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