It Ain't All-Or-Nothing Anymore - The Advent of Comparative Negligence in California
Up until 1975, California had followed the legal doctrine that if a person was at all at fault for an accident, that person was barred from any recovery under the doctrine known as contributory negligence. That meant that if a person was injured in an automobile accident but was 1% at fault, that person could not recover anything whatsoever. Truly contributory negligence barring any recovery was an unjust legal doctrine that lead to harsh results.
In a bold and brilliant decision, the California Supreme Court in Li v. Yellow Cab (1975) 13 Cal 3d 804, announced that the "all-or-nothing" doctrine know as contributory negligence had to give way to the pure form of comparative negligence which allowed a person who was partly at fault to still recover damages from the other negligent party. It all started when Ngu Li was driving her 1967 Oldsmobile northbound on Alvarado Street toward Third Street in Los Angeles, California at about 9:00 p.m. on November 21, 1968. As she began to make her turn onto Third Street, Robert Phillips, an employee of Yellow Cab, heading southbound on Alvarado, collided with the rear end of Ms. Li's vehicle.
This accident caused Ms. Li injuries and she filed a lawsuit against Yellow Cab to recover her damages. The trial court decided although the defendant (Yellow Cab) was going too fast and partly responsible for the accident, that because the plaintiff (Li) negligently turned in front of the on-coming Yellow Cab vehicle, Li was barred from any recovery. The case was appealed. The California Supreme Court seized the opportunity to change the course of law.
The California Supreme Court rejected the long-established legal doctrine of contributory negligence and adopted the pure form of comparative negligence. It reversed the judgment in favor of Yellow Cab holding that even though Plaintiff Li was partly at fault, that did not preclude her from recovering from Yellow Cab in proportion to its fault. Logic, experience, and fundamental justice were the three factors that lead the court to remedy an unfair and unjust legal doctrine. Who would ever have thought that an accident on the streets of Los Angeles would radically change the law of negligence and usher in the dynamic legal doctrine of comparative negligence?
An important side note - It was Ms. Li's attorneys who didn't give up and appealed arguing for a change in the law. Law is a noble profession. Lawyers have made and continue to make invaluable contributions to the lives of ordinary citizens and society as a whole.
