Slightly off topic, but of general interest.
In CA, there is a mandatory requirement for minimum liability insurance coverage when operating a vehicle on the public roadways. Because so many people violated this law, a code section was adopted that precludes those driving without the minimal insurance from collecting damages for pain and suffering [i.e. noneconomic damages] in the event of an accident. They can only recover their economic damages, like medical bills and lost earnings.
[This has definitely put a dent in the fender bender industry since there is no percentage in taking smaller cases with those kind of restrictions.]
I'm sure you are also aware of the McDonalds hot coffee case everyone cites for the proposition that the tort law is out of control.
Well, these 2 aspects of law and culture recently were addressed in one case:
-Torts-
Where uninsured motorist spilled hot coffee on herself while using fast-food drive-through, allegedly as a result of the eatery’s negligence, her injuries arose out of her operation and use of her vehicle at the time of the incident, and she was thus barred by Proposition 213 from recovering noneconomic damages.
Chude v. Jack in the Box Inc. - filed May 21, 2010, publication ordered May 27, 2010, Second District, Div. Three
Cite as 2010 S.O.S. 2977
Full text metnews.com
|
