- Personal Injury Lawyer
- Case Settlements
In California, it’s a misdemeanor to drive a vehicle when a person is “under the influence” of alcohol. The driver can face a variety of penalties including restitution, fines, community service, jail time, loss of driving privileges, suspension of driver’s license, installation of interlock device and attending classes This describes a typical criminal case. The purpose of the criminal process is to deter future drunk driving and protect the public by making the punishment so severe that the individual never wants to drive drunk again in their life.
A civil case for drunk driving is a completely separate process from the criminal case. If the drunk driver was in an accident and the accident caused harm to to you, you can can sue the drunk driver in a civil case.
If you live in a pure negligence state such as California, you are generally free to sue a drunk driver for the injuries you sustained. A drunk driving accident attorney must simply prove the fault of the other driver. Civil suits against drunk drivers seem like they would be easy to win. But unfortunately, winning drunk driving civil cases is never as easy as it should be. The victim of a drunk driver, otherwise known as a Plaintiff (or their family in the case of a fatality), files a lawsuit based upon negligence or wrongful death in the county in which the accident occurred against the drunk driver (the Defendant). If the driver of the vehicle was arrested for driving under the influence, then he/she is considered to be negligent per se. California Evidence Code § 669 codifies the common law doctrine of negligence per se as follows:
These are the elements of traditional negligence, which are similar to negligence per se: Duty: the plaintiff would state that the driver owed a duty of care to avoid driving with illegal amounts of alcohol in his/her system. In the state of California, this amount is .08%. Driving below this amount is not illegal per se. Breach: the plaintiff would argue that this duty was breached when, the Defendant drove with over .08% alcohol in his/her system. Causation: the plaintiff would argue that driving while intoxicated was the actual and proximate cause of damages suffered, such as injuries or death of a loved one, emotional distress, wage loss and vehicle damage. Damages: the plaintiff articulates the damages listed above.
In 1979, the California Supreme Court extended punitive damages to drunk drivers. In 1982, the Court further held that an award of punitive damages in such circumstances was uninsurable, which means that the intoxicated individual who hit you will have to pay from his own pocket. However, the Court noted that an insurance company may be obligated to pay the compensatory damages portion of the award, meaning that which they would normally have to pay within the policy limits. In order to justify an award of punitive damages the plaintiff must prove that the “defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.” Drunk driving is a very serious crime with severe consequences in criminal court as noted above. This can be compounded by a civil lawsuit whereby the drunk driver is held liable for sometimes huge monetary sums. For example, a Sacramento jury awarded 3.2 million dollars to a woman hit by a drunk driver.
Tort liability in personal injury cases is most often based on acts of negligence, but there are exceptions. Sometimes the responsible party is held to the strict liability tort standard, meaning that a finding of negligence or malicious intent is not required. The most common types of strict liability tort cases are based on: Product […]
A negligence-based lawsuit against a school can have unique complications, depending on the type of institution it is. Overall, teachers, school administrators, and other staff have a “duty of care,” meaning they must take reasonable steps to avoid and prevent circumstances likely to cause personal injury to a student. Some reasons you might want to […]
In February of this year, a bill was introduced by Assembly Member Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) that would have it illegal for law enforcement officials to engage in “motorcycle profiling.” The successful passing of this bill likely would have had a significant impact on future California motorcycle accident cases. Co-authored by Speaker Pro Tempore Kevin Mullin (D-South San […]