LA commuter rail crash II

More on the LA commuter rail crash (Jan. 27): the Los Angeles Times covers the legal aspects of the case, and suggests prospects of recovery are “slim,” because the accident is Alvarez’s doing. Ten paragraphs into the article, however, the Times acknowledges the principle of joint and several liability, whereby the railroad could be on […]

More on the LA commuter rail crash (Jan. 27): the Los Angeles Times covers the legal aspects of the case, and suggests prospects of recovery are “slim,” because the accident is Alvarez’s doing. Ten paragraphs into the article, however, the Times acknowledges the principle of joint and several liability, whereby the railroad could be on the hook for the entirety of the economic damages if they’re found 1% responsible for the accident. (Tort reform in California has abolished joint-and-several liability for non-economic damages. Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1431.2.) Overlawyered has covered numerous cases where the deep pocket was held responsible for the crime of another: for example, ankle monitor manufacturer 20% responsible for murder; apartment complex responsible for carjacking and shooting; beer vendor 50% responsible (plus punitives) for drunk driving accident; automaker jointly liable for drunk driving accident.

Also entertaining is the discussion of the five investigators the California Bar felt they had to send to the scene of the crime and local hospitals to shoo away potentially illegal solicitation by attorneys. (Henry Weinstein, “Victims’ Chances of Winning Big Money Are Slim”, Jan. 28).

One Comment

  • Shark Bating

    At his Notes from the (Legal) Underground, Evan Schaeffer asks: