Insurance
Jun. 15, 2002
Uninsured Driver Can't Collect
SAN FRANCISCO - Injured motorists who are uninsured cannot collect damages for pain and suffering from a private party who has created a dangerous road condition, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The high court held by a 5-2 vote that uninsured motorists involved in such accidents are barred from pursuing non-economic losses against private contractors under a 1996 ballot initiative.
The case before the court involved a motorcyclist who suffered a knee injury when he crashed after his tire caught on the lip of a concrete bus pad slightly higher than the street asphalt.
The motorcyclist, Dacus Wade Allen, sued both the city of Los Angeles and the private contractor hired by the city to install the bus pad and make other improvements to the roadway.
A jury cleared the city but found Sully-Miller Contracting Co. at fault for failing to install barriers to warn that the bus pad was elevated. Allen was awarded $24,000 in economic damages for medical expenses and lost earnings.
However, the trial judge refused to allow Allen to seek noneconomic damages, pursuant to voter-approved Proposition 213.
That measure, dubbed the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, was aimed at restricting the ability of uninsured motorists, convicted drunken drivers and convicted felons to sue for losses suffered in accidents.
The measure says that uninsured motorists involved in auto accidents, even if the mishap was not their fault, are limited to collecting compensation for economic damages such as lost wages.
But the initiative, enacted as Civil Code Section 3333.4, does not specifically refer to the liability of government agencies or private parties for dangerous roadways.
Thursday's ruling follows the court's decision in Day v. City of Fontana, 25 Cal.4th 268 (2001), holding that Proposition 213 bars uninsured drivers from seeking noneconomic damages against cities and counties for negligent road maintenance.
In that case, Russell Day, a motorcyclist, was struck by a car while traveling through an intersection and he sued the city and county, alleging they created a dangerous roadways.
In Thursday's majority opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter concluded that plaintiff Allen was in the same position as Day.
"As in Day, the facts here establish 'a necessary and causal relationship' between Allen's operation of his uninsured motorcycle and the accident for which he claims Sully-Miller was responsible by virtue of its negligence in creating or maintaining a dangerous road condition," he wrote. "Just as in Day, then, Allen may recover for his economic losses, but he is statutorily barred from seeking noneconomic recovery."
Justices Joyce L. Kennard and Carlos R. Moreno filed separate dissents.
Kennard warned that "the majority's holding here weakens the incentive for such contractors to protect the motoring public from dangerous roadway conditions that the contractors themselves created."
Moreno reached a similar conclusion.
"Insulating private entities that maintain dangerous conditions on property from paying damages simply because the injured party happens to be an uninsured motorist does not restore balance to the system," he wrote.
Allen's attorney, Greg Garrato, of Los Angeles, and Sully-Miller's attorney, Robert Muhlbach, of Kirtland & Packard in Los Angeles, said Thursday they were not surprised that the court simply followed its ruling in Day.
"They're saying private property owners have the same standing as public property owners and if you haven't got insurance, you're out of luck," said Muhlbach.
Peter Blumberg
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com