• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

No Liability Insurance; Suing Government Entity = No Awardable Damages

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
PROPOSITION 213 BARS NONECONOMIC DAMAGE CLAIMS BY UNINSURED MOTORISTS AGAINST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS

The California Supreme Court has ruled that uninsured motorists may not pursue claims for noneconomic damages against public entities responsible for dangerous conditions that may have contributed to the traffic accident. Such claims fall within Proposition 213's bar to noneconomic damage claims in actions involving operation or use of a motor vehicle.

Russell Glen Day was injured when a car struck his motorcycle at an intersection. He did not have liability insurance on his motorcycle. He claimed that the City of Fontana and the County of San Bernardino knew about overgrown vegetation that obstructed motorists' vision, but failed to correct the dangerous condition.

At the trial of his lawsuit against the driver of the other car and the two public entities, the jury awarded Day $454,574 in economic damages, and apportioned the fault 52 percent to the other driver, 5 percent to the County and 43 percent to the City. The trial court refused to allow any evidence of noneconomic damage.

The voters enacted Proposition 213 to "restore balance to the justice system" by ensuring that those who fail to take personal responsibility would not be rewarded for their "irresponsibility and law breaking." To carry out that purpose, Civil Code section 3333.4 provides that a person with an uninsured vehicle shall not recover non-economic losses "in any action to recover damages arising out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle."

In recent decisions, the Court limited the reach of section 3333.4, by allowing an uninsured motorist's heirs to sue for wrongful death (Horwich v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 4th 272 (1999)), and by allowing an uninsured motorist to sue the manufacturer of his vehicle (Hodges v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 4th 109 (1999)).

This case fell squarely within section 3333.4. Unlike Horwich, the plaintiff was the uninsured motorist. Unlike Hodges, "there was a necessary and causal relationship between the plaintiff's operation of his motorcycle and the accident for which he claimed the public entities were responsible."

Further, public entities that maintain the roadways suffer direct harm from uninsured motorists who damage the roadways or adjacent property.

Day v. City of Fontana, 25 Cal. 4th 268 (2001).
 



Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top