In California personal injury claims are often handled by attorneys, because of the complexity of seemingly simple cases. The common compensation system for wrongs still exists, but has been modified by law. Some states are called no fault and have substantially different laws. In California there is one major change that was made. More likely than not the change came about as a result of the insurance industry. Basically the idea is that people that are uninsured should not benefit at the expense of those that are insured.

In California your rights are reduced if you are driving a car and have no car insurance for the car you are driving. There are a few exceptions, but as a rule you must have car insurance if you are going to drive in the state of California to be able to make a full claim.

Personal injury claims are actually relatively broad claims that include more than just a claim for personal injuries. A personal injury claims is usually a claim that involves seeking reimbursement for medical expenses incurred treating injuries resulting from the negligence or intentional action of another, it also involves seeking compensation for the pain and suffering, if the injured person was married at the time of the event that caused the injury the spouse is entitled to make a claim for loss of consortium.

Loss of Consortium means many different things as defined by the California Supreme court, but in the vast majority of cases it has been reduced to a claim for diminished ability to engage in sexual relationships. Many claimants and potential claimants forgo the right, because exercising the right necessarily means the opposing party that caused the accident is entitled to inquiry about the sexual relationship between the couple and have his or her attorney ask written and oral questions pertaining to the sexual relationship. The injured party is also entitled to seek reimbursement for out of pocket expenses incurred in seeking medical treatment, such as transportation, over the counter drugs, neck braces, and other such items. The injured is also entitled to compensation for the time lost from work.

The claimant will not automatically receive compensation for all these things, this where attorneys come in. First the claimant has to prove that if he or she was driving the car that he or she was insured. If the driver was driving someone else's car, it is okay as long as the car was insured. In some cases there are exclusions for the particular driver, it is not unusual for spouses to exclude each other to get lower insurance rates when one of them has a poor driving record or criminal convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. Some drivers create fancy schemes to get the vehicle insured and be able to obtain registration as well. Among undocumented workers there are many unregistered vehicles and many schemes as well where the driver is often not the registered owner or insured.

What results when these drivers are uninsured is that they lose their right to what are called general damages. General damages in short means the right to compensation for the pain and suffering. Sometimes the injured party failed to pay on time and the insurance was canceled, sometimes the payment was lost, and sometimes they forget to pay or mailed payment to the wrong place. These are not viable excuses an attorney cannot fix these errors.

By: Arnold Hernandez
Speak with a personal injury and wrongful death attorney today. San Diego Attorney, wrongful death, personal injury, Labor Overtime.

Parents are expected to pay for the child according their ability. A parent with a higher standard of living is obligated to make sure his child can share in the lifestyle. However, the non custodial parent cannot be expected to pay for a lifestyle which is beyond his own.

Child support provides for all of the child's "needs" during formative years. The courts consider a parent's first obligation in life to support their minor children, and the child is to share in the standard of living of both parents. Therefore, child support provides for not just needs, but a lifestyle as well.

The household of the custodial parent may benefit from the child support if the noncustodial parent's income far exceeds the custodian's. In addition, a percentage of future bonuses to the non-custodial parent may be awarded to the children to ensure the standard of living is shared.

Federal law requires that guidelines be used to set the amount of child support payment. The guidelines are to set an objective measure, so that courts do not vary in their mandates. The formula is based on the net incomes of the parents. Then mandatory expenses such as Social Security, income tax, Medicare, and any other mandatory fees are subtracted. The net income is then used to determine child support.

Evidence of income can be obtained through pay statements or tax statements. All income is to be shown by law. If a party is suspected of not documenting certain income such as cash, an attorney is needed to work on the case.

In addition to income, formulas also consider other factors such as time spent with the child. The parent who spends the greatest time with the child is incurring the greatest expenses when raising the child. In addition the number of children a parent has is considered. Because there are fixed expenses that do not rise with the addition of other children, the amount does not double for second child. Lastly, special circumstances will be factored into the equation. Such items as high medical expenses, special educational needs, uninsured catastrophic losses, travel expenses for visitation purposes, and the cost of living expenses for other children have an effect on the amount of child support.

There are now computer programs which have been designed to objectively calculate support. However, there are still many factors to be considered.

By: Joseph Devine
If you are in need of legal assistance, visit http://www.divorcelawyerssandiego.com

In most unlawful arrest or imprisonment cases, private security is involved. While the law in California allows for any private person to make a "citizen's arrest", there are restrictions and limited authority to do so. Compared to a police officer, a security officer has far less authority in detaining individuals. When a person has been detained or arrested unlawfully, that person becomes a victim and has a right to be compensated for any physical harm or emotional upset that results.

