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.

Featured

• Plaintiff Magazine
  • “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)
  • “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 Burdon 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)

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