COVID-19 Situation: Frequently Asked Questions

Posted on behalf of Arnold Law Firm in

covid-19 faq legal casesThe emergence of the coronavirus pandemic upended daily life for all of us, leaving many of us worried and feeling uncertain on a very personal level. It is truly an unprecedented time.

At the Arnold Law Firm, we are blessed with a team that is nothing short of amazing. Everyone has jumped into action to adapt, respond, and creatively develop solutions to accommodate the evolving COVID-19 situation to meet the needs of our clients, while staying safe.

We understand that having a pending legal case can already feel stressful and overwhelming – even before the additional coronavirus concerns. We want all of our clients to know that we are here for you one-hundred percent.

We would like to address some frequently asked questions that many of our clients have been wondering:

  • Are you open? 

Yes, the Arnold Law Firm is conducting business operations with safety precautions that adhere to all guidelines from Federal and State authorities – including careful social distancing and sanitization procedures. We are working on current client cases and accepting new client cases. 

Some staff is working remotely, while others are physically at our office building to handle essential operations and document management. With the aid of technology, we are well-configured to work this way and are proceeding full-steam-ahead to the degree the situation allows.

The safety of our clients, staff, and community remains our utmost priority. We are able to evaluate and manage your case without in-person contact.

  • What is going on with the courts? 

The situation with the Courts continue to evolve. For the most part, courts are open for document-based work and telephonic hearings. Some previously continued hearings are being reset. Civil jury trials still do not have a definitive timeframe for starting.

We are able to file motions, but do not expect them to be heard quickly, because the courts have had to adjust procedures for processing papers to allow for social distancing requirements. Emergency hearings are still being conducted promptly via phone. All upcoming trials are postponed for at least 60 days by order of the California Supreme Court.

  • What is the PG&E Bankruptcy status?

This case continues on track as expected. If you have specific questions about this, contact Josh Watson at [email protected].

  • In light of current court limitations, what are you able to do for my case during this stay-at-home period?  

Much of the work on cases is actually done directly between counsel, and the courts expect counsel to work productively this way. We are still engaged in discovery (written exchange of information), negotiations, and all other case work that does not require an in-person appearance.

  • Should I settle my case as soon as possible?

If you have concerns, talk with your legal team about your specific situation. We understand that these are uneasy times and that many of you are worried about delays, lower settlement offers, and uncertainty.

While our firm is fully up and running, outside delays are indeed a factor. Many insurance adjusters are scrambling to set up remote work arrangements. It is taking longer to reach contacts, but our staff is on top of communications and motivating progress.

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.