i agree, this is exciting that the court finally upholds the law. can you imagine now, that she will get a ticket and license suspended for driving a vehicle w/o insurance!! this is great! now you wonder why we have too many UM drivers on the roads….
Back in 2009 there was a loosely related ruling in NJ where an injured party tried to make a claim under her UM/UIM coverage for being shot in a drive by shooting. The courts in NJ also ruled against the claimant.
NJ and California courts both finding for the insurance companies is certainly reason for cheer!
I tend to agree with youngin’. The fact that they were driving illegally doesn’t mean idiots at JIB can spill hot coffee on them. I’m typically very conservative and hate most huge rulings, but this one doesn’t make sense. She still should get fined and ticketed for not following the law.
ok. Lets think of a scenario. What if I’m riding without a motorcycle helmet in a state that is mandatory and get smoked by a car. Do I get nothing because I wasn’t wearing a helmet? There are millions of other scenarios where a law may be broken, but someone is negligent
I thought the legal doctrine of “I did something wrong but you did something wrong first so I am not responsible” was laid to rest a long time ago. Am I not understanding the situation?
Suppose Jack in the Box was closing at 11:00 and I am several miles away. In order to reach Jack in the Box and place my order by 10:59, I have to break the speed limit. Once I arrive, an employee spills hot coffee on my lap. Using Jack in the Box’s logic here, they would not have served me at the drive-thru, and I would not have had the coffee spilled in my lap “but for” breaking the law, and they cannot be held responsible for non-economic damages. This sounds like the reasoning of a middle-eastern, not western, system of justice. Unless I am missing something.
She lost because there is CA law stating you cannot recover non-economic damages (i.e. pain and suffering)if you are an uninsured driver. The law’s purpose is to encourage the uninsured to purchase liability insurance. Good to see our courts interpreting a law for the purpose in which it was drafted.
She’s still able to, and I believe she did, recover for her economic damages i.e. lost wages, doctor’s bills, etc.
Please re-read your training manual about sequence or unbroken chain of events and note that the report included that her occupancy of the vehicle was a contributing factor in her injuries. Also, the denial is based on a specific law which requires certain qualifications to be eligible to collect for certain damages; similar to the way No-Fault works. I’d like to see this theory applied to more areas. Then we would have less need to insure ourselves against other peoples freeloading.
OK but the law is specific to motor vehicle accidents, right? What I am questioning is whether this was an auto accident. The mere act of sitting in a car does not seem like a sufficient condition to call something a motor vehicle accident. If I am injured while sitting in my car in a car wash, is that also an auto accident? What if I am at the drive in theater and burn myself on one of their microwaved sandwiches?
“I’m just a guy asking questions” as Glenn Beck would say.
The crux of the argument is that she was at the drive through, which means she was operating her vehicle. Had she been at the counter, then the injury may not have happened at all. but since she was at the drive through and sitting, the damages occured and in fact were exacerbated by the fact that she could not get out of the way or move out of the vehicle in time to prevent further injury. Now she couldn’t be at the drive through without her vehicle, she wouldn’t have gotten service that way. So her illegal operation of the vehicle contributed to the incident as well as being the nexus of same. Had she been the passenger, and the same thing had happened, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
We “think” she still got economic damages. Do we know for sure?
Non-economic damages would be ridiculous and I’m glad the court ruled that way. However, had she had insurance, in CA isn’t Med Pay OPTIONAL so she might not have had any coverage for her injuries in her own car even if she was meeting state liability requirements?
I like this and I hope it catches on. If you are operating a vehicle illegaly (no insurance, no drivers license, no papers) you should loose all rights and not be able to sue anyone. My friends own a trucking company and they we’re involved in an accident with an illegal immagrant and still got sued. That is WRONG
Mary,
What State did your friend have the accident in? Hopefully it was California. That’s where we are encouraging all of our illegals to go here in Arizona since California has such a problem with us enforcing Federal Law. Just curious.
It’s not just in California believe me. I handle a lot in MD, DC and VA and believe me when I tell you there’s a lot of illegals driving around up there. If you can call what they do driving…
The facts as presented by this IJ article suggest bodily injury under prem/ops.
Am I wrong or did JIB basically say (in snarky legal jargon) “Well, you wouldn’t have been so injured, if you weren’t so stupid as to order coffee from our drive-thru window!”
From my interpretation of the ruling, it is possible that JIB’s general liability might pay for the non-econ damages, and thus would not need to get the driver’s insurance involved, if she was insured. But as TN pointed out, she was breaking the law by driving without insurance, and if she hadn’t broken the law, she would have either walked in and possibly not have gotten burned, or JIB’s GENLIB might have paid ner non-econ if she was insured.
that a Cali court actually DID NOT side with an injured claimant! What’s the world coming to??? LOL!!!
i agree, this is exciting that the court finally upholds the law. can you imagine now, that she will get a ticket and license suspended for driving a vehicle w/o insurance!! this is great! now you wonder why we have too many UM drivers on the roads….
An excellent ruling; and in California no less. There is hope yet.
Back in 2009 there was a loosely related ruling in NJ where an injured party tried to make a claim under her UM/UIM coverage for being shot in a drive by shooting. The courts in NJ also ruled against the claimant.
