Contact a local lawyer now for a FREE consultation!  

(800)384-5297

www.topgundui.com – The penalties for being convicted of a DUI in California can be devastating. DUI criminal defense lawyer Myles L. Berman® serving Ventura, San Bernadino County, and all of Southern California can help if you have been arrested for drunk driving. Penalties for being convicted of driving under the influence include attending alcohol awareness classes, getting your drivers license revoked, hefty monetary fines, and even jail time. Visit http to find out how we can help you.You may contact attorney Myles L. Berman® (also spelled as Myles Bermen): Top Gun DUI Defense Attorney® LOS ANGELES COUNTY 9255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 720, Los Angeles, CA 90069 Phone (310) 273-9501 ORANGE COUNTY 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone (949) 640-1860 VENTURA COUNTY 3075 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard., Suite 9 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Phone (805) 650-9501 Toll Free: 888-4-TOPGUN Website: www.topgundui.com

An attorney is a person who is legally appointed by another person as his/her agent in legal cases. A lawyer who is qualified to deal in accident cases is known as an accident attorney. Orange County (CA) residents are blessed with some of the best lawyers in this field.

As per California law, a driver who is responsible for an automobile accident is liable to pay for the damages, either monetary or non-monetary, incurred by the accident victim. Monetary compensations are paid out of the pocket of the culprit to the victim depending on the losses incurred in the accident. However, while dealing with non-monetary bills, accident attorneys are very useful. It is the job of these lawyers to convince the court of the amount of money that is reasonable towards the pain and suffering of the victim. In California and other states, non-monetary damages have various limitations depending on the circumstances. These limitations are mentioned below:

* Influence of drugs or alcohol: Irrespective of the fact that a driver is responsible for an automobile accident, if he is under the influence of alcohol or drugs during the accident, then he is not liable for any non-monetary compensation. In this case the victim’s lawyer is only liable to seek monetary compensations. This is one of the major concerns for any accident attorney – Orange County, CA is no exception to this law of drunk driving.

* Cars without the minimum insurance cover: Second issue which prevents an accident lawyer from seeking non-monetary compensation from the culprit is when the victim’s car does not have the minimum insurance cover. If the car under question is already in violation of the law of minimum cover, then the victim’s lawyer can only expect monetary compensation for his client.

* Minimum insurance cover for the driver: Different states have varied levels of minimum insurance cover for people. Even if the victim does not have the minimum insurance cover his attorney cannot expect for any non-monetary compensation. This law has been in place to discourage those people who are already in violation of the state law.

Are you looking for a good accident attorney? Orange County (CA) residents can now relax since Daniel C. Carlton Attorney Firm is there to help you out from any serious accident situations. You can visit www.dancarlton.com for any further information relating to their fields of expertise. With great experience in real estate matters and personal injury claims the firm strives to resolve their clients’ cases quickly and efficiently.

Originally published here.

RICHARD BUSBOOM, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; THOMAS E. KELLER, Real Party in Interest
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
December 18, 1980

The Petitioner Richard Busboom and his brother Dean were riding motorcycles when Dean was run down by Keller, driving a car in the wrong lane while drunk. The petitioner was seriously injured. He brought this lawsuit along with the parents of both boys, who however have since settled. Although the original complaint, filed October 24, 1978 alleged in general terms Keller’s willful, reckless and wanton misconduct, those allegations were not sufficient to recover punitive damages. However, after Taylor came down in August 1979, Richard sought leave to amend his complaint with appropriate allegations, and the superior court granted such leave on March 6, 1980, soon after Mau, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d 875, was decided. Petitioner brought an action against real party, which sought punitive damages. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for driver, and stuck the punitive damage claim. Petitioner injured person sought a writ of mandate ordering respondent Superior Court of San Diego County to vacate its grant of partial summary judgment striking petitioner’s claim for punitive damages in petitioner’s suit against real party in interest drunk driver.

Issues:

Whether Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890 [157 Cal.Rptr. 693, 598 P.2d 854], permitting recovery of punitive damages in an appropriate drunk driving case, shall apply retroactively to accidents occurring before August 1979?

Whether the victim’s amended complaint was sufficient to claim punitive damages?

Discussion:

This court held that overruling decisions, especially in the tort field, are normally applied retroactively unless there has been great public reliance on the earlier rule, the new rule was nowhere foreshadowed, and it would be unfair to apply the rule retrospectively. Retrospective application in cases like these is not an enormous burden. It affects only cases pending, or still within the statute of limitations for such claims, when Taylor was decided. That number is not large, since the short tort statute of limitations will limit the retrospective effect to accidents occurring after August 1978, as well as all cases already filed and pending when Taylor came down. This limited effect is not an unconscionable burden on insurance companies.

This court also held the victim’s complaint, as amended, was sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages, since it specifically alleged a deliberate disregard for the safety and interest of others such as to constitute malice. The original complaint stated Keller was intoxicated as the result of his “willful acts”; he drove his pickup truck southbound in the northbound lane of the highway in reckless disregard for the safety of northbound traffic, injuring plaintiffs. The later amendment further pleaded Keller drove when intoxicated with knowledge of the safety hazard he created and was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, which he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid. It further states Keller’s conduct shows he acted with a conscious and deliberate disregard for the safety and interest of others such as to constitute malice. It is not clear this pleading would have sufficed under the approach taken in Gombos v. Ashe, supra, 158 Cal.App.2d 517, but it is certainly sufficient under G. D. Searle & Co., supra, 49 Cal.App.3d 22, read in conjunction with Taylor. Although such a pleading might have been deemed insufficient before Taylor, we find it neither unfair nor unreasonable to permit it now, particularly because, as pointed out in Dawes, it is not clear Taylor has really changed the law as it applies to this pleading.

Conclusion:

This court hence granted the writ of mandate and ordered respondent trial court to vacate its order of summary judgment and to issue a new order denying summary judgment because punitive damages were appropriate where there was conscious disregard for safety. This court found that the actions of real party in interest drunk driver indicated a conscious disregard.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Originally published here.