ClickCease
Meet Our AttorneysFree Consultation(415) 233-4074
Menu

Sara M. Peters

Shareholder

Sara Peters, a shareholder at Walkup, is an award-winning personal injury attorney who represents catastrophically injured plaintiffs throughout California and in nationwide litigation. She serves as a member of the court-appointed leadership team in the Uber Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation. She also serves on a leadership committee in the nationwide paraquat weedkiller litigation. She represents hundreds of current and former employees of the SFPD who were exposed to radiation at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Sara has been named one of the “Best Lawyers in America” since 2020 for her work in Personal Injury Litigation-Plaintiffs and Product Liability-Plaintiffs. In 2023 and 2024, she was selected to Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers in the nation. Sara has been peer-nominated one of Northern California’s “Super Lawyers,” and she is an AVVO top-rated lawyer.

When she isn’t representing clients, Sara is a lecturer at Stanford Law School, co-directing the Trial Advocacy course.

She is a contributing editor of the Rutter Group “Claims and Defenses” book, which is a leading practice guide for lawyers in California, and she has published original legal research in an peer-reviewed scholarly periodical, the Journal of Tort Law.

Sara is regularly invited to speak at local and national CLE (continuing legal education) conferences on litigation-related topics. She is a Sustaining Life Fellow of the American Bar Foundation – which supports evidence-based research seeking to advance justice. She is also a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, a close-knit, peer-selected society of trial lawyers. She is a former board member of SFTLA (San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association), current co-chair of SFTLA’s education committee, and an active member of CAOC (Consumer Attorneys of California), AAJ (American Association for Justice), and the Bar Association of San Francisco. She has also been featured as a guest speaker on podcasts, and is an invited guest speaker at Stanford Law School courses including Health Law & Policy, and Legal Ethics: The Plaintiff Lawyer. She also serves as Co-Director of ABC (Attorneys Backing the Community) a local nonprofit composed of attorneys who volunteer in a hands-on way.

Sara prosecutes and serves as lead trial lawyer for severely injured individuals in a wide variety of cases. She has extensive experience advocating for clients in cases involving defective products, toxic exposures, trucking accidents, transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft, aviation crashes, dangerous roadways, vehicular negligence, medical negligence, sexual assault, nursing home abuse, propane explosions, civil rights violations, and other wrongdoing, and this experience includes recovering well over $100 million for clients in jury trials, bench trials, arbitrations, and mediated settlements.

Sara received her undergraduate degree in Philosophy and Middle Eastern Studies at UCLA, and attended Stanford Law School, obtaining her J.D. in 2008. She joined Walkup the same year.

Client Testimonials

Client Testimonials
"My family has called upon the services of this law firm twice. In both cases, we were given excellent representation and shown high professionalism. Sara Peters and her team were thorough in both my cases, yet still showed a sense of caring and sensitivity. We felt we had a friend on our side. As for our cases, Sara and her team helped us receive settlements that were more than fair. We were lucky to find this law firm and would recommend them to others who may need them. Thank you Walkup Personal Injury Attorneys!!!"

Wallace C.

"Sara Peters and her staff represented us when our mother was injured. These situations are complicated and they take a long time to resolve. Sara and staff were great communicators during the entire process. They were able to achieve a solution we are happy with. We encourage anyone needing legal help to speak with Sara Peters!"

Client

"Sara Peters represented me in a complex case that lasted over a year. She always helped me know what was going on —I could tell she cared. Also, from the outset, she did not sugarcoat the obstacles we faced, but kept me involved, and informed of the risks. I highly recommend using Sara and her team."

Client

"She worked tirelessly to ensure the best possible outcome on our behalf and we will always be grateful for all the efforts. Having an experienced attorney like Ms. Peters on our side was a good sign that the case was in the hands of a seasoned and qualified team. We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to the whole team at Walkup for the professionalism and service."

