VBJ February 19

February 2019
THE VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL
www.TheValleyBusinessJournal.com
7
Fault and Liability for Motor Vehicle Accidents
Several factors, not all of them
obvious, determines who is liable for
damages resulting from a motor vehicle
accident. For example, a motorist is
seriously injured when another motorist
cuts in front of him after turning onto the
street. However, he may be found liable
if he was speeding or made an illegal lane
change prior to the collision. The decision
of who pays for damages in an accident
rests primarily on motor vehicle statutes,
rather than the traditional, common law
definition of “fault.”
The automobile insurance industry
lobbied state legislatures to base these
types of accident liability more on motor
vehicle statutes than on common law notions
of fault. This has made it easier for
insurers to challenge fault when the other
party in an accident has violated a traffic
law, especially since liability insurance
is required in California. For example, a
motorist lacking liability insurance may
not be able to collect for damages even
if the other motorist was negligent for a
traffic accident.
This article explains the meaning of
fault in vehicular collisions with respect
to common law and motor vehicle codes,
since it differs from other types of claims.
Common Law - In its purest form,
“fault” for causing an accident is either
created by law or defined by common
law. Common law recognizes four basic
levels of fault:
Negligence, Recklessness or Wanton
Conduct, Intentional Misconduct, Strict
Liability (regardless of fault)
1. Negligence generally means careless
or inadvertent conduct that results in
harm or damage, which is common
in automobile accidents. One can be
negligent by failing to do something,
such as not yielding the right-of-way
to avoid an accident, as well as by
actively doing something such as
running a red light.
2. Reckless or wanton conduct refers to
a willful disregard for the safety and
welfare of others.
3. Intentional Misconduct is clear by
its words
4. Strict liability may be imposed, even
in the absence of fault, for accidents
involving certain defective products
or extra hazardous activities such as
the transporting of explosive chemicals.
Under common law, individuals who
have caused a car accident have committed
a “tort,” a private wrong against
another (but not rising to the level of an
intentional tort or crime). Those who
have committed torts are referred to as
“tortfeasors” under the law. Many automobile
insurance policies use the word
“tortfeasor” to refer to people who are at
least partly at fault.
There is rarely a question of fault
when a motorist has engaged in intentional
or reckless misconduct, such as
drunk driving. But when it comes to
general negligence, as in fender-benders,
establishing fault becomes more complex.
More than one motorist may be found at
least partially responsible. When this is
the case and there are multiple tortfeasors
involved, state law dictates who must pay
for damage to property and injuries to the
involved parties.
Motor Vehicle Statutory Violations
- California has multiple laws regulating
the manner in which drivers must operate
their vehicles upon public roads. Many
of these statutes are actually codified
versions of the common law, while others
are the result of legislative initiative. The
important point to remember is that a violation
of any of these statutes generally
creates a presumption of negligence as a
matter of law. For instance, California requires
motorcyclists and their passengers
to wear helmets. Failure to do so is an act
of negligence, which may affect liability
in an accident.
Thus, fault in an accident may be
established merely by citing a statute that
has been violated. A motorist presumed
to have caused an accident by virtue of
a statutory violation bears the burden of
proving that this act of negligence was
not a proximate cause of the injuries.
For example, the motorcyclist who fails
to wear a helmet suffers a serious brain
injury after a motorist driving a car accidentally
sideswipes him. The motorist
may have been negligent, but so was the
motorcyclist who didn’t wear a helmet.
The simplest way to apply the concept
of proximate cause to an automobile
accident is to ask whether it would be true
that, “but for” the violation, the accident
would not have occurred. With respect
to the motorcyclist example, the helmet
would not have prevented the accident but
most likely would have limited the motorcyclist’s
injuries. Therefore, the motorist
may not be held completely liable for the
motorcyclist’s brain injury.
Contact the Law Offices of Morton
Grabel for a Free Claim Evaluation -If
you think that someone was at fault in an
accident you were involved in, you should
have the facts of your claim reviewed
as soon as possible. The good news is
that the Law Office of Morton Grabel
will evaluate your situation for free. Our
attorneys will be able to tell you whether
someone was negligent or reckless in
causing harm to you, and whether you
might be able to collect damages to cover
your losses.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MOR-
TON GRABEL HAS RECOVERED
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR
CLIENTS THROUGHTOUT THE
INLAND EMPIRE.
Please note by reading the information
above & herein, no attorney-client relationship
has been created. The information
provided herein is not to be relied
upon as legal advice for your specific
legal needs. Should you have legal questions
contact The Law Offices Morton J.
Grabel in Temecula at (951) 695- 7700.
Mort, originally from Philadelphia PA,
attended an ABA Law School, has an
MBA, a Real Estate Broker’s License, a
CA Nursing Home Administrator’s License
and is a member in good standing
of various local Chambers of Commerce.
LEGAL
by
Morton by J. Grabel, Esq.
Steve Fillingim