All About California Personal Injury Laws Intentional Acts Part 1

All You Wanted To Know About California Personal Injury Laws

Intentional Torts (Personal Injury)

Personal Injury is part of a very broad area of law which pertains to wrongs which cause personal injury or property damage. This area of law is called tort law and it derives from common law, meaning that it comes from custom. The concepts and ideas pertaining to tort law go back to England. Personal injury law like many of our other laws originated in England. Personal injury claims arise from a very simply idea which basically says that someone that has been wrong by another should be compensated, so as to put him or her back to where he or she should have been if the incident had never occurred. As simply as the concept may seem there are many different aspects to the law of torts. Claims arise under different circumstances and as result of different actions or inactions. There are many exceptions to the rule and even though the area of law is simple there are times and situations where it is not clear whether or not the particular incident gives rise to a personal injury claim.

Personal injury as many other areas of law are essentially a list of rules that give people certain rights and responsibilities. When a person is injured the person is required to prove each and every item on the laundry list. The laundry list varies and depends on the reason for why the personal injury claim was brought. A slip and fall, a car accident and a dog bite claim is each very different when it comes to the laundry list. The laundry list is provided to the jury in a set of jury instructions, the jury then decides if each item has been met. If each item has been proved the jury should be able decide in favor of the injury claimant. This is not always the case, juries sometimes do not follow the law in personal injury claims and also in some criminal cases. Juries sometimes do not want to impose liability in personal injury claims and hold back on damages for fear of increases on their own insurance claims. The public has been led to believe that personal injury claims are like winning the lottery, and that great wealth awaits the claimant. Some personal injury victims choose not make a personal injury claim, because they feel it is unethical to receive such a large sum of money for doing nothing. The reality is that personal injury claims are very difficult to litigate, because juries do not like to award large sums of money for personal injury claims and look for reasons not to award money. This is especially true in typical whiplash injury claims where there are no objective injuries. In very severe injury claims juries are much more reasonable and more inclined to award fair compensation.

INTENTIONAL PERSONAL INJURY AND TORT LAW

Intentional torts arise as result of personal injury that is caused willfully. In tort law intent means not only those results that are intended by the perpetrator, but also the natural and probable consequences which the perpetrator knows with substantial certainty are likely to result from his conduct. Intent can be expressed and it can also be implied by the commission of a wrongful act which shows the conduct to be willful or with reckless disregard for the safety of his fellow human beings. If the probability of personal injury is very high then it can be said that it was intentional. For example shooting at a crowd, even though no intent to injure a specific

person may exist, there is intent to cause personal injury to a person. Intent for the purposes of personal injury and tort law is different than criminal intent which has its own unique definitions. The definitions for personal injury claims also vary from state to state even though all the states have laws that arise from common law.

For the purposes of personal injury or tort law it is not sufficient to allege that the defendant intentionally caused or engaged in a particular act, it must also be shown that the act was done with the intent to cause injury. Attorneys often try to extend existing law to bring about favorable results when there are severe personal injuries resulting from an accident, but intent has been well defined by the courts, even though there are times when there is room for interpretation. In the case of McCollum v. CBS, Inc., 202 Cal.App.3d 989, 249 Cal.Rtpr. 187 (1988), it was held that publishing company and the recording artist were not liable on a theory of intent. The record published essentially suggested that suicide was the only answer, but the court held that it was not sufficient to show that the recording artist and the publisher intended to cause the harm, and surely most reasonable persons would agree that it was just a song. There was no evidence to show that the recording artist and the publisher intended personal injury or specifically in this case suicide. Contrary to popular belief a personal injury lawsuit does necessarily result in a favorable result and monetary compensation does come about easily. In another case, the court determined that Hertz could not be held liable for personal injury on a theory of intent to cause harm by knowledge that a certain percentage of its customers have a history of drunk driving and will consume alcohol and cause personal injury to another.

Another way of defining intentional conduct for the purpose of personal injury claims is by the definition of willful or wanton misconduct. Willful and wanton misconduct is defined in such a manner that intent becomes more flexible for the purpose of personal injury claims, again this is not the same definition for criminal matters and only applies to civil personal injury claims. The misconduct is intentional wrongful conduct with knowledge that serious injury to another will probably result or it can be with reckless disregard of the possible results. It is not a matter of actually knowing what will happen, but it is sufficient to show that it is highly likely that serious injury could result. In effect reckless is begins to take the characteristics of negligence, which is an entirely different area of personal injury and tort law.

Conduct that is willful, wanton, or reckless for personal injury and tort law refers to a state of mind and implies that the conduct was carried on with knowledge, express or implied, that serious injury is probable. In personal injury claims define willful, wanton, or reckless and the definition is not only a means of proving the intent, but it a means of proving punitive damages. Punitive damages in personal injury claims are a means of enhancing a jury verdict which in turn punishes the perpetrator. Punitive damages in personal injury claims are intended to deter the conduct that resulted in the personal injuries of the claimant. It is message to the community that tells people not to engage in that type of conduct, because there is a severe financial punishment. Punitive damages are not limited to personal injury and include other types of conduct including business torts. Punitive damages are also referred to as exemplary damages and this is exactly what these type of damages are intended to do, they are intended to make an example of the perpetrator that the community will not tolerate this type of conduct. Often personal injury claims make the news when the punitive damages are significant, but large awards for punitive damages are often larger in cases other than personal injury. Other areas of tort law include fraud for example which in business litigation often gives rise to large awards for punitive damages. The term damages is used quite a bit in personal injury and it really means compensation. It goes to a requirement that the plaintiff in a personal injury claim prove damages which include pain and suffering and medical bills as well as lost earnings.

