HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 4 TORT REFORM 04-01-85NEW BUSINESS
NO. 4
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Royleen A. White, Director of Community and Administrative Services
TORT REFORM: SB 433, SB 934, and AB 230 ~',~'
RECOMMENDATION:
To formally support each of these bills: SB 433, SB 934, and AB 230.
BACKGROUND:
Staff is lobbying for the passage of these bills because on March 18 the
City Council authorized staff to support any tort reform bills recommended
by the League of California Cities. In addition, Councilman Greinke asked
that the above be formally added to the agenda for this meeting.
SENATE BILL 433 (BERGESON)
State law provides that a city or other public entity is immune from liability
for'injuries caused by the natural condition of unimproved public property.
The courts have decided, however, that when a city provides lifeguard services,
a "hybrid" natural and non-natural condition is created, and a city can be
liable for negligent lifeguarding or failure to put up appropriate warning
signs. Application of this rule in one recent case resulted in a jury ordering
Newport Beach to pay $6 million to a man who dived into a sand bar in the
ocean. (This is what caused our carrier to cancel our liability insurance
last year.) Because many similar and potentially disastrous claims are pending
against a number of cities, Senator Bergeson has introduced SB 433. The
bill provides that the provision of services, or the making of improvements
on unimproved public property, does not cause the city to lose its immunity
if the primary cause of an injury was a natural condition.
SENATE BILL 934 (SEYMOUR)
This bill applies to injured persons who fail to wear motorcycle helmets
rather than persons injured as a result of their own voluntary intoxication.
Specifically this bill applies when:
a. A driver of, or passenger on, a motorcycle is injured and failure
to wear a safety helmet is a factor in causing the injury; and
The injured person's negligence in failing to wear a helmet is
greater than a particular defendant's negligent contribution to
the accident.
Tort Reform: SB 433, SB 934, and AB 230
March 25, 1985
Page 2
In such cases, the defendant who is less negligent than the plaintiff
would pay only the percentage of the plaintiff's damages equal to the
percentage the defendant contributed to the accident--that is, a 10%
responsible defendant pays 10% of the damages.
ASSEMBLY BILL 230 (MCALISTER)
This bill is similar to SB 934 and also provides the defendant is only
liable for the percent of the plaintiff's damages equal to the defendant's
percentage contribution to an accident ("several liability"), where the
following factors exist:
a. The plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and
b. The plaintiff's inebriation or incapacity is more responsible
for the plaintiff's injury than was the defendant's negligence.
For example, a drunken pedestrian might step in front of a car and later
claim the street was poorly lit making it hard for drivers to see him.
The jury might find that the plaintiff was 15% responsible for his or
her injuries, and the city was 10% responsible. In that case, the city
would pay 10% of the plaintiffs damages.
These bills have been co-sponsored by the League; staff has been in communi-
cation regarding each of them. Staff will keep the City Council informed
as this much-needed tort reform progresses through the 1985 legislative
session.
RAW/kaw