3 ms·

Liability exists under the law in these cases in California. This came up in the Cabral case. "On February 27, 2004, around 9:00 p.m., Decedent (Cabral) was dr

Liability exists under the law in these cases in California. This came up in the Cabral case. "On February 27, 2004, around 9:00 p.m., Decedent (Cabral) was driving an F-150 pickup truck (pickup) eastbound in the number three lane (of four lanes) on Interstate 10 (I-10) in San Bernardino County. Juan Perez testified that he was driving a big rig behind Decedent for some distance. He estimated Decedent's speed to be around "70, 80," miles per hour. Perez opined that Decedent appeared to be intoxicated or falling asleep because his pickup was swerving left and right within the number three lane. Perez saw the pickup suddenly turn right, cutting in front of another big rig truck in the number four lane, as if attempting to exit the freeway. The pickup crossed the number four lane and the paved shoulder of the freeway and then hit the back of Ralphs's big rig, which was stopped in the dirt area approximately 16 feet from the number four lane. Perez did not see brake lights activated on the pickup, nor was there any indication that Decedent tried to reduce speed or avoid hitting the big rig." Testimony was that he either fell sleep or was suffering from a medical conditions (350lbs). He was speeding, weaving all over the place, then crossed over the lane next to his and then into dirt at side of road and then traveled a pretty long distance and then hit a grocery truck that was stopped 16 feet away from side of road, so basically another two lanes over. And yes, Ralphs had to pay damages, even though their truck was damaged etc.

gamblor956 5y ago
Important to note that tort law apportions responsibility (aka liability) for damages amongst all parties to the tort, so Ralphs would have been on the hook for at least some of the damages since their employee was the proximate cause of the accident (i.e., their driver's actions most directly led to the accident), even though the decedent was impaired or asleep.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  Correct, that was the outcome, even though the decedent crashed INTO the Ralphs truck (so lay person might think decedent would owe Ralphs if anything), instead Ralphs was ordered to pay decedent. This is where the law diverges from what people imagine.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    So what was the law that Ralph's broke? Was the rig not allowed to be parked there? There wasn't a lot of detail in the comment.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      The rig was illegally parked in an area along the freeway designated for “emergency parking only“.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Ah, ok.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    The decedent's estate was also ordered to pay Ralph's. It's just the $4,725 in damages that Ralph's was awarded on their claim for damage to the truck was substantially less than the wrongful death award even after the latter was reduced to 10% of the damages the jury found because of Cabral’s 90% fault.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Important to note that tort law apportions responsibility (aka liability) for damages amongst all parties to the tort This is not consistently the case, but happens to be in pure comparative fault jurisdictions like California.
sidewndr46 5y ago
This was reversed in the appeals court, then upheld by the Supreme Court. It demonstrates how out of sync with reality the justice system is.
giantg2 5y ago
"And yes, Ralphs had to pay damages, even though their truck was damaged etc." Contributory negligence and the clean hands doctrine doesn't exist in California? I'm not going to sugarcoat it... this seems insane and makes me glad I don't live there (I get that it's a low risk for getting sued, but still, the logic required to get to this judicial opinion makes me nervous about what else could happen).
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Contributory negligence and the clean hands doctrine doesn't exist in California? Contributory negligence is the rule in 5 jurisdictions out of the 50 states plus D.C., and, yes, California isn't one of the 5. It's on the opposite end, one of the 13 pure comparative fault jurisdictions. The other 33 US jurisdictions are modified comparative fault, with either a 50% or 51% cutoff for the proportional responsibility beyond which a plaintiff is barred from recovery from other parties responsible for damages.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Wow, that sucks.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      Really, I find the pure comparative fault approach (wherein everyone is generally responsible for the harms created by their negligence) the most sensible, though I understand why the modified comparative fault approach appeals to some people. Contributory negligence seems to me to be an insane rule.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Modified comparative fault seems to make the most sense to me (it was actually the one I was thinking about when I said contributory negligence, refering to the action and not the rule). The only real issue I have with the pure method is that theoretically a lower bar to bring a suit might encourage more to be brought and can lead to some perverse outcomes like the Ralph's case. I mean, I don't have a lot of faith in the justice system based off of things I've personally seen in it. But even just taking the Ralph's example (which admittedly I should look into more), the impact of the truck being parked there seems like it should be essentially nonexistent. He was going to hit something, hard. The only real question was how much did the truck being parked there contribute to the outcome as opposed to hitting some other object. Without any real details, it seems that the outcome would have happened anyways, especially if he was simultaneously suffering from some medical condition.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> 16 feet away from side of road, so basically another two lanes over. Interstate highway lanes are 12 feet, so 16 feet from the last lane isn't another two lanes. > And yes, Ralphs had to pay damages, even though their truck was damaged etc. To be specific, the jury found the Ralph's driver 10% responsible for the accident for illegally parking in the emergency parking only lane, and Cabral 90% responsible due to...all the other stuff. Ralph's therefore had to pay 10% of the damages that were found for wrongful death of Cabral, Cabral's estate had to pay damages that Ralph’s was found to have suffered. The former amount was greater than the latter, so in net Ralph's ended up paying. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1857060471127414653&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=185706047112741...

