway speed — primarily new but also a 2005 Volvo — to see how long it took to perform four simple tasks.

It took 10 seconds in the older car and up to 23.5 in the Tesla Model 3, which traveled more than 2,000 feet with the driver’s eyes off the road. And the Tesla wasn’t the worst performer.

As today’s cars have much larger and more complex touchscreens than just two years ago, few will deny they are distractions on wheels, much like texting while driving.

Studies show that with a driver’s eyes off the road for as little as five seconds, such as while reading a text, a car traveling at 55 mph will go a distance equal to the length of a football field — and it’s like driving that distance with closed eyes.

Sending a text results in 400% more time (20 seconds) with a driver’s eyes off the road, dramatically increasing the chances of an accident.

So, just compare that to fiddling with a touchscreen while on the highway.

Automakers love touchscreens, and they save money

I discussed these issues with Maddie McCarty, PhD, a human factors engineer (ergonomics) at Consumer Reports magazine. “Our research shows that it is easier and safer to use manual controls than a touchscreen to adjust your radio, volume, A/C, without even looking,” she said. “With a touchscreen, you have to look, taking your eyes off the roadway. This is distracting and dangerous,” she pointed out, adding, “People want those buttons and knobs back because they realize it is difficult to use a touchscreen to complete even the simplest task.”

She noted, “Automakers have gone to touchscreens (because they keep costs) down — new features can be programmed over the air without having to produce new physical components. Also, people like shiny new toys, but once they are experiencing glitches, lags and can’t find what they are looking for quickly, then reality sets in that touchscreens are difficult to use. I hope we are at this shifting point where manufacturers are starting to listen to their customers who want those dials, knobs and physical buttons back.”

Obviously, manufacturers aren’t blind, I mentioned. They read the studies and yet are putting out into the market inherently dangerous vehicles. How can this be permitted?

She replied, “The problem is that the government does not regulate the design of these technologies, so car manufacturers can put whatever they want into vehicles, and there is no incentive to take them out. That’s why it is so important for organizations like Consumer Reports to step in and advocate for auto buyers so that safer vehicles will be designed going forward.”

Distraction-caused auto accident lawsuit?

One way of forcing automakers to give more thought to designing safer vehicles is by hitting them in the pocketbook. I ran these issues by Charleston, S.C., personal injury attorney Steven Goldberg of the Steinberg Law Firm, who said, “Manufacturers will be included as co-defendants in personal injury lawsuits stemming from distracted driving accidents caused by touchscreen usage. This is due to their knowing design of vehicles with inherently unsafe touchscreen features.”

He added, “Drivers can access buttons and knobs without taking their eyes off the road. That’s known as ‘muscle memory,’ as instinctively your hand goes to the right place. A touchscreen takes all your attention off driving and is, by definition, an accident waiting to happen.”

And let’s not forget possibly higher auto insurance premiums

By owning a vehicle that has these attention-stealing touchscreens, could your auto insurance rates go up?

I discussed this with Los Angeles-based Karl Susman, an insurance broker for over 30 years and an expert witness in lawsuits involving coverage and agent malpractice issues. He is host of the highly informative talk radio show Insurance Hour.

“The insurance industry is aware of the effects of these screens,” he said, “and has data to support an increased frequency of accidents. Is the handwriting on the wall? We will have to wait and see. Safety in cars should always be the priority.”

Dennis Beaver Practices law in Bakersfield and welcomes comments and questions from readers,
which may be faxed to (661) 323-7993,
or e-mailed to Lagombeaver1 – at – Gmail.com.

The post If Cars With Touchscreens Are Unsafe at Any Speed, Why Do We Have Them? appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

What do you think is the most dangerous season for drivers? Many of us would think, “Winter, of course, with snow and ice in many parts of the country.”

That’s what I thought, but was corrected by a longtime friend of this column, Sacramento, Calif.-based Sergeant Adam Barresi of the California Highway Patrol.

“Most people would choose winter,” Barresi says, “but statistically, summer months have more fatalities due to increased travel, higher speeds and more drivers on the road, including inexperienced teens.

