Arnold Law Firm Blog

What Happens When State and Federal Labor Laws Differ?

Due to the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, federal law can supersede state laws. However, the tenth amendment of the Constitution also gives some power back to the states to govern themselves. This means that there is often a balancing act between how state and federal laws interact with each other. When it comes to labor laws, states often have more authority to expand the rights of employers or employees. In California, there are several labor laws that expand on the rights of employees already set forth by federal law. This then raises an important question about which law shall be enforced if there is an employment dispute. Below, our Sacramento wage and hour lawyers discuss the

What if I Have to Use My Paid Time Off After a Crash Injury?

Some injuries leave accident victims unable to work. This causes victims to use their paid time off (PTO) while they are recovering. Fortunately, you may be able to include this in your lost wages claim and get paid back for the hours you used. However, the insurance company may try to argue that you were paid for the time, and therefore they should not be required to pay for those PTO hours you lost. However, this is not entirely true. Our Sacramento auto collision lawyers are prepared to help you through this legal process to help recover full compensation. This includes compensation for the PTO you were forced to use while dealing with your injuries. How Does Taking PTO for

How is Liability for a U-Turn Accident Determined?

A U-turn is one of the most dangerous maneuvers one can make in traffic. When making a U-turn, drivers must ensure the road is clear. Heavy traffic and miscalculation can result in a serious accident. Determining who is liable for a U-turn crash may be complicated since there are several factors to consider. Our Sacramento-area car crash attorneys are prepared to review your claim during a free consultation. We can discuss the legal options that may be available to you. There are no fees while we work on your case. You only pay us if we successfully recover compensation for you. California U-Turn Laws Not all U-turns in California are treated the same. The state has specific rules that change

PG&E Equipment Tagged By Investigators After Mosquito Fire in Placer County

PG&E says it has filed a report with the state after its equipment was marked with caution tape by investigators who are looking into the Mosquito Fire in Placer County. This is not the first time the company has been linked to wildfires in California. In 2019, PG&E filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy after being forced to pay millions in fines for damages caused by the 2018 Camp Fire that destroyed thousands of homes and killed 85 people. Only a year later the company re-emerged and was once again blamed for the 2021 Dixie Fire by investigators. The Arnold Law Firm is actively investigating the Dixie Fire and now the Mosquito Fire for PG&E’s involvement. If you were injured or

Settlement - $3,767,000

Truck Accident

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.