Did Trev really need a Photoshopped lean angle?
While testing street tires on the street, Andrew Trevitt -- a British editor of British Sport Rider magazine, the only "American" sportbike rag -- t-boned a car that was making an illegal u-turn in Los Angeles. A devastating silence could be heard around the world, regarding what actually happened, and its aftermath.
As usual, Sport Rider mag censored all the good stuff. No review of Trevitt's crashed rider gear that "failed" upon impact (can't piss off the advertisers). Did he wear a back protector, and did it cover the entire spine? No gory crash scene nor hospital photos. No witness statements. No police reports. No arrest reports. No names of perps (illegal aliens?). No legal briefs. No NEWS.
Basically, nothing that's of actual use to riders in the Real World. You'd think he was president of the United States, hiding all his birth certificates.
But lots and lots and lots of tales of woe in rehab. While it's great to see that side of the story -- since magazines always censor the scary stuff -- The Blog would be so much better if it detailed the other 95% of his recovery. How about some video blogs? Ever hear of youtube? Andrew golfing with the Kardashians don't count.
Was Trev criminally charged? If so what exactly was the defense and outcome, with links to all legal docs? Was the cage driver criminally charged? Did Trev sue the cager? Did the cager countersue Trev? Did Trev sue the highway department for a defective road? Did Trev sue the doctors for medical malpractice? Did Trev sue his employers for Workers Comp, and did a lawsuit settlement result in him keeping his job -- or is Trevitt an owner who can't be fired? Did Trev sue his own insurance for non-payment? How much were his total medical bills? How much is rehab costing, and who's paying? This data alone would probably save 100s of lives, just by the Fear Factor.
Reality TV shows cover many of these topics, celebrities in court and sex life in rehab. If print rags want to survive mortal combat against the interwebs, they need to kick it up a few dozen notches.
Yes, it's true that in all legal situations, lawyers and cops agree it's SOP to STFU, especially when there's risk of prison buttrape. California is a Comparative Fault state, which gives individuals a fair chance in court against big bad insurance corporations, but a plaintiff gets nothing who caused 51% of the crash -- including "speed".
However, a nation of legal idiots is a recipe for overthrow of the United States...which of course has been the public policy of the British Empire for over 500 years, and Sport Rider mag.
Compare with Deals Gap Scar Story, by The Dragonater:
Comparative Fault
by the Dolan Law Firm
Everyone has a responsibility to care for themselves. California law analyzes the relative fault of each party involved in an event that produces injury. The Dolan Law Firm works hard to demonstrate that you are not the one responsible for your injury. If your case does not settle before trial, a jury decides what percentage of fault is assigned to each party. (They do it after determining the amount of damages suffered.) If the person injured (the plaintiff) causes his or her own injury, and is 100% at fault and have no right to recover against anyone else involved in the event. If the other party, (the defendant) is 100% at fault, then they bear 100% of the responsibility and, 100% of the costs and damages . If there is shared fault California Law requires that the amount of recovery which the injured party is entitled to is reduced by their percentage of fault. Defendants in a lawsuit are always looking to place blame on the injured party to reduce the amount of compensation that they would have to pay. A great deal of time in any legal proceeding is spent establishing who bears what percentage of fault. California is a pure comparative fault state. This means that an injured party can recover for their damages even if they are greater than 50% at fault (51%-99%). Some states do not allow injured parties to recover if they are more than 50% at fault. The reality, however, is that fault is not a science and juries, when they the plaintiff as being mostly responsible, often give them nothing. Likewise, they often place some blame on the plaintiff just to appease some members of the jury so as to reach a consensus.
THINGS THAT MAKE AN INJURED PARTY AT FAULT
speed- most common
no seat belt
failure to signal
going through yellow light
inattention- cell phone distraction- not looking where you are going
improper safety gear (motorcycles and bicycles)
lack of visibility
running into street (pedestrians)
crossing at a location outside crosswalk (pedestrians)
entering a crosswalk on red hand
Contributory Negligence vs. Comparative Negligence
by the Personal Injury Lawyer Directory
When a claim for damages caused by an accident is filed with a court, the fact-finder (judge or jury, depending on the proceeding) must determine who caused the accident. The person whose negligence caused the accident typically pays for the resulting damage. If more than one person caused the damage, then negligence is distributed between the parties based on state apportionment laws. The fact-finder may determine that actions of the defendant, the plaintiff, or both, caused the accident. Based on the evidence submitted, the judge or jury will then allocate the amount or percentage that each party was negligent. Depending on the jurisdiction, this allocation will directly impact the damages awarded.