“In the summer months, there are so many horrible accidents that result from neglected (vehicle) maintenance. If a part is aging or compromised, the extra stress of high temperatures can cause it to fail.”

As we are now in summer, it is worth asking: If an accident results from proven neglected maintenance, can the driver, as well as the vehicle’s owner, be held financially responsible?

That was “Jake’s” question.

Accidents waiting to happen

“Mr. Beaver, I am a driver for a small package delivery company that services a large area in the western United States. We bring food items to mini markets, parts to automotive repair shops, paper goods to schools and offices — if it is something that a driver can physically carry, we handle it.

“Our vans are older and small. Not all have air conditioning, and in those that do, it frequently doesn’t work. The owner’s son is now running the business and is a real cheapskate. When mechanical issues are brought to his attention, typically we hear, ‘Like your job? Then fix any small things yourself!’

“In reality, most of these vans are accidents waiting to happen, and we are worried about our personal responsibility. We live in a small town where not lots of jobs that pay this well are available, and so we keep quiet.

“But summer is here, and two vans had tire blowouts and tread separation, leading to one going off the road, but no one was hurt. The police found that the tire tread was below safety requirements, but, again, this is a small town, and they did nothing.

“Do you have any suggestions? Would drivers be liable for an accident if it were related to poor vehicle maintenance?”

Driver’s duty of care

It’s common sense that if we are going to get behind the wheel of a car or commercial vehicle, it needs to be in good and safe mechanical shape.

I can’t begin to tell you the number of heat-related vehicular accidents that our law firm handled over the years. When the clock struck summer, a spike in breakdowns/accidents occurred.

Someone was at fault — the owner and possibly the driver — by failing to properly maintain the vehicle with summer heat in mind. Extreme heat exploits existing weaknesses, and regular maintenance reduces the risk of heat-related breakdowns, including:

• Having underinflated, worn tires while driving on hot pavement increases the chance of a blowout.

• Fluid evaporation/degradation can lead to battery failure and an overheated engine.

• Hoses and belts that should have been replaced can fail due to the extra load put on them in extreme operating temperatures.

• If refrigerant is low or leaking in air conditioning systems, drivers could be left without AC when it’s the hottest, impairing their ability to drive safely due to excessive cabin heat.

What can happen when a vehicle fails in the heat?

It does not matter how new your car is, heat is a great enemy, and overlooked maintenance items that wouldn’t cause a problem any other time of the year can prove fatal in the summer heat.

Just ask any police officer who has seen the results of:

• Tire blowouts at high speeds that lead to multiple-vehicle accidents from swerving, going out of control, striking a pole or going down an embankment, injuring or even killing occupants.

• Loss of brakes on steep hills or congested roads.

• Rear-end collisions caused when an engine or transmission stalls or freezes.

When a car isn’t safe to drive and someone gets hurt because of it, it’s not just an accident — it’s negligence at least, and potentially willful, leading to punitive damages if something really bad happens.

What can employees do?

So, what can employees like Jake do if their employer neglects vehicle maintenance, creating unsafe working conditions? They can file a complaint with OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration).

OSHA regulations require employers to provide a safe workplace, which includes maintaining vehicles in a safe operating condition.

Ideally, Jake and others should have a meeting with the boss and explain their concerns, but if it is futile to do so, then I would say, “File an anonymous complaint with OSHA.”

Also, consider dropping an anonymous note to the company’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier. A delivery van that is in not-so-good shape invites an accident, injuring employees and triggering workers’ compensation claims.

So a “thought you would like to know this” note should trigger an inspection and warning: Unless Uncle Miser maintains his vans, he could face much higher premiums or even cancellation.

Employers who don’t give a second thought to the welfare of their employees often pay a high price.

Dennis Beaver Practices law in Bakersfield and welcomes comments and questions from readers,
which may be faxed to (661) 323-7993,
or e-mailed to Lagombeaver1 – at – Gmail.com.

