Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California case brief summary
532 P.2d 1226 (Cal. 1975)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff sued defendant for personal injuries following a car accident in which defendant's car hit plaintiff's car. However, the trial court found that plaintiff had contributed to the car accident and, thus, was barred from recovery.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed, holding that the "pure" form of comparative negligence should be adopted in California in place of the contributory negligence doctrine. Thus, even though plaintiff contributed toward the accident, defendant could be held liable for his portion of fault.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
532 P.2d 1226 (Cal. 1975)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff appealed a
judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California),
which entered judgment in favor of defendant in plaintiff's personal
injury case.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff sued defendant for personal injuries following a car accident in which defendant's car hit plaintiff's car. However, the trial court found that plaintiff had contributed to the car accident and, thus, was barred from recovery.
DISCUSSION
- The court reversed the judgment, holding that the "pure" form of comparative negligence should be adopted in California in place of the contributory negligence doctrine.
- The court reasoned that Cal. Civil Code §1714 did not preclude judicial action in the area of contributory negligence.
- Thus, even though plaintiff contributed toward the accident, defendant could be held liable for his portion of fault.
- However, the damages awarded were to be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed, holding that the "pure" form of comparative negligence should be adopted in California in place of the contributory negligence doctrine. Thus, even though plaintiff contributed toward the accident, defendant could be held liable for his portion of fault.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment