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 noneconomic 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 noneconomic 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)

Page 1 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next