NY Post⁠89%

Stunning $35M lawsuit hits San Diego over trip-and-fall ⁠65%

By Titus Wu⁠85%

6/28/2026, 12:09:51 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 52.2% saturation with 152 hits. Analysis detected 823 faulty-reasoning hits from 291 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (7,192 of 20,371 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.70% of the article peer group.

A routine stumble on a San Diego sidewalk could wind up costing taxpayers a staggering $35 million. 
A 70-year-old man has filed a claim against the city seeking the eye-popping payout after allegedly tripping on a damaged sidewalk and suffering a broken neck and back. 
If the claim isn’t settled, the case could head to court. 
The man and his wife were leaving a sushi restaurant near the intersection of Washington Street and Albatross Drive in May when he fell, attorney William Berman told NBC San Diego. 
Security camera footage shows the man walking toward a car parked at a curb with a 30-minute time limit. 
Curiously, he does not appear to use the cane he is carrying in his left hand. 
Then, one of his feet touches the exposed metal base of what was a parking meter, supposedly removed from the sidewalk more than a year earlier. 
Surveillance footage captured the dramatic moment the man pitched headfirst toward the pavement before slamming into the back of a parked car. 
He is then seen lying motionless with his head wedged between the curb and the vehicle’s rear wheel as his wife rushes to his side. 
The shocking fall was caught by a security camera mounted outside a nearby animal clinic. 
Berman alleges the city created a dangerous hazard by removing the parking meter but leaving behind its raised metal base and protruding bolts embedded in the sidewalk. 
He claims similar sidewalk hazards exist elsewhere across the city. 
The man has been released from the hospital, but he requires 24-hour medical care every day at home, the attorney claimed. 
The city through a spokesperson said it cannot comment on the incident or potential litigation. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.2%Titus Wu: 4.8%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias18.2%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Titus Wu: 3.5%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic13.4%This article: 6.5%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.5%This article: 3.4%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.8%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Titus Wu: 12.5%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect12.4%This article: 13.1%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion13.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 52.2%Titus Wu: 22.1%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias52.2%This article: 3.4%Titus Wu: 4.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 5.5%Titus Wu: 1.8%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error5.5%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 2.4%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.9%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 4.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.8%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.9%Titus Wu: 3.4%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority19.9%This article: 3.8%Titus Wu: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.3%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.3%Titus Wu: 6.8%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization9.3%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 28.5%Titus Wu: 9.6%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion28.5%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.3%Titus Wu: 1.7%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.3%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.2%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof7.2%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.5%Titus Wu: 3.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.9%Titus Wu: 3.9%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote18.9%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.6%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 45.0%Titus Wu: 17.4%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice45.0%This article: 7.2%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination7.2%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 3.7%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.7%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

291 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker31%attributed speech202writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Berman • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWilliam Berman • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWilliam Berman • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Berman • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

William Berman

100%flagged-word coverage
89 attributed words100% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-64.9 ptsWriter: 64.9%William Berman: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+16.5 ptsWriter: 13.9%William Berman: 30.3%30.3%Indoctrination+23.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%William Berman: 23.6%23.6%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.