HomeOur FirmAttorneysWhat is Bike Law?Types of AccidentsResultsResourcesContact Us
The Dolan Law Firm
Call or Email Us 415.421.2800 - 888.4BIKELAW
Resources
78 First St. San Francisco, CA 94105
Click Here To Visit Our Main Site
Do I Have a Case? Free Evaluation
Resources

News

News

Autos

[05/16] EXX INC Announces First Quarter Consolidated Net Sales and Net Income for 2008
[05/16] FLW Outdoors Announces Multi-Million Dollar Investment in Collegiate Bass Tournament Circuit for 2009
[05/16] Automotive Supplier Vari-Form Receives Ford Q1 Award for Hydroformed Component Production Quality, Reliability, and Service

More...

CPSC Recalls

[05/02] Children's Rain Ponchos with Drawstrings Recalled by Daiso Due to Strangulation Hazard
[05/08] American Honda Motor Co. Recalls ATVs Due to Loss of Steering Control
[05/08] Fingerhut Recalls Master CraftsPressure Washers Due to Fire Hazard
[05/06] Playworld Systems Recalls Swing Sets Due to Fall Hazard Caused by Defective Clevises

More...

Personal Injury

[05/16] CDC: Syringe reuse linked to hepatitis C outbreak
[05/15] 9-year-old girl's twin is found inside her stomach
[05/15] Charleston fire dept. is blamed in 9 deaths

More...

NHTSA Recalls

[0/0] More Americans Buckle Up and Wear Their Helmets In 2007
[05/02] Nations Top Vehicle Safety Official Urges 15-Passenger Van Users to Drive with Caution this Summer
[04/04] NHTSA Presents Awards for Safety Achievements and Public Service

More...

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[05/16] Brittingham v. GMC
In a negligence and intentional misconduct case, summary judgment for defendants and denial of a motion to remand the case to state court is vacated and remanded where: 1) there was no federal preemption under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not impose a duty on defendant to conduct pre-employment examinations and disclose information; and 2) the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action since the plaintiff's claims were rooted in state law independent of the CBA.

[05/14] Ericson v. Fed. Express Corp.
In a premises liability tort action arising from a third-party's assault and robbery incident in defendant's parking lot, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the third-party assault was not foreseeable under even the "regular reasonable forseeability" test; and 2) the negligent undertaking doctrine was inapplicable.

[05/14] Lockett v. Suardini
In a prisoner's action claiming a violation of his free speech rights when he was forcibly removed from a parole hearing after insulting the hearing officer, as well as cruel and unusual punishment based on guards' use of excessive force and nursing staff's refusal to treat his injuries, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a prisoner is not engaged in protected conduct when he violates a legitimate prison regulation; 2) the prison guards used minimal force and plaintiff suffered minimal injuries when he was removed from the hearing room; and 3) plaintiff did not have an objectively serious medical need due to his minor injuries, and there was no deliberate indifference from the nursing staff since they checked up on the plaintiff twice after the incident.

[05/13] Price v. Connolly-Pac. Co.
In an action brought by a "commuter seaman" claiming entitlement to "maintenance and cure" from his employer under maritime laws after he allegedly contracted West Nile encephalitis while working on a ship, judgment for employer is affirmed over claims that: 1) under the Shipowner's Liability Convention of 1936, a seaman only needs to prove that an illness incurred, aggravated or manifested itself during the period of employment instead of while in the service of a vessel; and 2) even if a commuter seaman is not on call or engaged in an activity generally considered in the service of a vessel, maintenance and cure is required if an illness is contracted while the seaman is participating in an on-shore activity which benefits the employer.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.


What to Do After an Injury





All Information Will Remain Confidential

Verdicts & Settlements

Our firm and lawyers handle cases throughout Northern California including, but not limited to the areas, counties or cities of San Francisco, Santa Clara, Eureka, San Rafael, San Jose, Santa Rosa, San Mateo, Oakland, Fremont, East Bay, Piedmont, Alameda, Marin, Contra Costa, Berkeley, Walnut Creek, Gilroy, Richmond, Hayward, Stockton, Modesto, Contra Costa County, Alameda County, Pleasanton, Pleasanton, Highway 101, Highway 1, Highway 580, Highway 880, Highway 24, Highway 137, Highway 4, Highway 280, Highway 17, Highway 157 and more.