-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Follow up to woman hit in face
- Thread starter MurderMike41370
- Start date
joecoin
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,335
Not certain for sure on CA, but the vast majority of states have "joint & several liability". This doesn't work well for the park. If one of the defendants is unable to pay it's share of the damages, the other defendants are responsible to pay all of it as long as they are found to be partially liable. Assuming the chucker has no money or assets of note, the park will get stuck footing the whole bill.
Sean Johnson
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 646
Pure Comparative Fault-
Thirteen states recognize the Pure Comparative Fault Rule, which allows a damaged party to recover even if it is 99 percent at fault, although the recovery is reduced by the damaged party's degree of fault. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.
Pulled from: http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2013/09/05/235755.htm
Within the article, there is a link to a slick document that breaks it down by state:
"The term "comparative fault" refers to a system of apportioning damages between negligent parties based on their proportionate shares of fault. Under a comparative fault system, a plaintiff's negligence will not bar recovery in states that employ the harsh Pure Contributory Negligence Rule, but it will reduce the amount
of damages the plaintiff can recover based on the plaintiff's percentage of fault. The Pure Comparative Fault Rule allows a damaged party to recover even if it is 99% at fault, although the recovery is reduced by the damaged party's degree of fault. The pure comparative fault system has been criticized for allowing a plaintiff who is primarily at fault to recover from a lesser-at-fault defendant some portion of its damages.
Thirteen states recognize the Pure Comparative Fault Rule, which allows a damaged party to recover even if it is 99 percent at fault, although the recovery is reduced by the damaged party's degree of fault. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.
Pulled from: http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2013/09/05/235755.htm
Within the article, there is a link to a slick document that breaks it down by state:
"The term "comparative fault" refers to a system of apportioning damages between negligent parties based on their proportionate shares of fault. Under a comparative fault system, a plaintiff's negligence will not bar recovery in states that employ the harsh Pure Contributory Negligence Rule, but it will reduce the amount
of damages the plaintiff can recover based on the plaintiff's percentage of fault. The Pure Comparative Fault Rule allows a damaged party to recover even if it is 99% at fault, although the recovery is reduced by the damaged party's degree of fault. The pure comparative fault system has been criticized for allowing a plaintiff who is primarily at fault to recover from a lesser-at-fault defendant some portion of its damages.
Sean Johnson
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 646
And a link from the same site takes you to another doc that details the following:
"CA - Modified Joint and Several Liability
Joint and several liability for economic damages on negligence claims, otherwise several liability for non-economic damages. Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 1431."
Is called "partial equitable indemnity." Good faith settlement finding bars contribution against settling tortfeasor and provides an offset in the amount of the settlement to the subsequent liability of non-settlors. A settling defendant can recover equitable indemnity from a non-settling defendant to the extent the settling defendant has discharged a liability that the non-settling defendant should be responsible to pay. The right of contribution can be enforced in a separate lawsuit. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 53 Cal. App.3d 693, 126 Cal. Rptr. 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975).
"CA - Modified Joint and Several Liability
Joint and several liability for economic damages on negligence claims, otherwise several liability for non-economic damages. Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 1431."
Is called "partial equitable indemnity." Good faith settlement finding bars contribution against settling tortfeasor and provides an offset in the amount of the settlement to the subsequent liability of non-settlors. A settling defendant can recover equitable indemnity from a non-settling defendant to the extent the settling defendant has discharged a liability that the non-settling defendant should be responsible to pay. The right of contribution can be enforced in a separate lawsuit. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 53 Cal. App.3d 693, 126 Cal. Rptr. 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975).
California has its own rules for everything. seriously.
Even the laws on yielding there are different, lol
ian.
*Legalize It*
ugghhh
Norcal
Par Member
In order to recover against the City at trial, the injured woman will have to prove a "dangerous condition of public property" (Cal. Govt. Code section 835) which includes the following elements:
1. That the City owned or Controlled the property; and
2. That the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident; and
3. That the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of incident that occurred; and
4. that the city had notice of the dangerous condition long enough to have protected against it.
Based on the follow-up video, it sounds like the City will argue that it had no notice based on the lack of a significant accident history.
1. That the City owned or Controlled the property; and
2. That the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident; and
3. That the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of incident that occurred; and
4. that the city had notice of the dangerous condition long enough to have protected against it.