The post Neglecting Car Maintenance Could Cost You More Than a Repair, Especially in the Summer appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

Please join me for a walk down memory lane, to 1965 and the publication of Unsafe at Any Speed, the frightening book by lawyer and consumer advocate Ralph Nader about just how little auto manufacturers cared about safety. Nader’s first sentence has been described as an indictment of the automobile industry.

“For over half a century the automobile has brought death, injury and the most inestimable sorrow and deprivation to millions of people.”

Shortly after Unsafe at Any Speed was published, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, requiring the adoption of new and upgraded vehicle safety standards, and creating an agency to enforce them and supervise safety recalls.

Suddenly, the auto industry came under federal oversight.

Despite facing stiff opposition, much stronger safety requirements brought about technologies we take for granted, such as seatbelts, anti-lock brakes, air bags, blind-spot warning, electronic stability control, rearview cameras and automatic braking to name a few.

So, we can thank that one brazen Harvard attorney who demanded lifesaving changes in the way the automotive industry built cars and which, in 1975, led to enactment of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, offering protection to consumers who purchased defective vehicles.

It quickly became known as the lemon law, requiring manufacturers – not dealers – to buy back vehicles that can’t be repaired after either a “reasonable number” or a “specific number” of attempts, depending upon how the state you reside in defines a “lemon.”

What qualifies? “Anything that adversely affects the car’s value, use or safety,” is a good general definition. “Lesser defects, such as a bent radio antenna or loose radio knob” would not qualify, points out Los Angeles-based lemon law attorney Bob Brennan.

But if Not a Lemon, What Can I Do?

Today’s story is about one such defect that has been a real annoyance to not only Neil and Susan Williams of Fresno, but thousands of folks who own a certain brand of compact SUV. The actual brand isn’t as important as the issues and what a customer may be forced to do.

Neil wrote, “We purchased our SUV new on 10/24/2013. While we love the car, it has been plagued with what is obviously a poorly-designed driver and passenger side seat plastic trim – also called cladding – that comes loose, requires re-attachment or replacement, and this has happened 14 times!”

That’s right, 14 times the same plastic seat trim has come loose.

On an owner’s internet site, after describing identical issues with the trim falling apart, “bossfan” writes on Jan. 6, 2016, “A new seat trim piece was ordered for me under warranty. The new trim piece was installed but after a few times of someone sitting in the passenger seat, the clipped end has come apart again. I keep having to push it back together but I think it is only a matter of time before it breaks off like the first time.

“Seems like a poor design where instead of a solid seat trim piece it is this two piece clipped-in design. It is cosmetic and not a big deal since you can’t really see it unless you bend over to look at it. But it is annoying.”

End of Warranty – Goodwill Gesture

When Neil’s warranty expired, at first, the manufacturer authorized repairs on their dime as a goodwill gesture. “But no more, and including labor, it will now cost over $400 each time to replace the broken trim pieces – every year! So, having known about this obvious defect for years, why didn’t they redesign it?” he wonders.

“Many other owners of our product are asking the same question,” a parts manager admitted during a recent phone call. “If it were up to me, I would replace these trim pieces as long as the customer owned the vehicle. It just isn’t fair to make them constantly pay to replace these items,” said another.

Several owners suggested design methods of resolving the broken trim problem that made sense – and would have been fairly simple. So, why the manufacturer refuses is difficult to understand.

Advice from a Lemon Law Attorney

Southern California-based attorney Bob Brennan is recognized as one of the nation’s leading lemon law attorneys. Upon being briefed with the details of this case, his recommendation for Neil and others is small claims court.

“Your readers can easily establish the fact of these parts being defective given that they break almost every year and the auto maker has not redesigned them. It is not reasonable to expect the customer pay for new trim pieces yearly, and I’ll bet that a small claims court judge will agree.

“Their Agent for Service of Process is listed on each state’s Secretary of State website. With that information, file the suit in your local court and have service made on the agent.”

It’s good advice. If enough customers file these suits, someone, somewhere in the corporate structure will get the message.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Shame on auto maker who won’t address design flaw appeared first on Dennis Beaver.