Client

Noteworthy Verdicts and Settlements

  • Telecommunications Worker v. Utility Companies – Negligent Maintenance of Power Lines Resulting in Burn Injuries – Mediated Settlement – $29 million
  • Patient v. Medical System – Failure to Diagnose Kidney Infection – Medical Malpractice Settlement – $8 million
  • Young Man v. Medical System – Failure to Diagnose Brain Tumor – Medical Malpractice Settlement – $7.5 million
  • Baby v. Medical System – Failure to Perform Pregnancy Test Before Implanting IUD – Medical Malpractice Case – $7.5 million
  • Family v. Tour Bus Operator – Inattentive Bus Driver Strikes Pedestrian in Crosswalk – Wrongful Death Settlement – $5.1 million
  • Elderly Woman v. Trucking Companies – Box Truck Operated by Sleepy Driver Caused Crash that Left Permanent Severe Leg Injuries – Mediated Settlement – $5.1 million
  • Grandmother v. Winery – Employee Causes Collision During Commute – Mediated Settlement – $4.75 million
  • Speeding Driver v. Delivery Truck – Prop 51 Case – Mediated Settlement – $4.5 million
  • Disabled Man v. Government Entities – Failure to Protect Crosswalk – Mediated Settlement – $4.25 million
  • Young Man v. Homeowners’ Construction Company – House Fire Causes Third Degree Burns – Mediated Settlement – $3.3 million
  • Children v. Kaiser – Mismanagement of Pitocin-Induced Labor – Wrongful Death Arbitration Award – $3.1 million
  • Young Mechanic with Aortic Dissection v. Transfer Center, Ambulance Company, and Hospital – Delayed Transfer and Medication Mismanagement – Mediated Settlement – $2.75 million
  • Elderly Man v. HMO – During Replacement of IV Bag, Air Pushed Into Blood Vessels Causing Stroke –  Mediated Settlement – $2.25 million
  • Child v. Kaiser – Brachial Plexus Injury During a Shoulder Dystocia – Arbitration Award – $1.6 million
  • Businesswoman v. Hotel – Defective Staircase Causes Fall – Mediated Settlement – $2.2 million
  • High School Student v. Helmet Manufacturer – Defective Football Helmet Does Not Protect Head – Mediated Settlement – $2.2 million
  • Psychiatrist v. Medical System – Delayed Diagnosis of Ovarian Cancer – Medical Malpractice Settlement – $2 million
  • Adult Children v. Wrong Way Driver – Insurance and Assets Allocated Between Survivors of Multiple Decedents – Mediated Settlement – $1.875 million
  • Family v. Health Plan – Prescribing Drug with Known Suicide Risk – Medical Malpractice Settlement – $1.7 million
  • Stroke patient vs. Bay Area Physicians – Delayed Diagnosis of Stroke – Mediated Settlement – $1.5 million
  • Family v. Emergency Room – Failure to Diagnose Sepsis – Medical Malpractice Settlement – $1.4 million
  • Young Woman v. Medical System – Delayed Diagnosis of Malignant Melanoma – Settlement – $1.3 million
  • Grad Student v. ATM Service Company – Road Rage Attack by Service Driver – Mediated Settlement – $1.2 million
  • Brain Damaged Man v. Negligent Driver – Vehicular Negligence – Mediated Settlement – $1.2 million
  • Jogger v. Bike Club – Speeding Cyclist Struck Pedestrian – Mediated Settlement – $1.2 million
  • Passenger v. Taxi Driver – Attack by Driver on Passenger – Mediated Settlement – $1 million
  • Young Man v. Farmers Insurance – Coverage Dispute After Golf Cart Injury – Bench Trial Verdict – $985,000

Featured

  • Law360 June 2024
    • A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Sara Peters of Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, said the litigation against Uber was about negligence and more. The lawyer pointed back to the Lisa M. ruling and its caveat that “motivating emotions” that can be attributed to work-related conditions don’t fall within the decision. “It’s motivations like power, control, being given job duties that give you special access and caregiving responsibilities, so that you’re given the sense you can get away with anything,” Peters said.
  • Bloomberg April 2024
    • Now, “there’s some universal disappointment not to have that level of clarity that we had hoped for from the California Supreme Court,” said Peters, a shareholder of Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger. Questions of responsibility are particularly salient in California after an appeals court issued what Peters called a “new twist” on principles of responsibility while upholding the denial of a different Doe v. Uber case in 2022.
  • Law360 November 2023
    • “During a hearing before a three-judge panel, Sara Peters of Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger argued on behalf of an anonymous Jane Doe assault victim that the Ninth Circuit should split with a state appellate court finding in a similar case — titled Jane Doe v. Uber Technologies, and referred to as Jane Doe 1 — and find that Uber affirmatively created risks by not requesting that the former driver, Brandon Sherman, either return his Uber decal, destroy it or stop using it, despite knowing that he had assaulted two passengers in the past.” …She added that the case does not raise a “classic Good Samaritan situation” in which a person does not have a duty to jump into a pool to try to save someone from drowning. Instead, it is more like a situation in which an individual builds a pool and then pushes someone into the pool, because the individual is creating a foreseeable risk that the person might drown, Peters said, adding that Uber created a risky business model and added additional risks with its decal markers on top of it. “They’ve created risk, and they’ve done so actively,” she said.
  • Law360 (New Depo Rule) November 2023
    • Good lawyers work out disputes using the existing meet-and-confer process,” said Sara Peters of Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, a plaintiffs’ attorney in California. “Presumptive limits on topics will result in gamesmanship as to what constitutes a topic and will only result in broader notices that increase inefficiency, both in preparation and taking of depositions.”
  • Plaintiff Magazine July 2020
    • “I like working on cases where I feel there’s the possibility of real impact,” Peters explained. “Not just for the one client, but when you walk away from the case, you’re seeing changes being made. To me, it’s rewarding working on something cutting edge like that – cutting edge in terms of the legal concepts being developed around these gig-economy businesses and also novel in terms of the way the business owners are shaping their business.”
  • Stanford Magazine (Uber) May 31, 2017
    • “Uber wants to have it both ways,” says Sara Peters, JD ’08, a San Francisco personal injury lawyer who represents another Uber customer, suing the company for assault. “The company advises women that taking an Uber is a better option than riding with a stranger or driving drunk. In court, the company is saying these drivers are strangers.”