NJ and California courts both finding for the insurance companies is certainly reason for cheer!
Pigs are flying and He11 has frozen over!
The ruling makes no sense to me. Can somebody explain why everyone is so happy?
I tend to agree with youngin’. The fact that they were driving illegally doesn’t mean idiots at JIB can spill hot coffee on them. I’m typically very conservative and hate most huge rulings, but this one doesn’t make sense. She still should get fined and ticketed for not following the law.
The simple basic reason, the claimant cannot obtain ecomic relief because she ws breaking the law by operating an uninsured vehicle.
ok. Lets think of a scenario. What if I’m riding without a motorcycle helmet in a state that is mandatory and get smoked by a car. Do I get nothing because I wasn’t wearing a helmet? There are millions of other scenarios where a law may be broken, but someone is negligent
I thought the legal doctrine of “I did something wrong but you did something wrong first so I am not responsible” was laid to rest a long time ago. Am I not understanding the situation?
Suppose Jack in the Box was closing at 11:00 and I am several miles away. In order to reach Jack in the Box and place my order by 10:59, I have to break the speed limit. Once I arrive, an employee spills hot coffee on my lap. Using Jack in the Box’s logic here, they would not have served me at the drive-thru, and I would not have had the coffee spilled in my lap “but for” breaking the law, and they cannot be held responsible for non-economic damages. This sounds like the reasoning of a middle-eastern, not western, system of justice. Unless I am missing something.
In CA U/M drivers cannot get “non-economic” damages. So they get their med bills paid but no gravy. JIB paid med but no pain and suffering probably.
She lost because there is CA law stating you cannot recover non-economic damages (i.e. pain and suffering)if you are an uninsured driver. The law’s purpose is to encourage the uninsured to purchase liability insurance. Good to see our courts interpreting a law for the purpose in which it was drafted.
She’s still able to, and I believe she did, recover for her economic damages i.e. lost wages, doctor’s bills, etc.
So I guess the reasoning of the court was that this was a car accident. Gotcha. Ridiculous, but thanks for the explanation.
Ok, I’m on board with that. Good explanation
In your scenario, the driver would have to be cited by the police for speeding. If he was not, there is no proof that he broke the law, correct?
Please re-read your training manual about sequence or unbroken chain of events and note that the report included that her occupancy of the vehicle was a contributing factor in her injuries. Also, the denial is based on a specific law which requires certain qualifications to be eligible to collect for certain damages; similar to the way No-Fault works. I’d like to see this theory applied to more areas. Then we would have less need to insure ourselves against other peoples freeloading.
OK but the law is specific to motor vehicle accidents, right? What I am questioning is whether this was an auto accident. The mere act of sitting in a car does not seem like a sufficient condition to call something a motor vehicle accident. If I am injured while sitting in my car in a car wash, is that also an auto accident? What if I am at the drive in theater and burn myself on one of their microwaved sandwiches?
“I’m just a guy asking questions” as Glenn Beck would say.
The crux of the argument is that she was at the drive through, which means she was operating her vehicle. Had she been at the counter, then the injury may not have happened at all. but since she was at the drive through and sitting, the damages occured and in fact were exacerbated by the fact that she could not get out of the way or move out of the vehicle in time to prevent further injury. Now she couldn’t be at the drive through without her vehicle, she wouldn’t have gotten service that way. So her illegal operation of the vehicle contributed to the incident as well as being the nexus of same. Had she been the passenger, and the same thing had happened, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
We “think” she still got economic damages. Do we know for sure?
Non-economic damages would be ridiculous and I’m glad the court ruled that way. However, had she had insurance, in CA isn’t Med Pay OPTIONAL so she might not have had any coverage for her injuries in her own car even if she was meeting state liability requirements?
I like this and I hope it catches on. If you are operating a vehicle illegaly (no insurance, no drivers license, no papers) you should loose all rights and not be able to sue anyone. My friends own a trucking company and they we’re involved in an accident with an illegal immagrant and still got sued. That is WRONG
Welcome to America.
Mary,
What State did your friend have the accident in? Hopefully it was California. That’s where we are encouraging all of our illegals to go here in Arizona since California has such a problem with us enforcing Federal Law. Just curious.
It’s not just in California believe me. I handle a lot in MD, DC and VA and believe me when I tell you there’s a lot of illegals driving around up there. If you can call what they do driving…
How is this even a “car accident”?
The facts as presented by this IJ article suggest bodily injury under prem/ops.
Am I wrong or did JIB basically say (in snarky legal jargon) “Well, you wouldn’t have been so injured, if you weren’t so stupid as to order coffee from our drive-thru window!”
From my interpretation of the ruling, it is possible that JIB’s general liability might pay for the non-econ damages, and thus would not need to get the driver’s insurance involved, if she was insured. But as TN pointed out, she was breaking the law by driving without insurance, and if she hadn’t broken the law, she would have either walked in and possibly not have gotten burned, or JIB’s GENLIB might have paid ner non-econ if she was insured.
I represented Jack. Chude did not get econ damages. She is on the hook for Jack’s appellate costs.