3 ms·
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
by 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 agoCorrect, 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 agoSo 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 agoThe rig was illegally parked in an area along the freeway designated for “emergency parking only“.
- giantg2 5y agoAh, ok.
- dragonwriter 5y agoThe 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.