The tragic case of Adelelmo Cabral (Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 179 Cal.App.4th 1) has put the spotlight on an area of California law that many people outside of the justice system do not know about - comparative fault.
What Happened in the Cabral Case?
The case began in 2004, when, on the night of February 27, a trucker in the employ of Ralph's Grocery pulled his commercial vehicle onto the dirt shoulder off the side of California Interstate Highway 10 for a brief snack. The truck was undisputedly parked in a portion of the roadway designated as being suitable for emergency stopping only. Shortly after the truck was stopped, it was rear-ended by Adelelmo Cabral at a high rate of speed. Witnesses testified that Mr. Cabral had been traveling approximately 70-80 miles per hour at the time of the accident and cut across several lanes of traffic before leaving the roadway and striking the parked big rig. Mr. Cabral died from his injuries at the scene, and his widow filed a suit against Ralph's Grocery.
The lawsuit was based on the premise that the truck driver (acting as employee/agent of Ralph's Grocery) negligently caused Mr. Cabral's death by parking in an emergency-stop-only area. The case was heard by a jury, who decided that Mr. Cabral was 90 percent responsible for his own death, and the truck driver's wrongful action had only 10 percent of the fault.
What is Comparative Fault?
After several appeals, Mrs. Cabral was granted around $500,000 in damages for her husband's death. That amount represents 10 percent of the economic and noneconomic damages the jury determined were associated with the accident. The calculations were done because of a legal principle known as comparative fault.
Essentially, comparative fault recognizes that more than one party can be responsible for causing an injury and allows fault to be divided amongst parties. Accordingly, the parties to a lawsuit may recover damages for the portion that was not their fault. For example, in a simple two-car accident case, the plaintiff (whose car was rear-ended by defendant's car) could be found to have braked unnecessarily, thus contributing to the accident. The defendant may have been following too closely, thus also contributing to the accident. The plaintiff would be assigned a percentage of fault for his or her actions, as would the defendant. If a suit is brought for compensation, each party would be able to recover for a portion of the damages he or she is not at-fault for.
What Should You Do if You Are Injured in an Accident?
Regardless of who may be at fault, if you are injured in an accident, you might be entitled to compensation for your damages. Contact an experienced personal injury attorney in your area to learn more about your legal rights and options.
