> My question is - should taxpayers be on hook for the millions he is looking for?
If you're asking from a moral perspective - absolutely not. I don't know what the law says though, as that's the only thing that matters.
I've personally had a fall on my head while snowboarding and I'm glad I was wearing a helmet, as all I got was the wind knocked out of me. I can't imagine I'd ride my bike or a scooter in traffic without one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
"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).
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Reserving any judgement on whether this is true or not, if it was, that's a problem with the jury determination of fault, not with comparative negligence, per se.
By avoiding sharp cutoffs, pure comparative negligence minimizes the risk of truly perverse results due to jury misassignment of fault. (Pure contributory negligence is the absolute worst for this, where finding something that had no contribution on the part of the person who suffered damage had even minimal contribution eliminates all recovery.)
> He was going to hit something, hard.
Maybe; I mean there are lots of ways a speeding vehicle with an intoxicated or otherwise medically incapacitated driver that has gone well onto the shoulder of an interstate can end up coming to a stop, and not all of them involve hitting something hard (though most of them aren't good, to be sure.)
I guess what I'm saying is that if someone can get half a million dollars from running off the road and hitting someone else who was at minimal fault (10%), then what's the point of any activity that exposes you to risk? Even with insurance, you end up paying a bunch of money. No point in starting a business if a driver can screw up after not obeying you and you still get sued.
"By avoiding sharp cutoffs, pure comparative negligence minimizes the risk of truly perverse results due to jury misassignment of fault"
It seems this is only true near the cutoff, and not near the margins. Just to continue on the possibility that this 10% determination was a jury mistake, that a half million dollar mistake. I'd hardly call that minimal. This case is far from the cutoffs of other states. This seems to also support my idea that the modified approach would reduce litigation, which I see as a benefit.
I personally believe in universal health care and would say that his medical expenses SHOULD be covered without any sort of legal involvement. Hell, dude going around high and drunk probably needs to be in an addiction recovery program as well.
The reason he's suing is because he can't afford his medical bills and the legal bills end up compounding the problem. Were there no medical bills, the lawsuit he could bring up would pretty much be pain and suffering... maybe.
So, should taxpayers be on the hook? Partially in the sense that I think all medical problems should be publicly funded. Morally, removing discretion around who gets medical treatment and treating everyone ends up being a good. Will you waste money on people doing dumb things? Sure. However, you won't waste money having a giant system of people trying to weasel their way out of every payment (insurance). More people get their healthcare needs taken care of. An absolute net good.
The interesting thing is how we might adjust as a society with something like universal healthcare. In theory, it's possible the accident might not have happened at all if we decided as a society that e-scooters, alcohol, and weed, were all things that lead to expensive care, and we highly restricted them to help control health system costs.
Although it also depends on how that universal system works. For example, some systems require people with "preventable" conditions to pay an extra tax for their services.
> if we decided as a society that e-scooters, alcohol, and weed, were all things that lead to expensive care, and we highly restricted them to help control health system costs.
Perhaps e-scooters could be restricted. However, intoxicating substances are pretty much impossible to stop (We've tried). The problem is that most intoxicant substances can be made anywhere with a very low amount of equipment.
So, rather than focusing on restricting access, IMO, the better route is focusing on supporting behavior/lifestyle changes.
Though, if we are talking about fixing costs, then one thing that'd help tremendously would public access exercise facilities. It's a lot cheaper to operate a gym than a hospital.
"Though, if we are talking about fixing costs, then one thing that'd help tremendously would public access exercise facilities."
I kind of doubt a lack of facility is the blocker. There's nothing stopping people from doing body weight exercises in their home.
"However, intoxicating substances are pretty much impossible to stop"
True, we would only want to restrict it, not stop it. Basically, make the bar for the legal stuff higher enough to persuade people not to use it, but also set it lower than the illegal stuff. Of course it also needs to be accompanied with the lifestyle changes.
Just look at tobacco - legal, heavily taxed, providing minors is heavily punished, large warnings required, even requiring manufacturers to pay for commercials to smear their own product. This could be applied to just about anything.
> Just look at tobacco - legal, heavily taxed, providing minors is heavily punished, large warnings required, even requiring manufacturers to pay for commercials to smear their own product. This could be applied to just about anything.
I could definitely see getting more on board with that. Seems like such campaigns have been somewhat successful in multiple regions. The main thing I'm against is the criminalization of consumption, that's a fools errand.
More good education early on is a lot better than what I grew up with. The DARE program was such a joke.
It was so long ago, but I though it was very detailed and informative. I think it's enough to keep curious kids uninterested in using. No amount of education will keep the hopeless person from using. And I mean hopeless as in they lack hope for their life and feel its over already, then they choose to use anyways knowing about the effects.
If you're asking from a moral perspective - absolutely not. I don't know what the law says though, as that's the only thing that matters.
I've personally had a fall on my head while snowboarding and I'm glad I was wearing a helmet, as all I got was the wind knocked out of me. I can't imagine I'd ride my bike or a scooter in traffic without one.