Methods of Proving and Complying With CA Financial Responsibility Laws:

1. Purchase insurance coverage from an insurance agent;

2. Pay the DMV a cash sum of $35,000;

3. Prove you are self insured with the DMV; usually this involves owners of vehicle fleets that have at least 25 vehicles in business use;

4. Purchase a surety bond for $35,000 from your insurance agent in California.

Some drivers who live in San Francisco, or Los Angeles County, are eligible to buy “low cost, reduced limit, automobile liability coverages”. This program, called the California Low Cost Automobile Insurance Program (“CLCAIP”), sets forth that the consumers on that program are deemed to be in compliance with insurance laws in California.

How to Determine Fault in the Accident

Most individuals filing lawsuits for car accident negligence against others, are entitled to recover damages for injuries. The person suing is called a “plaintiff. The plaintiff’s burden is to show the defendants, the driver who caused the accident, was negligent. This can be established by violating the California Vehicle Code (“CVC”), or just because the defendant’s conduct that caused the accident had fallen below the standard of care.

Simply said, the plaintiff must establish to the jury that the other driver failed to use a reasonable degree of care when he or she operated the car that injured another individual. (See generally Whitford v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 697.) The injured party must also establish that the other driver’s negligence was the cause in fact of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Clarke v. Hoek (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 208; Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 814.)

Law schools teach that cause of the injuries must be the actual and “proximate cause”, such as the “legal cause” of the injury. This rule of tort law mandates that the injured victim plaintiff establish:

1. defendant’s negligence was a contributing factor that caused plaintiff’s injuries and damages. (Sagadin v. Ripper (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1141; Gordon v. Havasu Palms 93 C.A.4th 244, 112 C.R.2d 816 (2001);

2. it wasn’t foreseeable it could have happened or that it is an independent intervening act that caused plaintiff’s injuries or death. (Mitchell v. Gonzales (1985) 54 Cal.3d 1041; “. . . negligence must be substantial factor” in causing plaintiff’s injuries)

California Pure Comparative Negligence

Los Angeles personal injury attorneys will tell you that pure comparative negligence under California law states that the plaintiff’s own negligence that contributes to his or her injury is offset by that degree of negligence caused by the defendant. This is a “pure form” of comparative negligence. So even if the plaintiff is slightly at fault, he still gets to recover the percentage he is not at fault from defendant in creating the injuries and damages; these will be reduced in “proportion” to degrees of fault. (Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804.)

Scenarios that Include Negligence Under California Vehicle Laws

This non comprehensive list shows just a few examples of driver negligence for which you could recover damages.

• Driving Too Fast - Driving way too fast can be negligent per se. (CVC Sec. 22350, et seq).; Hardin v. San Jose City Lines (1953) 41 Cal.2d 432.) Sometimes it is even negligent to drive too slow. (Scott v Texaco, Inc. (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 431.) Construction zone signs, or hazard signs creating special speed zones that are disobeyed are also a factor in proving negligence. (Wilding v. Norton (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 374.)

• Failing to Pay Attention - Vehicle operators shall keep a proper lookout for other vehicles and individuals when driving on the roads and must control the vehicle at all times to as not to cause a wreck. (Leeper v Nelson (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 65; Lutz v. Schendel (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 140.)

• Failure To Yield Rights of Way - (CVC Sec. 21800, et seq.) Left turns (CVC Sec. 21801) see also Sesler v. Ghumman (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 218; Failure to Yield to Right Of Way Signs (CVC Sec. 21803); Illegal U-Turn (CVC Sec. 22105.) At an intersection (CVC Sec. 21800(a)-(e), see also Saterlee v. Orange Glenn School Dist. (1947) 29 Cal.2d 581.)

• Vehicle Defect - The owner or operator of a motor vehicle has a duty to inspect and maintain his or her vehicle. (Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Paseman (1990) 219 Cal.App. 958; Dyer v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 61.)

• Intentional and Reckless Acts -? A motor vehicle operator cannot willfully harm people or property with the vehicle as a weapon, or recklessly not do something he or she should have done! (Ingram v. Bob Jaffe Co. (1956) 139 Cal.App2d 193.)

• Cannot Drive the “Wrong Way” - (CVC Sec. 21650); See also Altomare v. Hunt (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 10.)

• Illegal to Turn From A Wrong Lane; (CVC Sec. 22107.)

• Must Maintain and Properly Use Your Vehicle Brakes - (Veh.C. 26450, et seq.) Maloney v. Rath 69 Cal.2d 442 (1968) 71 Cal.Reports. 897, 445 P.2d 513.)

• Failure to Maintain or Turn on Your Headlights - (CVC Sec. 24400, et seq.; See also Matlock v. Farmers Mercantile Co. (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 362.

• Failure To Give Proper Turn and Other Vehicle Signals - (CVC Sec. 22107-22111; Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 207.)

• Failure Maintain Safe Following Distance- (Veh.C. 21703 Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 207.)

• Driving Under The Influence Of Alcohol or Drugs (“DUI”) (C.C. 3333.4(a)(1))

As you can see, California Car Accident Laws and DMV Codes generally allow, or do not prevent individuals from hiring car accident attorneys in Los Angeles, Orange County or other major cities in the state.