Negligence & Personal Injury Cases in California
When a person runs through a field and trip-and-falls over a rabbit hole, he or she may sprain an ankle or suffer another personal injury. Maybe this person has a bone complication, so it’s easy for bones to break, and he or she indeed breaks a bone from this fall. No one seems negligent in this example. Plus, running through a field is not an uncommon or unreasonable thing for someone to do, thus, you probably don’t have a viable personal injury case. Consider another example: there’s a well hidden by the tall grass in the field. It’s known that people overlook it, and once or twice there’s been an injury because of that well. If the owner of the property failed to make the grounds safe by warning people of the well or putting a fence around it, then negligence may be present, and the injured party can file a claim or sue. This is negligence, and it is important to understand this concept if you have a personal injury case pending or want to pursue one.
Each personal injury case is different; however, so you’ll want to discuss the unique facts and circumstances with an attorney. To get answers to questions specific to your case, contact us at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, review the information below for a better understanding of negligence and personal injury claims in California.
What is Negligence?
As indicated above, negligence is a legal term in personal injury law where a person or organization (plaintiff) can file a claim for property damage and/or bodily injuries against an at-fault party or parties (defendant). When a person is negligent, it means he or she failed to act with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have acted under the same circumstances. The negligent act is typically an act (e.g., a driver runs a red light and hits your car), but negligence can also be an omission to act (e.g., an employer failed to check an employee’s criminal background and that employee had a history of assault and assaulted a customer).
There are different levels or types of care recognized by the State of California. These include:
- Ordinary standard of care
- Professional standard of care
- Medical standard of care
- Standard of care owed to children
- Standard of care for minors
- Standard of care for physically disabled persons.
Ordinary standard of care
Under ordinary circumstances and according to California Civil Code § 1714,
Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.
Basically, this means we all owe each other a duty of care not to harm each other and will be held responsible for our conduct. And if we are injured because of someone else’s breach of that duty of care, we can claim damages by opening an insurance claim or filing a lawsuit. In a personal injury litigation, you can demand a jury trial. This typically happens if a just and fair settlement has not been offered. At trial, a successful lawsuit will be determined by how well the plaintiff’s attorney proves the following basic factual elements:
- The defendant was negligent.
- The plaintiff was harmed.
- The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
The court will determine if the facts prove the above points. The plaintiff’s attorney proves its case when it satisfies the four elements of a personal injury case, which are:
1. The defendant(s) owed duty of care to the plaintiff (at a minimum – the standard of care is an ordinary duty of care – as referenced in § 1714 of the California Civil Code).
2. The duty of care was breached, which is typically the defendant’s negligence.
3. The breach was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
4. The injury resulted in monetary damages (e.g., medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering).
Professional standard of care
Professional standard of care is higher than ordinary standard of care based on the profession. A professional is negligent if he or she failed to use the skill, knowledge, and care that another professional in the same position would have reasonably used under similar circumstances. A jury will decide the level of skill based on expert testimony and other evidence.
Medical standard of care
Medical professionals have a higher standard of care based on their medical knowledge and position in society. Patients rely on medical professionals to do their jobs, but that doesn’t always happen. Mistakes are made. Negligent acts happen or omissions to act occur. When they do and you are injured or suffer because of it, you may have a medical malpractice claim.
The standard of care for medical professionals is different based on what capacity or position the professionals possess. Generally, health care professionals are negligent if they fail to use the level of knowledge, skill, and care in diagnosis and treatment that the same medical professionals in the same position would reasonably use under similar circumstances. The jury will determine the necessary standard of care based on expert testimony and evidence.
Standard of care owed to children
Adults owe a certain and different standard of care to children. This standard of care must take into consideration the ordinary behavior of a child, which is different than that of other adults.
Standard of care for minors
When a child is a defendant, the standard of care must reflect the child’s age at the time of the incident. So, if the personal injury case does not go to trial until two or three years after the injury occurred, it’s not the child’s current age that matters but his or her age at the time of the incident. The standard of care must reflect the amount of care children of the same age, intelligence, knowledge, and experience would use under the same circumstances.
Standard of care for physically disabled persons.
A person with a disability must only use a standard of care that another reasonably prudent person with the same disability would use under similar circumstances. The disability does not have to be exact, but the disability of the plaintiff and the disability of the reasonably prudent person with whom the plaintiff is compared must produce the same effect.
Ready to take the first step?
Our consultations are free, confidential, and tailored to your case.
Are There Different Degrees of Negligence to Prove in California?
There are different types or degrees of negligence in California. First, there is general negligence and then there is gross negligence, which is an extreme departure from what a reasonably prudent person would do in a similar situation to avoid harming another person. This page refers mostly to general negligence.
Second, negligence typically must be proven except in cases of negligence per se. Negligence per se occurs when:
1. The defendant violated a federal or state law in California; and
2. The violation was a substantial factor causing the harm the plaintiff suffered.
In negligence per se cases, the violation constitutes the breach of a duty of care, so it doesn’t need to be further demonstrated that the defendant was negligent, but you will still need to prove that the negligence per se caused the injury.
How Does California Apply the Theory of Negligence?
Each state applies the theory of negligence in its own way. The method used determines the plaintiff’s ability to file a claim and just how much the plaintiff will receive at the end of the day if his or her case is successful. There are two overarching legal methods to apply the theories of negligence:
- Contributory negligence; or
- Comparative fault.
In the first, only a few states still follow it because the plaintiff effectively receives no compensation if he or she is found negligent in any way or capacity. This is true even if the plaintiff is determined by the jury to be only 5% or less negligent. So, though the defendant is 95% at fault, the defendant won’t owe the plaintiff anything in terms of damages. Most states find this approach unjust and unfair.
In the second, there are different ways the law is applied. The comparative fault doctrine allows any person injured by the fault of another person or entity to recover damages, and in California that is true even if the plaintiff is 90% or more at fault. This is known as pure comparative fault. Some states apply the comparative fault doctrine using a modified comparative negligence rule.
Under pure comparative fault, the main issue is this: your damages will be reduced according to the plaintiff’s percentage of fault. In California, you are partially negligent if you acted or failed to act to prevent harm and that negligence is a substantial factor in causing your own injury. The jury must determine the percentage of your own negligence.
To note, the total damages awarded is a separate finding. So, the jury may find that the sum of your total damages is $500,000. They will then decide if you contributed to the harm. If they find that, for example, you were 20% at fault, then the damages will be reduced by 20%. The jury will not find the total sum of the damages to be worth $400,000 (80% of $500,000); it determines how much the total sum will be reduced.
The same is true if there are multiple defendants. The jury will determine the amount of the damages. It will then decide the percentages of fault for each defendant.
What Types of Personal Injury Cases in Los Angeles are Based on Negligence?
Personal injury cases involving negligence in Los Angeles can include things like:
Find a Skilled Personal Injury Lawyer in Los Angeles Today
Getting the right lawyer makes a difference in personal injury cases. Contact us so that we can find the best legal solution and full compensation for the damages you have suffered because of someone else’s negligence.