• 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.

Someone hit me

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

A

alivenkikn

Guest
I was pulling out of a park,came to redlight,I stopped,the light turned green,I hesitated then proceeded,a man on his cellphone ran the light at 50+,hit me,totaled my 91 Cadilac,I had 4 children in the car,1 of my own,everyone went to the hospitol,no major injuries,I broke my cheekbone and nose.The car that hit me was cited for running the light.The kids,as of right now,are the only other witnesses.I have no insurance?Can I at least get the value of my car and the medical paid?I have an attorney tring to play games w/me.Help...:confused: :(
 


I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
alivenkikn said:
I was pulling out of a park,came to redlight,I stopped,the light turned green,I hesitated then proceeded,a man on his cellphone ran the light at 50+,hit me,totaled my 91 Cadilac,I had 4 children in the car,1 of my own,everyone went to the hospitol,no major injuries,I broke my cheekbone and nose.The car that hit me was cited for running the light.The kids,as of right now,are the only other witnesses.I have no insurance?Can I at least get the value of my car and the medical paid?I have an attorney tring to play games w/me.Help...:confused: :(

My response:

What do you mean by, "I have an attorney tring to play games w/me."

IAAL
 
A

alivenkikn

Guest
He took this case and then a month later,and I told him everything from the gate,never withheld info,now he tells me nothing is in it for him.Alls I really want tjo know is that if this guy was cited for running the light,then isn't he liable for the damage?I understand this is an educational forum.I suppose I should try to get another laywere.:rolleyes: :confused: Is this the answer?"I am always liable?"Or is this a somebody?
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
alivenkikn said:
He took this case and then a month later,and I told him everything from the gate,never withheld info,now he tells me nothing is in it for him.Alls I really want tjo know is that if this guy was cited for running the light,then isn't he liable for the damage?I understand this is an educational forum.I suppose I should try to get another laywere.:rolleyes: :confused: Is this the answer?"I am always liable?"Or is this a somebody?

My response:

In 1996, the voters of the State of California voted in favor of, and passed, Proposition 213 (*). That means, because you were uninsured, you are NOT entitled to any damages for "pain and suffering." This is your "punishment" for driving without insurance in the State of California. You are entitled, however, to your "actual out of pocket" damages - - vehicle damages, and your medical damages, and "loss of wages", if you did, in fact, lose wages.

Yes, you are entitled to your "actual damages." However, your attorney is telling you that once your vehicle damages and medical damages are paid, there's "nothing in it for him" since you'll need all of the money for car repairs and paying your doctors. So, in effect, you're asking your attorney to do all this work to get your property damage money and your medical bills paid for NOTHING. Sorry, but attorneys need to be paid if they do work for you. That's why your attorney is "cutting you loose." There's no money in it for him.

Because you were uninsured, and because there's "no money in it" for another attorney, I rather doubt you'll be able to obtain the assistance of another attorney. Your best bet, and quite frankly, your only "bet", is to file a Small Claims complaint against the other driver.

Yes, I am a "somebody." This is not a recording, and I am not a robot.

IAAL


(*) In the general election of November 5, 1996, the voters approved Proposition 213, entitled "The Personal Responsibility Act of 1996." (Prop. 213, § 1, Deering's Ann. Civ. Code, foll. § 3333.3 (1998 pocket supp.) p. 60 (hereafter Prop. 213).) The initiative created Civil Code section 3333.4,1 which makes damages for "non-economic losses" unrecoverable by "a person" in any action "arising out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle" when the owner or driver of the vehicle was uninsured. (Civ. Code, § 3333.4, subds. (a), (a)(1) & (a)(2).) Such noneconomic losses include "pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other nonpecuniary damages." (Civ. Code, § 3333.4, subd.(a).)

The voters approved Proposition 213 for two reasons. First, the electorate wanted to "restore[e] balance to our justice system." (Yoshioka v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 972, 983.) The initiative achieves this by withholding noneconomic damages when motorists "fail to take essential personal responsibility" by purchasing automobile insurance. (Prop. 213, §§ 2(b) & (c), supra.) "[T]he interest in restoring balance to our justice system includes such interests in decreasing the number of law suits" and "reducing annual court-related costs to state and local governments." (Yoshioka v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 983.)

Second, the voters wanted to "reduc[e] costs of mandatory automobile insurance addresses the need to reduce skyrocketing insurance premiums by encouraging motorists to buy liability insurance. In the wake of an insurance premium crisis, the electorate's interests in controlling the high costs of insurance are significant." (Id. at pp. 983-984.)

Proposition 213 passed by an overwhelming majority of 76.83 percent. (Id. at p. 978.) The initiative applies retroactively "to all actions in which the initial trial has not commenced prior to January 1, 1997," (Prop. 213, § 4, supra.) Constitutional challenges to proposition 213 have been rejected in Yoshioka v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 972 [upholding the initiative's prospective and retroactive application] and Quackenbush v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 454, petition for review filed February 2, 1998 [upholding prospective application without addressing the retroactivity issue].
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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