Publications

  • Daily Journal Column: California Finally Allows Pre-Death Pain And Suffering Damages, But That’s Set To Expire
    • Even where plaintiffs do not live to tell about their pain and suffering, in courtrooms around the country plaintiffs’ attorneys have found ways to equip the jury with enough evidence to make a reasoned inference. In one trial, an expert neuropathologist took the stand to explain that, after a bullet penetrated a plaintiff’s internal organs, his brain continued functioning for minutes – long enough for nerve pathways to transmit pain signals, for the brain to interpret the pain, and for the plaintiff to consciously experience terror and mental anguish. In another trial, counsel played a video of a fatal workplace accident. After a crane collapse, a countdown timer appeared on the screen, logging the seconds during which the crushed plaintiff likely remained conscious, processing both pain and fear. In another case, a terminally ill plaintiff records videotaped testimony regarding her present pain and anxiety, to be used at a trial she will not live to see.
  • Peer-Reviewed Original Research in the Journal of Tort Law: Shifting the Burden of Proof on Causation:
    • “Wrongdoing does not only produce the harm that is the subject of a tort suit. It also necessarily produces uncertainty regarding what would have occurred without the wrongdoing. As a result, in proving causation, plaintiffs must overcome an information deficit that is not of their own making. ….[T]he degree of uncertainty tends to be high in cases where defendants failed to take reasonable precautions, since the plaintiff must construct, almost out of thin air, the counterfactual impact of the untaken precautions. …[W]here a defendant’s conduct substantially or directly generates uncertainty regarding causation, the burden of proof should be modified so that the uncertainty does not inure to the benefit of the wrongdoer. The impact of burden shifting in such scenarios would not be radical, costly, or harmful to the aims of justice.”
  • Plaintiff Magazine Article: The Dangerous Roadway Case
    • “Thus, in a case where some aspect of the design lacked any factual support, or any analysis, or altogether failed to take into account some feature of the public property, the design as to that feature is arbitrary. Alternatively, one might argue that no design exists as to that feature, and make a parallel argument under element one (causation). Either way, the legislative goal in enacting section 830.6 was to prevent juries from second-guessing the entity’s decisions. (Hampton at 352.) If the entity failed to make a decision (because it simply failed to consider something), immunity should not apply.”
  • Plaintiff Magazine Article: The Defense “Expert” with a Badge

Speaking Engagements

  • Guest teacher at Golden Gate University School of Law, Trial Advocacy Program (2023)
  • The Bar Association of San Francisco MCLE, Recovery of Pain and Suffering Damages (2023)
  • Hastings, Women in Plaintiff Law panel (2023)
  • SFTLA MCLE, Changes in Med Mal MCLE (2023)
  • Guest speaker Stanford Law School, “The Plaintiff Lawyer” course (2023)
  • Trial Advocacy at Stanford Law School (September to November 2022)
  • SFTLA MCLE, Gig Economy (2022)
  • Consumer Attorneys of California Annual Conference MCLE, Elder Abuse & Rideshare (2022)
  • Consumer Attorneys of California MCLE, Kaiser Virtual Seminar (2022)
  • Consumer Attorneys of California Sonoma Seminar MCLE, Environmental Torts Panel (“But For No More”) (2022)
  • Trial Advocacy at Stanford Law School (September to November 2021)
  • CAALA Las Vegas, Rideshare Panel (September 2021)
  • Emerging Technology and the Law, The Reminger Report Podcast (July 2021)
  • Zoom Trials & The Law, SFTLA Ski & CLE Seminar (March 2021)
  • The Age of Prop 22, SFTLA (January 2021)
  • Trial Advocacy at Stanford Law School (September to November 2020)
  • TBI: Demystifying and Defusing (November 2019 CAOC Annual Convention)
  • Health Policy and the Law, Invited Guest Speaker, Stanford Law School (May 2020)
  • Trial Advocacy at Stanford Law School (September to November 2019)
  • Masters Seminar on the Sanchez Case (September 2019 CAOC and the SMCTLA)
  • BASF Intensive Advocacy Program, Invited Teacher (June 2019)

Lawyers Who Know How to Win Your Case

Walkup team members have consistently contributed to the welfare and improvement of the people and communities of the Bay Area and Northern California.

Why Hiring a Trial Lawyer is Crucial to Your Case

Our Commitment to Our Clients

What Sets Us Apart

More Videos

Request a Free Consultation

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, speak with our legal team today.

"*" indicates required fields

* Required Fields
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.