Today we all know that driving under the influence of alcohol deserves to be punished under criminal and personal injury law, but it was a matter that had to the State Supreme court. In Taylor v. Superior Court, the supreme court held that the consumption of alcohol was not willful misconduct, but that choosing to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated was the willful misconduct.

Willful misconduct involves deliberate conduct or omissions with knowledge and appreciation of the fact that there is danger. This is significant, because of the way it applies to a person's state of mind based on the person's age and mental capacity. To prove willful misconduct in a personal injury claim, the plaintiff must prove that (1) there is actual or constructive knowledge of the danger; (2) there has to be actual or constructive knowledge that personal injury is a probable result of the danger; (3) and there has to be a conscious failure to avoid the peril, by not acting or by acting contrary to avoiding the danger. Generally speaking in personal injury law and criminal law we have no affirmative duty to act, but in some circumstances we have an affirmative duty to act. In personal injury claims the duty to act often arises from special relationships. Constructive notice essentially means should have known or could have known, such as warning sign that was not seen by the perpetrator.

The Mentally challenged, children, and infants have a different mental capacity and therefore the personal injury laws apply differently these persons. Intent has to be treated differently for this group, because they may not have the mental capacity most adults have. California Statutes specifically state that exemplary damages, or punitive damages designed to make an example of a person do not apply to minors unless it can be shown that the minor was capable of understanding that the conduct was wrongful. For the purposes of intentional personal injury and tort law a minor and an infant will be held accountable for causing the harm. No intent to cause injury is required all that is required is to show that the act was done, such as throwing a rock at another person. This is somewhat contradictory, because infants and children cannot have the state of mind required. The reasoning is probably more a matter of public policy than anything else generally there are deep pockets that can afford to pay for the personal injury claim, usually an insurance policy. It is not that the courts intended to hold a three year old liable and expect him to pay off a personal injury claim or a huge emergency medical bill and for treating the injured. The infant is held liable even if the infant does not have the mental capacity to develop intent, a personal injury claim can be made against the infant as long as the infant has the mental capacity to and state of mind to commit the wrong. It is sufficient that the infant has the mental capacity to perpetrate the violent contact with another, even if there is no intent of personal injury or sufficient mental capacity to appreciate that the contact would lead to personal injury. The term infant in personal injury and tort law means children not necessarily the common meaning of infant which to most people means children of less than 12 months of age. For the mentally challenged the same rule of exemplary or punitive damages applies in intentional personal injury claims. The mentally challenged are held liable for personal injury under California Statutes, but require that exemplary damages only apply when the person was capable of knowing that the conduct was wrongful at the time of the act.

TRANSFERRED INTENT

In California there is a doctrine called transferred intent which basically means that if a person intends to cause personal injury to one and instead causes personal injure to another that was not the intended victim then intent is still present. If a person swings his arm intending to punch someone and the person moves and someone standing behind is injured the intent transfers

as if he had intended to injure the person behind the intended victim. Similarly this rule of transferred intent in personal injury and tort law also applies to criminal

matters where intent is a necessary element of proving that crime.

CAUSATION

In intentional personal injury and tort law another element that must be proved for liability to apply is causation. The plaintiff must be able to show that the intentional actor's conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the type of harm intended by the original act. In personal injury instructions this a question presented to the jury to determine if there is liability on the part of the perpetrator. The same type of question is also presented in personal injury claims arising from negligence. Independent and superseding causes are often used as a defense in civil and criminal matters but in intentional personal injury claims it is not a defense. It is a matter of chain of causation and it does not matter how unlikely the independent or superseding cause was. The reason why there is no defense is because there is no public policy or interest advanced by permitting such a defense in personal injury claims.

In negligence personal injury claims there is the theory of comparative negligence that basically means liability is apportioned or divided depending on the degree of culpability assigned to each of the parties. In intentional personal injury claims there is no comparative negligence reduction. Another defense called assumption of the risk means the victim assumed the risk the risk of injury to himself. The assumption of the risk defense applies in intentional personal injury claims only when the injured had actual knowledge, appreciation of the specific risk and the magnitude of the risk. When the perpetrator misleads the injury claimant about the risk, the magnitude or the specific risk then the assumption of the risk defense would not apply in the personal injury claim. The primary purpose of making an intentional personal injury claim is to seek punitive or exemplary damages which enhances the award significantly. There is a constitutional limit on punitive damages, but awards of 3 to 7 times the actual damages are not uncommon. California Statutes were enacted to increase revenues to the state of California by taking a portion of punitive damage awards in personal injury and other civil claims.

California statues specify that to obtain punitive damages the plaintiff must prove oppression, fraud, or malice. Oppression, fraud, and malice are defined in detail and the plaintiff in a personal injury claim must be able to prove these elements. The courts are required to allow the jury to know what the actual damages are so punitive damages can be awarded in intentional personal injury claims. The punitive damages sum has to bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages. Sometimes the courts will reduce punitive damages awarded by a jury even though the conduct may have been particularly outrageous. There is no rule as how much a jury can award in punitive damages, factors that can be considered include the net worth of the defendant and whether there was an award of previous punitive damages. Punitive damages are not limited to personal injury claims and are awarded in other personal injury claims.