Automobile Accidents: Receiving Compensation, Even if you are Partially at Fault

October 11, 2008

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, youve 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 werent 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 drivers 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 partys 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 laws 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)

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 noneconomic 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 its impossible to list all the factors involved in every crash. Just results are typically reached when you are represented by an experienced trial attorney.

netinfoseek.com | edit