Based on the follow-up video, it sounds like the City will argue that it had no notice based on the lack of a significant accident history.
Number 4 would seem to be the best defense for the city. There aren't any other accidents of note at that park, and generally, not many nation wide. I don't know if that'll enough. There other places that they could look (complaints to the parks dept and the like)
i'm guessing they settle out of court
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,744
I'm not contributing to this thread at all but:
After clicking on a link titled LA . . . I still just assumed it was related to Manhattan NY. Cali isn't allowed to do that. Wait, how many Levittowns are there in the US? Oh yeah:doh:
Back to your scheduled programming...
After clicking on a link titled LA . . . I still just assumed it was related to Manhattan NY. Cali isn't allowed to do that. Wait, how many Levittowns are there in the US? Oh yeah:doh:
Back to your scheduled programming...
Mabuku1
Double Eagle Member
Wow. Your custom title is so on piont. I could not for the life of me understand what you were trying to say, but then I read your title and it Walsall made sense. Thank you.
As reported in the Daily Breeze, the plaintiff's attorney provided the newspaper with evidence, in the form of email exchanged between park dep't employees, that the park officials received with numerous complaints over the years concerning disc golfers hitting other park users and cars, and that park officials exchanged emails as far back as 2006 (no more than a year after the course opened, btw) about removing the course or re-routing some of the holes due to those concerns.
Assuming the dates and contents of the emails are as reported, this one looks pretty much a slam-dunk for the plaintiff. It's going to be damnably hard for the city to credibly assert that it DIDN'T know that a dangerous condition existed in the park, or that that it did not have sufficient time to address the condition since it first became aware of the condition.
Heck, I'm not even a lawyer and I've never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, but even I could demolish that defense:
[Cross examination]
So, let me get this straight, Mr. City Official: According to Park Dep't records, in 2006--8 years ago: EIGHT YEARS AGO--less than a year after the course opened, the park dep't was already discussing re-routing holes or removing the disc golf course entirely because other park users were getting hit by discs, but you would have us believe that throwing sharp edged discs [pass Champ Katana and Z Nuke around for jury to examine] into or toward crowds of people at 50-60-70 MPH pose no danger to the public? So, Mr. City Official, I take it you wouldn't be concerned in the least if I were to fire one of these in the direction of your granddaughter?
Tell me, Mr. City Official, what has the Park Dep't done in the last 8 years to alleviate the danger to park users? Anything? ANYTHING???? Oh, you've TALKED about it? But nothing else. Why not? You HONESTLY want us to believe that EIGHT YEARS isn't enough time to do anything except TALK about the problem?
[/Cross examination]
In fact, if the Daily Breeze's report is true, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the city's insurer refused to defend the city, negotiate on its behalf, or pay any part of the eventual settlement, citing negligence on the part of the city for its failure to act in a timely manner to remedy a known risk.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,744
I reread what I wrote and though I see how it makes no sense to a stranger it still fits my thought pattern perfectly. Also, thank Aim For The Chains for the title:thmbup: (my suggestion and his monies 'cause I'm a broke ass)
I know I was watching news from LA but since I'm from PA my brain told me Manhattan Beach was Manhattan NY..not in California. Bad joke about Cali not being allowed to use Manhattan, then a ramble about Levittown because there's over 100 Levittowns across the country (just looked it up and apparently there is only 4, I swear I read somewhere there was triple digit Levittowns across the States). Derp.
Mabuku1
Double Eagle Member
Oh, haha. Yeah, I tried to read into it, but it was too cryptic.
HarkeyPuck
* Ace Member *
People living around a park where a course was approved here in Pittsburgh, have used this incident in opposition to the course. And it's working. Plans for the course are tabled.
Mabuku1
Double Eagle Member
^^and, it begins. Thank you disc companies for focusing on high speed drivers for the last few years. Haha...
More than half of my discs are high speed drivers, before I realized fairway drivers are good for almost every hole.
More than half of my discs are high speed drivers, before I realized fairway drivers are good for almost every hole.
Jesterian
Par Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2011
- Messages
- 192
Dude if I hit somebody in the face with a teebird it's going to wreck them just as badly as a boss.
