The Facts
Russell Glen Day was driving his motorcycle when a car driven by William Honda struck him in an intersection. Mr. Day then filed this action against Mr. Honda, the County of San Bernardino, and the City of Fontana. As against the city and county, Mr. Day alleged in part that the county and the city created or had actual or constructive notice of overgrown vegetation on public and private property surrounding the intersection, and that such vegetation created a vision obstruction for motorists traveling through the intersection.
At the time of the accident, Day did not have liability insurance on his motorcycle as required by state law. Discovery of that fact prompted the county and the city to file a motion to exclude from trial any evidence of damages for pain and suffering. The trial court granted the motion and excluded the evidence.
At trial, a jury determined that Day was not at fault in the accident. The jury awarded him $454,574.21 in economic damages and allocated responsibility for those damages between Honda (52 percent), the County (5 percent), and the City (43 percent).
Day was given no compensation for his pain and suffering.
You Decide
Was the trial court right in not allowing evidence of pain and suffering?
Scroll down…….
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yes
“Section 3333.4 of the Civil Code limits the ability of uninsured motorists and convicted drunk drivers to recover losses [for pain and suffering] in certain accidents.” Therefore, Mr. Day was not entitled to recovery. In short, you have a lot to lose if you drive without insurance, and even more to lose if you drive drunk.
The California Appellate Court’s opinion was published on April 5, 2001 as Day v. City of Fontana