EXPOSING LIABILITY: HOLDING THE GUILTY ACCOUNTABLE FOR ACCIDENT INJURIES IN CALIFORNIA

Understanding the different types of liability for harm in California is crucial for evaluating fault and potential recovery in accidents and other injury cases. Analysis of the specific facts of the case and applicable California laws will clarify which type or types of liability are applicable.

Comparative Negligence

When considering who is at fault for an accident in California, it is important to start with what is known as a “pure comparative negligence.” California is a pure comparative negligence state, simply meaning that the fault for an accident can be assigned to multiple individuals and entities, including the accident victim. A victim of an accident may still recover damages from others even if they are primarily responsible for the accident, however the victim’s recovery is reduced by the amount of their fault. The comparative negligence system is designed to promote fairness by ensuring that damages are distributed according to each level of responsibility for the harm caused. An example of this is as follows:

• A California accident victim incurs $100,000 in damages in a car accident

• The victim is found to be 25% at fault, and the defendant is found to be 75% at fault

• The victim’s recovery is reduced by 25%, allowing them to recover $75,000 instead of $100,000

There are some exceptions to comparative negligence, such as when an act that causes injury is intentional, or if an act is subject to strict liability, such as in the case of a dog bite.

Negligence

Daily examples of negligence resulting in injury in California include car accidents due to distracted driving and slip-and-fall accidents on unsafe premises. To prove negligence, the injury victim must establish that the defendant owed a duty of care to them, the defendant breached that duty by their actions or inactions, and the breach of duty was the cause of the victim’s injury. Causation of injury to the victim may be “actual cause,” meaning that the harm would not have occurred if not for the defendant’s actions or inactions, or “proximate cause,” meaning that the harm was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions. Finally, the injury victim must prove that they suffered harm in the form of damages because of the negligence.

In the case of California motor vehicle accidents, a “common carrier” is any entity that offers transportation services to the public for payment, such as buses, trains, trolleys, taxis, rideshare services like Uber or Lyft, and freight and shipping companies. A common carrier must exercise the utmost care and diligence for the safety of their passengers.

Premises Liability

In California, property owners or occupiers may be held liable for injuries that are sustained by individuals on their property as the result of unsafe conditions. Common examples of this are slippery floors in a store which result in a slip-and-fall accident or a poorly maintained staircase in an apartment building. The duty of care that is owed to the person on the premises depends on the status of the visitor. The duty of care may be heighted for some, such as innkeepers, and limited for others, such as government entities.

“Duty of care” means that property owners or occupiers have a general duty to use ordinary care to keep their premises in a reasonably safe condition, inspect for and identify dangerous conditions, and to repair, remedy or warn about any hazards that could cause injury.

An “invitee” is a legal term used in premises liability law to describe a person who is invited onto someone else’s property, typically for a purpose that benefits both the property owner and the invitee. An example of this might be a restaurant patron. Property owners owe the highest duty of care to invitees under California law.

A “licensee” is a legal term used in premises liability law to describe a person who enters someone else’s property with permission but for their own purposes, rather than for the benefit of the property owner. An example of this might be a neighbor coming over to borrow a tool. Property owners owe a moderate duty of care to licensees, which is lower than the duty owed to invitees but higher than that owed to trespassers.

While the term “trespasser” is common, it is a legal term used in premises liability law to describe a person who enters someone else’s property without permission or legal right. Property owners owe trespassers the lowest duty of care, but there are still certain obligations to prevent intentional harm or recklessness.

Statutory Liability

The liability for an accident resulting in injury may be established as a matter of law where certain actions or omissions violate specific California laws. A very common example of this would be a driver violating traffic safety laws.

Strict Liability

In California, strict liability refers to a legal doctrine where a party can be held responsible for harm or damages caused by their actions or products, regardless of whether they were negligent or if they intended to cause harm. In other words, the defendant is held liable without the need to prove fault or intent. Strict liability is typically applied in situations where the law deems certain activities or behaviors so inherently dangerous or problematic that the party responsible for them should bear the cost of any resulting harm, even if they took reasonable precautions.

A common application of strict liability is in the case of a dog bite. Dog owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog biting someone, regardless of the owner’s knowledge of the dog’s prior behavior. This applies as long as the victim was lawfully on the property where they were bitten.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability in California refers to an individual or entity, such as an employer, that can be held liable for the actions of another person, such as an employee, even if the individual or entity did not directly cause harm to the victim. This doctrine is often applied in employer-employee relationships but can also extend to other scenarios, such as partnerships or parental responsibility for a child’s actions. Vicarious liability is limited in application to when there is a clear relationship between the responsible party and the one who committed the harmful act. The plaintiff making the claim of vicarious liability must establish that the wrongful act occurred within the defined relationship and scope of authority.

Examples of vicarious liability are:

• Dram Shop Laws: While California limits the application of “Dram Shop” laws, there are rare instances where a party serving alcohol may be held vicariously liable for damages, such as serving alcohol to a minor who causes harm.

• Independent Contractors: Generally, employers are not vicariously liable for the actions of independent contractors, however exceptions apply the contractor was performing inherently dangerous work or when the employer retained control over the work and that control contributed to the harm.

• Parental Liability: Parents may be held vicariously liable for the actions of their minor children under certain circumstances, such as property damage caused by the child, which is limited by statute, or negligent supervision.

• Partnerships and Joint Ventures: In business partnerships, one partner can be held liable for the wrongful acts of another partner if those acts were conducted in the course and scope of partnership business.

Respondeat Superior

“Respondeat Superior” is Latin for “let the master answer.” In contemporary application, California employers may be held liable for the negligent or wrongful actions of their employees under certain circumstances. These include when the employee was acting within the scope of their employment and when the employee’s actions were intended, at least in part, to benefit the employer. An example of this would be a delivery driver causing a motor vehicle accident while making deliveries.

Vehicle Owner Liability

Under California’s doctrine of “permissive use,” a vehicle owner can be held liable for accidents caused by someone they permitted to drive their vehicle.

Act Now

As you can see, the laws regarding who is liable for harm to an accident victim in California involve many factual and legal considerations. Properly establishing the liability for harm is the cornerstone of maximum financial recovery, and therefore should always involve experienced attorneys with a proven track record for success. Act now and contact Antonyan Miranda for a free consultation and case analysis.

Antonyan Miranda – Protect Yourself at All Times®