High Court to Weigh Curbs on Auto Suits

In a case being closely watched by local governments, the California Supreme Court is set to decide whether a 1996 voter initiative unfairly blocked a Fontana accident victim from seeking damages because he had no insurance.

The appeal turns on Proposition 213, the 1996 initiative that prohibited uninsured drivers from suing for “noneconomic” harm, such as pain and suffering. The proposition permits uninsured motorists to obtain compensation only for damages such as wage loss.

Cities and insurance companies say the law has cut down on frivolous suits and is at least partially responsible for reduced auto insurance rates.

But Russell Glen Day, an uninsured motorcyclist who crashed in Fontana in 1991, is asking the court to intervene. Although Fontana has already paid him more than $412,00 in damages, Day says the city owes him more because his accident occurred before Proposition 213 was approved. Furthermore, Day says the city caused his accident by allowing roadside vegetation to grow so large that it obstructed his view. His lawyer contends Proposition 213 does not cover such negligence.

City authorities say that if the court agrees with Day, the ruling could lead to more lawsuits and higher insurance rates.

“I don’t look at this as just a Fontana issue,” said City Manager Ken Hunt.

Day says he crashed into another car because his view was blocked by a four- to six-foot-high wall of bushes and vegetation. In his initial suit, Day charged that Fontana failed to properly maintain the roadway. Although the jury found in his favor, Day was unable to ask for compensation for emotional damages because of the proposition.

“[The proposition] acts like a practical immunity. If they knew they weren’t liable for damages, they would keep passing the buck,” said Wayne McClean, Day’s attorney.

In an interview, McClean also noted that the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that uninsured drivers could sue car manufacturers for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering.

The Consumer Attorneys of California, a plaintiffs’ lawyers group, filed a friend of the court brief that would allow it to present information to bolster Day’s case. The group fears cities will not take proper safety precautions if they cannot be held liable.

“We are very concerned about the outcome of the case and are interested in making sure that the scope of Proposition 213 isn’t expanded to public entities [because] it gives the public entity a free pass for creating a dangerous situation,” said LeAnn Tratten, a legal counsel for the group.

However, Fontana officials point out Day’s appeal was overturned by the state Court of Appeal in Riverside in 1999. Furthermore, the League of California Cities has organized its brief supporting Fontana’s claim.

“Cities tended to be viewed [as having] deep pockets, and we’re concerned that if cities don’t receive the protection intended under [the law], it will open them up to lawsuits and have implications for taxpayers who would much prefer their tax dollars go to facilities and services rather than lawsuits,” said League General Counsel JoAnne Speers.

The California Supreme Court is expected to hear the case Feb. 6.