Comparative
Negligence
If you have an
automobile accident in the state of
California, you need to be familiar
with the laws. "Comparative
Negligence" which means, you've
suffered an injury in an accident
where you were partially at fault,
dictates that you may be compensated
for any loss. California protects the
right for compensation if you are
injured. "Comparative
negligence" is a doctrine in this
state which provides for apportioning
responsibility if in fact the injured
party is partially responsible. If one
or more people are injured, but they
are also partially responsible for the
wreck, then the courts will determine
what percentage of the fault rests
with each party involved.
You may share
some responsibility if, for example,
you are driving at an excessive speed,
and it is determined that a vehicle
turned left in front of you, but you
are partially responsible, because you
weren't obeying the speed limit. This
makes the assumption that how fast you
were driving contributed as a
“substantial factor” to the
accident. If you are somewhat
responsible, the law determines a
"percentage of fault" and
allows your recovery to be reduced by
that amount. If you are deemed 10%
responsible for the accident because
of your speeding, then your recovery
from the other driver's insurance will
be reduced by 10%. For example, you
would be paid $90,000.00 in the event
of a $100,000.00 claim, which is still
reasonable compensation.
The assumption
that a driver will not receive
compensation for his or her injuries,
if they are at fault is simply not
true. Over 30 years ago, a California
Supreme Court decision (Li v. Yellow
Cab Company (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804,
810), the State changed its archaic
doctrine that precludes victims from
any recovery if the damaged party had
contributed in any way to the
occurrence of their own accident and
injuries. The "all or
nothing" rule was discarded for
one that made more sense for everyone
involved.
Joint and
Several Responsibility
Joint and
several responsibility was used
instead of "all-or-nothing"
as it made more sense. California law,
prior to 1986, allowed victims of
negligence to recover all of their
damages from any of the negligent
parties who had caused them harm,
regardless of that party's degree of
culpability. Because this situation at
times created an unfair hardship for
the person who had the most money but
not necessarily the most
responsibility, they altered that
rule. Both current and new rules have
kept the traditional joint and several
liability doctrine regarding the
economic or special damages of an
injured party, adopting a several
liability rule for the general or non-economic
damages, with the provisions that each
defendant is liable for only that part
of the noneconomic damages of the
plaintiff. (Evangelatos v. Superior
Court (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 1188) defines
economic damages to include
"medical expenses, burial costs,
loss of use of property, costs of
repair or replacement, costs of
obtaining substitute domestic
services, loss of earnings, loss of
employment and loss of business or
employment opportunities". The
law's definition of non-economic
damages is those that involve
“subjective, non-monetary losses
including, but not limited to: pain,
suffering, inconvenience, mental
suffering, emotional distress, loss of
society and companionship, loss of
consortium, injury to reputation and
humiliation”. (Section 1431.2 of the
California Civil Code)
This law was
brought about by Proposition 51, which
is also referred to as the Fair
Responsibility Act of 1986. A
hypothetical example may help to
explain this complex rule:
Suppose you were
driving along a straight, flat road
when an oncoming driver violates the
Vehicle Code by stopping in the
opposite lane, but you are
subsequently hit head-on by a speeding
car who crossed the double line to
avoid the stopped car and smashed into
your vehicle. In this situation, the
driver of the car that hit yours would
be 30% at fault and the driver of the
car that stopped inappropriately would
be 70% responsible. The expenses of
your medical care and lost earnings
(special damages) equal $100,000; your
non-economic damages (the pain you
suffer) are worth $200,000. I regret
to say that the driver who was stopped
(who is also the one with the most
fault) had neither any insurance nor
any assets. $160,000.00 of the
economic damages, which is the total,
and an additional 30 percent of the
general damages must be paid by the
swerving driver that has adequate
insurance because there is joint and
several responsibility for the special
damages. If the economic damages have
no joint and several responsibility
assigned to them, the recovery would
be at most 30% of the total damages of
$300,000.00, or $90,000.00 for the
party who was injured. Although this
law was passed to protect wealthy
people who may be partially
responsible for accidents, it also
benefits accident victims by allowing
larger judgments for special damages.
Each car
accident is different, and it's
impossible to list all the factors
involved in every crash. Just results
are typically reached when you are
represented by an experienced trial
attorney.
For more than 15
years, Paul W. Ralph has been an Orange
County personal injury lawyers
successfully handling court cases and
lawsuits in California. Because of the
importance of the cases handled in the
past as a wrongful
death attorney Orange County and
other important personal injury cases.
By
Paul Ralph