To protect their property and maintain business peace, most retailers and large property owners hire guard and agents. These are generally uniformed guards from a security service patrolling the location. Their primary function is to ensure certain rules are obeyed (relative to parking and other activities), and they rarely have the chance to capture suspected law violators. When guards detain or arrest a person, they are taking a chance of violating that individual's right to be free of unlawful imprisonment. For instance, if someone is detained by a guard for breaking into a car, which happens to be that individuals own car, that person has the right for compensation for any unlawful use of force in the arrest. In the worst case scenario, a guard can use his weapon and hurt someone that he wrongly believes committed a crime. For this situation, there may be some liability issues for substantial damages and injuries, and the employer and guard may be legally responsible.

Agents in retail security and loss prevention probably come into contact with more suspected law violators than others in the field of private law enforcement. It is not unusual for an "undercover" shoplift agent to catch an alleged shoplifter and follow through with criminal prosecution. If the agent is not reasonably sure that the shoplifter really stole something from a shop, compensation may be given to the victim for emotional and physical harm that he suffered. It is possible for the agent to be immune from liability if there is "probable cause" to believe the suspect did in fact take or attempted to take store merchandise unlawfully. This is called "merchant's privilege" and, although not absolute, it can be called into play to protect a retailer in the even of a lawsuit.

Not only may the retailers and property owners be held responsible for false arrest and imprisonment, they may also be held liable for malicious prosecution of a criminal case if the accused is found not guilty in the end. Sometimes, an inexperienced or overzealous guard or agent will unlawfully apprehend or arrest an individual and then add to the trouble by insisting on a criminal prosecution. If the case goes to court resulting in an acquittal, the falsely accused person has a right to be compensated for the initial detention and arrest, as well as the criminal prosecution. They will not impose liability on the guard or agent until it can be proven that said guard was not acting with probable cause. Because most private law enforcement employees do not have the same training or education as police officers, it is common for these errors to occur.

There is an endless amount of harm that can be caused if someone is falsely arrested or imprisoned. A trial lawyer with experience will assist you in sorting through the truths and the legal system to achieve a fair outcome.

By: Paul W Ralph
As an Orange County Personal Injury Attorneys, Paul W. Ralph has seen his fair share of false imprisonment cases. From wrongful arrest to improper detainment, Mr. Ralph knows that sometimes mistakes are made and the arresting party needs to be held responsible. That's why, as an Orange County false arrest lawyer, he works hard to see the victims compensated.

In recent weeks, the subject of employee tipping has received considerable attention in the media. There have been lawsuits in California, Massachusetts, and other states which should serve to remind employers about the importance of knowing and then following State and Federal laws on tipping.

In California, there are three critical rules which must be followed by employers:

1. No manager may take any portion of a tip left for an employee;
2. An employer may not offset any credit card processing fee against a tip left by a customer for an employee; and
3. Absolutely no portion of any tip received by any employee may be offset against the minimum wage of $8.00 per hour paid to an employee.

It is worth noting, however, that in California, a service charge by the business owner is not considered a tip for purposes of the California Labor Code provisions dealing with tipping.

There is still some controversy in California concerning the subject of tip pooling. Tip pooling is not automatically illegal in California. The controversy arises over what type of tip pooling arrangement is allowed.

The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement has traditionally took the strict view that in order for an employee to participate in the tip pool, he or she must render direct table service. Such a rule is both artificial and unworkable.

Take for example, the customer who orders a drink from his table. Should it make a difference in any tip pooling arrangement whether the bartender brings the drink to the table or whether the server delivers the drink?

Another example - in those restaurants where the cooking of the food is in plain view of the customers, should the cooks be prohibited from having even a small percentage of the tip?

Finally, if the dishes on which the food is served are not clean, then the customer will not enjoy the dining experience. Thus, should the dishwasher receive a tiny percentage from the tip pool?

In recent years, the Courts, especially the Federal Courts have rejected the artificial "direct table service" distinction. Rather these decisions leave it to the restaurateur to adopt a tip pooling plan. So long as that tip pooling plan is reasonable, it is likely to be upheld by the Courts. Obviously, the server should get the lion's share of any tip, with smaller percentages going to those who participate in the dining experience.

Given the attention that tipping and tip pooling has received in recent weeks, this is a good time for all employers to review their tipping and tip pooling practices to ensure that such practices are consistent with both State and Federal law.

By: Russell Thomas
Attorney at Law
THOMAS & ASSOCIATES
4121 Westerly Place, Suite 101
Newport Beach, California 92660
Tel: (949) 752-0101
Fax: (949) 257-4756
Email: rthomas@rjtlawfirm.com
Web: http://www.rjtlawfirm.com

J.D., Harvard Law School, 1967

Specializes in Employment Law and Litigation;Offices in Southern California (Los Angeles and Orange County)