gamblor956 5y ago

Important to note that tort law apportions responsibility (aka liability) for damages amongst all parties to the tort, so Ralphs would have been on the hook for at least some of the damages since their employee was the proximate cause of the accident (i.e., their driver's actions most directly led to the accident), even though the decedent was impaired or asleep.

tempnow987 5y ago
Correct, that was the outcome, even though the decedent crashed INTO the Ralphs truck (so lay person might think decedent would owe Ralphs if anything), instead Ralphs was ordered to pay decedent. This is where the law diverges from what people imagine.
- giantg2 5y ago
  So what was the law that Ralph's broke? Was the rig not allowed to be parked there? There wasn't a lot of detail in the comment.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    The rig was illegally parked in an area along the freeway designated for “emergency parking only“.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Ah, ok.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  The decedent's estate was also ordered to pay Ralph's. It's just the $4,725 in damages that Ralph's was awarded on their claim for damage to the truck was substantially less than the wrongful death award even after the latter was reduced to 10% of the damages the jury found because of Cabral’s 90% fault.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Important to note that tort law apportions responsibility (aka liability) for damages amongst all parties to the tort This is not consistently the case, but happens to be in pure comparative fault jurisdictions like California.

sidewndr46 5y ago

This was reversed in the appeals court, then upheld by the Supreme Court. It demonstrates how out of sync with reality the justice system is.

giantg2 5y ago

"And yes, Ralphs had to pay damages, even though their truck was damaged etc." Contributory negligence and the clean hands doctrine doesn't exist in California? I'm not going to sugarcoat it... this seems insane and makes me glad I don't live there (I get that it's a low risk for getting sued, but still, the logic required to get to this judicial opinion makes me nervous about what else could happen).

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Contributory negligence and the clean hands doctrine doesn't exist in California? Contributory negligence is the rule in 5 jurisdictions out of the 50 states plus D.C., and, yes, California isn't one of the 5. It's on the opposite end, one of the 13 pure comparative fault jurisdictions. The other 33 US jurisdictions are modified comparative fault, with either a 50% or 51% cutoff for the proportional responsibility beyond which a plaintiff is barred from recovery from other parties responsible for damages.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Wow, that sucks.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Really, I find the pure comparative fault approach (wherein everyone is generally responsible for the harms created by their negligence) the most sensible, though I understand why the modified comparative fault approach appeals to some people. Contributory negligence seems to me to be an insane rule.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Modified comparative fault seems to make the most sense to me (it was actually the one I was thinking about when I said contributory negligence, refering to the action and not the rule). The only real issue I have with the pure method is that theoretically a lower bar to bring a suit might encourage more to be brought and can lead to some perverse outcomes like the Ralph's case. I mean, I don't have a lot of faith in the justice system based off of things I've personally seen in it. But even just taking the Ralph's example (which admittedly I should look into more), the impact of the truck being parked there seems like it should be essentially nonexistent. He was going to hit something, hard. The only real question was how much did the truck being parked there contribute to the outcome as opposed to hitting some other object. Without any real details, it seems that the outcome would have happened anyways, especially if he was simultaneously suffering from some medical condition.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> 16 feet away from side of road, so basically another two lanes over. Interstate highway lanes are 12 feet, so 16 feet from the last lane isn't another two lanes. > And yes, Ralphs had to pay damages, even though their truck was damaged etc. To be specific, the jury found the Ralph's driver 10% responsible for the accident for illegally parking in the emergency parking only lane, and Cabral 90% responsible due to...all the other stuff. Ralph's therefore had to pay 10% of the damages that were found for wrongful death of Cabral, Cabral's estate had to pay damages that Ralph’s was found to have suffered. The former amount was greater than the latter, so in net Ralph's ended up paying. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1857060471127414653&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=185706047112741...