California Elections : PROPOSITION 51 : The ‘Deep--Pockets’ Debate : Liability Doctrine Initiative Splits the Ranks of California’s Lawyers; : A Key Issue: A Concern About Clients--or a Concern About Fees? : Municipal Group Pushes Prop. 51 With Study, But Questions Remain

Seeking to rally taxpayers behind bitterly contested Proposition 51, the League of California Cities on Monday released a survey that it said shows that cities have been forced to pay more than $75 million because of “deep-pockets” lawsuits during the past three years.

In a series of press conferences across the state, supporters of the proposition also estimated that California cities face another $249 million in claims.

“To the degree we pay settlements out, we have less money . . . for the kind of services citizens want,” Santa Monica Mayor Christine Reed said at a Los Angeles Press Club conference.

Proposition 51, the only initiative on the June ballot, would overhaul the state’s existing liability doctrine, in which one party can be held liable for all damages resulting from an injury, even if that party is barely at fault.

The initiative would not change liability for actual damages, such as

medical costs. But defendants would be responsible to pay only their share of non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering.

Supporters of the proposition, including officials of most California cities, contend that cities that are only partly to blame for injuries have borne the brunt of the payments because they have more money than other defendants.

But the survey of 357 California cities released Monday, which sought to bolster their argument that deep-pocket costs are rising precipitously, also raised questions.

Since 1982-83, it showed, judgments and settlements paid by cities have fallen slightly--from $18.4 million to $16.9 million in 1984-85. Likewise, the number of cities forced to pay damages in such cases fell from 122 to 98.

‘General Overall Increase’

Los Angeles Council President Pat Russell, speaking at the Press Club, called the decline “happenstance,” and said cities have in fact witnessed a “general overall increase” in settlements and court judgments in recent years.

Los Angeles’ own deep-pocket payments provided a mixed view. From $2.7 million in 1982-83, payments rose to $2.9 million the following year before falling to $2.5 million in 1984-85, the survey showed.

At the press conference and in its statewide campaign, Proposition 51 backers have implied that greedy plaintiffs’ attorneys, working on a contingency basis, have inundated the courts with frivolous lawsuits to pad their own bank accounts.

But the survey showed that the cities’ own attorneys were paid more than the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Overall, defense attorneys received $22.5 million in salaries and fees during the three-year period. Calculating from settlements and judgments, the survey takers said that plaintiffs’ lawyers earned between $15.9 million and $21.2 million in the same period.

The survey also failed to separate payments by self-insured cities--or those with no insurance--from payments by insurance companies.

Although speakers characterized the overall $75.4 million in payments as draining city treasuries, most of the payments were in fact made by insurance carriers, said Connie Barker, a league attorney who organized the survey.

Neither Barker nor other proponents could pinpoint the savings that would be achieved through Proposition 51. Most of the payments by cities were in the form of lump sum settlements, which do not separate non-economic damages--the sort affected by Proposition 51--from economic damages, Barker said.

Other Development

But, she said, the proposition would not only cut the size of damage awards. She said there would also be a decrease in both defense and plaintiffs’ attorneys fees.

In another Proposition 51 development, Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky on Monday joined Mayor Tom Bradley in opposing the initiative, calling it “a cruel and expensive fraud being perpetrated on the public so insurance companies can make more money.”

Yaroslavsky, chairman of the council’s Finance and Revenue Committee, said that from its 1985-86 budget of $2.3 billion, the city will spend less than $15 million for all legal claims.