[privateSFacct]

There is a fair bit wrong with this advice.

CA is a joint and several liability state. Joint and several liability is the legal doctrine that each defendant in a personal injury claim may be held responsible for ALL the victim's economic damages. Importantly this can occur if you are fractionally at fault.

You've parked 10 feet off the side of the freeway, 16 feet away from any lane. Someone is going 80 miles an hour, passing cars, then (likely) falls asleep and veers sharply off the road, then along the side of the road and hits your parked truck.

Even though you are fractionally at fault you are on the hook for everything.

From actually seeing cases first hand

1) If you have money

2) you have a connection to an accident however small, particularly a fatal one, and very particularly with any kind of sympathetic angle (wife and children bereaved and at risk of being homeless etc

then you will be named in the lawsuit. And at least in CA - even if the husband was 90% at fault (to a normal person the one who did things wrong). YOU could pay out everything

[throwaway0a5e]

I kind of took for granted the fact that my customers are typically the party with the money by several orders of magnitude so I don't have to worry much about joint liability even though I live in one of those states.

You're definitely not wrong, "don't be the only party with the money" was one of the things my law professor drilled into us but for a consumer getting their car (or whatever) repaired they don't really have to worry about being the guy with the money since any shop will have a ton of money via insurance and insurance will have a ton of practice defending frivolous claims.

I also forgot the "anyone can sue anyone for anything, doesn't mean they win, doesn't mean it won't cost you money to fight them" disclaimer.

[whoknowswhat11]

Perfect - the best defense BY FAR is to have less / little / no $$.

This is unique in CA - other party can be 90% at fault - so you’d think they’d have to pay (some states do whoever is 51%+ pays). But you can actually be the one paying rather than getting paid even if they hit you.

[dragonwriter]

> This is unique in CA

No its not, its the pure comparative fault rule followed by 13 states.

> - other party can be 90% at fault - so you’d think they’d have to pay

And you’d be right, if you suffered damages. If they were 90% responsible and you were 10% responsible, they’d have to suffer 9× the compensible injury that you did to net anything, because California is a pure comparative fault state.

> (some states do whoever is 51%+ pays).

Incorrect.

Some states do each of:

* Whoever is >0% at fault cannot collect from other parties (pure contributory negligence).

* Whoever is at least 50% at fault cannot collect from other parties (one modified comparative fault rule.)

* Whoever is at least 51% at fault cannot collect from other parties (another modified comparative fault rule.)

None require 51% fault to be required to pay.

[whoknowswhat11]

Let me give you an example - see if you can figure out who will pay and how much. The answer may surprise you.

Husband / driver falls asleep at the wheel while trying to speed home (going 70-80MPH). Weaves and then veers sharply off the freeway, hitting a parked vehicle parked well clear of the roadway and killing themselves, damaging the parked vehicle and causing pain and suffering to driver of parked vehicle.

Wife and family brings suit against driver and company owning parked vehicle for damages including funeral and burial costs, unreimbursed medical expenses, other out-of-pocket expenses, loss of income and financial support, loss of insurance coverage, loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support.

Questions you may wish to consider.

Family bringing case has no money - there is no chance of collection. Guy falling asleep and running off the road was only source of income.

Company owning parked vehicle has money - there is a high chance of collection on any judgement.

Who will pay out in CA. The guy causing the situation by running off the road and smashing into a parked vehicle at 80 MPH? Or the company owning the vehicle he smashed into.

In CA - the answer may surprise you. And the size of awards may surprise you.

[dragonwriter]

> CA is a joint and several liability state.

Most states are either joint and several liability states or (more commonly, and as California actually is), modified joint and several liability states.

> And at least in CA - even if the husband was 90% at fault (to a normal person the one who did things wrong). YOU could pay out everything.

No, because California is also a comparative fault state, so if the decedent (for wrongful death claims) abd/or plaintiff (for any claims) is 90% responsible, other actors who might be jointly (for economic damages) or severally (for non-economic damages) liable would only be liable for up to a total of 10% of the resulting damages (any tortfeasor for the full amount under joint liability, or the amount of their proportionate responsibility for several liability.)

[tzs]

> Even though you are fractionally at fault you are on the hook for everything.

It is important to note that you can then sue the other at fault parties for whatever you had to pay that was above your fair share.

For example if I'm 90% at fault and you are 10% at fault in something that causes $1 million damages to someone and they come after you and win $1 million, you can turn around and sue me for for $900k.

I might not have $900k and so you might still end up screwed but in that case it is either you who gets screwed or the person you and I injured, and the idea behind joint and several liability is if we have to screw someone it should not be someone who was at fault.

[whoknowswhat11]

I think you meant injured at end.

Another part you are forgetting is these are often designed to save govt money. Should a rich person slightly involved pick up the tab, or should the kids be homeless and costing $ in social services kind of thing.

Note though that YOU can be the one 90% at fault and the person you hit has to pay if you are broke (wife will sue because you died ) Ralph’s grocery caught this type of case all the way and lost

[systemvoltage]

This makes me want to move out of CA as soon as possible.

[tzs]

Your choices then are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.

The rest either have pure joint and several liability in which each defendant is responsible for the full amount of damages (Alabama, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia), or like California have modified joint and several liability in which defendants above some threshold fault percentage are responsible for the full amount of damages (Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).

[whoknowswhat11]

Threshold fault is much much less bad / weird