Throughout the United States, there are four systems used in establishing damage awards: pure contributory negligence, pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence – 50% bar rule, and modified comparative negligence – 51% bar rule.
Contributory Negligence
Historically, contributory negligence was a common law defense available in tort actions. In the past, if two people were in an accident, the injured person could only recover for his/her injuries and damages if they did not contribute to the accident in any way. This approach was based on a policy originally established in England that stated a person who negligently causes harm to another cannot be held liable if that injured individual contributed to his own suffering and injury, even if it was only a very slight factor. For example, if Dave and Debbie were in an accident where Jane was injured, and Jane was only 5% at fault, she would recover nothing. This method of calculating damages is still followed in states with a pure contributory negligence system. In light of the potentially harsh result, most states have moved from the strict nature of a pure contributory negligence system to some form of a comparative negligence system. Currently, only five (5) states, including the District of Columbia, follow the pure contributory negligence rule.
Comparative Negligence
In a comparative negligence system, the injured party may still recover some of his or her damages even if he or she was partially to blame for causing the accident. Plaintiff’s financial recovery may be reduced, or even prohibited, depending how plaintiff’s actions caused or contributed to the accident. In states using a comparative negligence system, a jury or judge determines the proportion of fault to be assigned to each responsible party. Jurisdictions following a comparative negligence system will typically apportion the damages using one of three variations of comparative negligence: pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence – 51% rule, or modified comparative negligence – 50% rule.
Presently, thirteen (13) states follow a pure comparative negligence system: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington. In a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damage award accordingly. Using this system, an injured person may recover his or her damages even if the injured person was 99% at fault in causing the injury, with those damages reduced by his or her portion of the fault. For example, in a car accident between Dave and Debbie where Debbie was found to be 99% responsible, and the jury found that Debbie suffered $10,000 in damages, that award would be reduced by Debbie’s 99% fault in causing the injury. In the end, Dave would only have to pay 1% of Debbie’s damages, or $100 in this case.
Thirty-three (33) states follow a modified comparative fault system. Similar to a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damage award accordingly. From that point, depending on how the system is applied, if a plaintiff’s apportioned fault reaches a particular level, he or she may be completely prohibited from recovering a damage award.
Of the thirty-three states following a modified comparative fault system, twelve (12) states follow a 50% rule. In states following a modified comparative fault – 50% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault in causing the injury is 49% or less. If the injured party’s fault level reaches 50%, he or she cannot recover any damages resulting from the accident. Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia follow the 50% rule.
Of the thirty-three states following a modified comparative fault system, the remaining twenty-one (21) states follow a 51% rule. In states following a modified comparative fault – 51% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault does not reach 51%. If the injured party was 50% or less at fault, he or she may still recover damages. In other words, a plaintiff may have caused half of the accident and still recover damages from the court, but if it is found that the plaintiff’s fault was responsible for more than half of the accident, that plaintiff is barred from receiving any damages determined by the court. Here, as in a pure comparative negligence state, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the degree of his or her fault. Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming follow the 51% rule.
Remember that many exceptions to the standard negligence systems are present in several states. Additionally, some states limit the types of cases to which these negligence systems may apply. The information present in this article and following table should only be used as a guide. Specific questions should be directed to a qualified attorney licensed in your state. Nothing in this summary should be construed as legal advice.
Click here to see a Comparative Fault by State chart that briefly outlines contributory vs. comparative negligence for each state.
For more information on Contributory Negligence vs. Comparative Negligence for a specific state, click on the state below.
California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)
1207. Strict Liability - Comparative Fault - Contributory Negligence
[Name of defendant] claims that [name of plaintiff]'s harm was caused, in whole or in part, by [name of plaintiff]'s [and/or] [name of third person]'s negligence. To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following:
1. [insert one or both of the following:]
[That [name of plaintiff] [and/or] [name of third person] negligently [used/misused/modified] the [product];] [or]
[That [name of plaintiff] [and/or] [name of third person] [was/were] [otherwise] negligent;] nd
2. That this negligence was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]'s harm.
[If the product was misused or modified in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to [name of defendant], [he/she/it] may still succeed on this claim if you find that the misuse or modification was negligent and was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]'s harm.]
If [name of defendant] proves the above, [name of plaintiff]'s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of [name of plaintiff]'s [and/or] [name of third person]'s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.
Directions for Use
See also CACI No. 405, Plaintiff's Contributory Negligence, CACI No. 406, Apportionment of Responsibility, and CACI No. 407, Decedent's Contributory Negligence.
Give this instruction only where the defendant has raised the issue of comparative fault.
