Proposition 51 - California Law PDF

Demand Team Training PROPOSITION 51 Fair Responsibility Act of 1986 Multiple Defendants Tort Damage Liability Act “Deep Pocket” Rule April 26, 2024 | Demand Team Training PRESENTATION OUTLINE 1 Introduction 2 California Civil Code PROP 3...

Demand Team Training PROPOSITION 51 Fair Responsibility Act of 1986 Multiple Defendants Tort Damage Liability Act “Deep Pocket” Rule April 26, 2024 | Demand Team Training PRESENTATION OUTLINE 1 Introduction 2 California Civil Code PROP 3 Damages 51 4 Application 5 Case law 1 Introduction BACKGROUND & PURPOSE Before, California followed the DEEP POCKET RULE Under the traditional joint and several liability doctrine, plaintiffs focused litigation on a target defendant thought to have the “deepest pockets” regardless of that defendant’s actual degree of fault. (DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 597.) Why is this problematic or a cause of concern? 1 Introduction BACKGROUND & PURPOSE How does the "deep pocket" law work? A drunk driver speeds through a red light, hits another car, injures a passenger. The drunk driver has no assets or insurance. The injured passenger sues the driver AND THE CITY because the city has a very "deep pocket". He claims the stop light was faulty. The jury finds the drunk driver 95% at fault, the city only 5%. It awards the injured passenger economic and non-economic damages. Because the driver can't pay anything, THE CITY PAYS IT ALL. 1 Introduction BACKGROUND & PURPOSE “The deep pocket rule” has resulted in a system of inequity and injustice that has threatened financial bankruptcy of local governments, other public agencies, private individuals and businesses and has resulted in higher prices for goods and services to the public and in higher taxes to the taxpayers. (Civ. Code § 1431.1.) Prop51 = “compromise measure” (Thomas v. Duggins Construction Co., Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 1110 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) 2 California Civil Code § 1431.2 SEVERAL LIABILITY (a) In any action for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, based upon principles of comparative fault, the liability of each defendant for non-economic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint. Each defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to that defendant's percentage of fault, and a separate judgment shall be rendered against that defendant for that amount. 2 California Civil Code § 1431.2 SEVERAL LIABILITY (b) For purposes of this section, the term “economic damages” means objectively verifiable monetary losses including: (1) medical expenses loss of earnings burial costs loss of use of property costs of repair or replacement costs of obtaining substitute domestic services loss of employment and loss of business or employment opportunities 2 California Civil Code § 1431.2 SEVERAL LIABILITY (b) For the purposes of this section, the term “non-economic damages” means subjective, non-monetary losses including (2) but not limited to: pain loss of society and companionship suffering loss of consortium inconvenience injury to reputation and mental suffering humiliation emotional distress  3 Damages ECONOMIC & NON-ECONOMIC How does the Prop51 work?. NON- ECONOMIC ECONOMIC DAMAGES DAMAGES JOINT & SEVERAL SEVERAL LIABIILITY LIABIILITY  3 Damages ECONOMIC & NON-ECONOMIC How does the Prop51 work?. The jury finds the drunk driver 95% at fault, the city only 5%. It awards the injured passenger economic and non-economic damages. What is the apportionment of damages between the defendants? economic damages - $500,000 non-economic damages - $1,000,000  4 Application SAMPLE PROBLEM PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Economic damages= $1 Million Def 1 is 99% at fault but has only $15,000 policy. Non-economic damages= $20 Million Def 2 is 1% liable and has a 50 million policy. How will Prop51 apply? Economic Damages (Joint and Several ) Non-Economic Damages (Several Liability) Both Defendants are fully responsible for the $1 million, even though Defendant 1 has a small policy limit. Def 1: Responsible for $19.8 million (20 million x 0.99) You can seek the full $1 million economic damages from Def 2: Responsible for $200,000 (20 million x 0.01) either defendant, but you cannot recover more than that total amount. 4 Application SINCERELY MARTINEZ 4 Application SINCERELY MARTINEZ  5 Case law OTHER DECISIONS ON PROP 51 A defendant who commits an intentional tort may not invoke CC §1431.2 to reduce their liability for noneconomic damages based on principles of comparative fault. (B.B. v County of Los Angeles (2020) 10 C5th 1.) Proposition 51 does not apply to strict product liability where the plaintiff’s injuries are caused solely by a defective product. (Bostick v. Flex Equipment Co., Inc. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 80, rev. den. Apr. 18, 2007, and Wimberly v. DerbyCycle Corp., 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 624.) Proposition 51 is inapplicable involving violations of Vehicle Code sections 26453 and 26454, since these are based upon nondelegable duty, not fault, which is a form of vicarious liability (Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation (1943) 23 Cal.2d 256, 260 [143 P.2d 929]; Maloney v. Rath (1968) 69 Cal.2d 442, 446 [71 Cal.Rptr. 897]; see Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 695 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72], Miller v. Stouffer (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 70, 83-85, [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 454] rev. den.) (Srithong v. Total Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 721, 724 [28 Cal.Rptr.2d 672].)  THANK YOU! References: California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 1431.2 (https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1431-2/) APPLICATIONS OF JOINT & SEVERAL LIABILITY IN CA PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUITS INVOLVING INTENTIONAL TORTS (https://lewisbrisbois.com/newsroom/articles/applications-of-joint-several-liability-in-ca-personal-injury-lawsuits- invo#:~:text=Proposition%2051%2C%20which%20was%20adopted,and%20shall%20not%20be%20joint) Limiting the Application of Proposition 51 in Cases Involving Public Policy and Employer's Negligence (https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/limiting-the-application-of-proposition-51-in-cases-involving.html) Bad brakes and the nondelegablde duties of vehicle owners (www.plaintiffmagazine.com)