What is the Personal Injury Law in California?

You break it, you buy it. In a nutshell, that’s negligence, which is the personal injury law in California. If Paul unintentionally drops a coffee mug and breaks it, he should pay compensation (replace the mug).

Similarly, if Paul unintentionally crashes into another car and “breaks” someone, he should likewise pay compensation. Compensation is much higher in a California personal injury case because a person is worth infinitely more than a coffee mug.

In a perfect world, Paul voluntarily steps up and pays fair compensation. But we don’t live in a perfect world. Therefore, a Los Angeles personal injury attorney must get involved, advocate for the victim, and compel Paul to accept responsibility for his mistake. California would be a much better place to live if we all faced the music after we made mistakes.

As outlined below, California negligence law isn’t a “law” as such, at least in most situations. Instead, California negligence law is based on a series of cases, many of which are more than two hundred years old. So, most aspects of California negligence law are very well-settled.

Negligence

Vaughan vs. Menlove (1837) was one of the first negligence cases. At that time, many houses in merry old England had thatched roofs. As the hay decomposes, the process generates heat. Without adequate ventilation, the heat causes the hay to spontaneously combust.

In this case, the defendant built a hay rick (or haystack) near the border of the plaintiff’s land. Although the defendant added a precautionary chimney to his hay rick, the chimney was defective. Over a period of several weeks, several people warned the defendant of the danger, but he said “he would chance it.” Consequently, the hay ignited and spread to the plaintiff’s land, burning down two of the plaintiff’s cottages.

The jury sided with the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant said he’d done his best, the fire was an accident, and “he ought not to be responsible for the misfortune of not possessing the highest order of intelligence.” In response, the court ruled that:

whether the Defendant had acted honestly and bona fide to the best of his own judgment . . . would leave such a vague line as to afford no rule at all. We ought rather to adhere to the rule which requires in all cases a regard to caution such as a man of ordinary prudence would observe.

This pronouncement became the duty of reasonable care, which applies in most personal injury cases in California. For example, drivers have a duty of care to follow the rules of the road and avoid accidents when possible.

If a breach of duty, usually aggressive driving or operator impairment, substantially causes injury, a Los Angeles personal injury lawyer can obtain compensation for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering.

Negligence Per Se

Sometimes, the law establishes the standard of care. That was the situation in Gorris v. Scott (1874), one of the first negligence per se cases.

A storm washed a flock of sheep overboard. The owner claimed the accident happened because of the defendant’s failure to transport his sheep in pens, as required by the Contagious Disease Act.

This time, the plaintiff didn’t fare as well. The court held that the statute was intended to prevent the spread of disease, rather than the loss of livestock in transit. So, the plaintiff could not claim negligence per se.

By the same logic, if Susan was drunk when she ran a red light and crashed into Luis, Susan was negligent as a matter of law, even though running the red light, not her intoxicated state, technically caused the crash.

Comparative Fault

California, like most other states, is a comparative fault state. If both parties were partially responsible for a personal injury accident, the court could reduce the plaintiff’s compensation, as was the case in Davies vs. Mann (1842).

The plaintiff allowed his donkey to take a break and graze on the side of the road. Unbeknownst to him, the defendant’s horse-drawn cart was approaching “at a sportish speed.” As a result, the cart ran against the ass, killing the donkey.

Almost immediately after the accident, the finger-pointing began. A court ultimately ruled that both men were partially responsible for the incident. The plaintiff should have led his donkey to a safe location, and the defendant should have watched where he was going.

The Law Offices of Eslamboly Hakim Can Help!

Responsibility is the core principle of California negligence law. For a free consultation with a personal injury attorney in California, contact the Law Offices of Eslamboly Hakim. The sooner you reach out to us, the sooner we start working for you.