Sources and Authority
In Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, 737 [144 Cal.Rptr. 380, 575 P.2d 1162], the California Supreme Court held that comparative fault applies to strict products liability actions. The court explained: "[W]e do not permit plaintiff's own conduct relative to the product to escape unexamined, and as to that share of plaintiff's damages which flows from his own fault we discern no reason of policy why it should, following Li, be borne by others."
"[A] petitioner's recovery may accordingly be reduced, but not barred, where his lack of reasonable care is shown to have contributed to his injury." (Bradfield v. Trans World Airlines (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 681, 686 [152 Cal.Rptr. 172].)
Secondary Sources
California Products Liability Actions, Ch. 8, Defenses, �� 8.03, 8.04 (Matthew Bender)
40 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 460, Products Liability, �� 460.53, 460.182 (Matthew Bender)
19 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 190, Products Liability (Matthew Bender)
(New September 2003)
405. Plaintiff's Contributory Negligence
[Name of defendant] claims that [name of plaintiff]'s harm was caused in whole or in part by [name of plaintiff]'s own negligence. To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following: 1. That [name of plaintiff] was negligent; and 2. That [name of plaintiff]'s negligence was a substantial factor in causing [his/her] harm.
If [name of defendant] proves the above, [name of plaintiff]'s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of [name of plaintiff]'s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.
Directions for Use
This instruction should not be given absent substantial evidence that plaintiff was negligent. (Drust v. Drust (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [169 Cal.Rptr. 750].)
This instruction should be used only where the defendant claims that plaintiff was negligent, there is only one defendant, and the defendant does not claim that any other factor caused the harm.
Sources and Authority
In Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, 810 [119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226], the Court concluded that the "all-or-nothing" rule of contributory negligence should be abandoned in favor of a rule that assesses liability in proportion to fault.
Restatement Second of Torts, section 463, defines "contributory negligence" as "conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection, and which is a legally contributing cause cooperating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiff's harm."
It is settled that the issue of contributory negligence must be presented to the jury whenever it is asserted as a defense and there is "some evidence of a substantial character" to support it. (Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 530, 548 [138 Cal.Rptr. 705, 564 P.2d 857]; Scott v. Alpha Beta Co. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 305, 310 [163 Cal.Rptr. 544].)
Courts have found that it is not error to use the phrase "contributory negligence" in a jury instruction on comparative negligence: "The use by the trial court of the phrase 'contributory negligence' in instructing on the concept of comparative negligence is innocuous. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. [citation] abolished the legal doctrine, but not the phrase or the concept of 'contributory negligence.' A claimant's negligence contributing causally to his own injury may be considered now not as a bar to his recovery, but merely as a factor to be considered in measuring the amount thereof." (Bradfield v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 681, 686 [152 Cal.Rptr. 172].)
The defendant has the burden of proving contributory negligence. (Drust, supra, 113 Cal.App.3d at p. 6.)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, �� 1049-1058, pp. 446-457
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 4, Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses, � 4.04 (Matthew Bender)
California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 1996) �� 1.38-1.39
4 California Trial Guide, Unit 90, Closing Argument, � 90.91 (Matthew Bender)
33 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 380, Negligence (Matthew Bender)
16 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 165, Negligence, � 165.380 (Matthew Bender)
(New September 2003)
407. Decedent's Contributory Negligence
[Name of defendant] claims that [name of decedent]'s death was caused in whole or in part by [name of decedent]'s own negligence. To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following: 1. That [name of decedent] was negligent; and 2. That [name of decedent]'s negligence was a substantial factor in causing [his/her] death.
If [name of defendant] proves the above, [name of plaintiff]'s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of [name of decedent]'s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.
Directions for Use
This instruction should not be given absent evidence that the decedent was negligent. (Drust v. Drust (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [169 Cal.Rptr. 750].)
Sources and Authority
"[P]rinciples of comparative fault and equitable indemnification support an apportionment of liability among those responsible for the loss, including the decedent, whether it be for personal injury or wrongful death." (Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, 285 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 222, 980 P.2d 927].)
"[I]n wrongful death actions, the fault of the decedent is attributable to the surviving heirs whose recovery must be offset by the same percentage. [Citation.]" (Atkins v. Strayhorn (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1380, 1395 [273 Cal.Rptr. 231].)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, � 1214, p. 650
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 4, Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses, � 4.07 (Matthew Bender)
4 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 55, Death and Survival Actions, � 55.05 (Matthew Bender)
15 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 181, Death and Survival Actions (Matthew Bender)
6 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 66, Death and Survival Actions (Matthew Bender)
(New September 2003)
American History X: German Nazi Queen of the 53-nation British Commonwealth Empire has annexed USA via the North Amerikan Soviet Union
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete