CALL 916-777-7777
Youtube Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in

Pure Comparative Negligence Insurance Claims in California

FREE EVALUATION (916) 777-7777

What Is Pure Comparative Negligence?

When you have been involved in a California motor vehicle accident, it is important to understand your legal rights. In auto accidents involving multiple defendants or pile-up crashes, it can be difficult to apportion fault amongst defendants and arrive at an accurate award of damages. A pure comparative negligence system of recovery attempts to resolve issues of determining recovery when multiple defendants are involved.

California currently follows a system of pure comparative negligence to award damages to victims in auto accidents and other tort cases. Comparative negligence is a system used to determine the relative liability of defendants and damages available to accident victims. In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, each defendant is only liable for his or her percentage of fault. A plaintiff is still able to recover damages in a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, even if he or she was at fault in contributing to the accident. The ultimate award of damages for a plaintiff will be reduced by his or her own percentage of fault.

Perhaps you have missed work or suffered medical expenses as a result of your auto accident and want to understand the forms of monetary recovery available to you. California auto accident lawyers are here to help you understand your legal rights. Contact an auto accident attorney at the Arnold Law Firm to learn more about your legal rights and receive a free case evaluation.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

SETTLEMENT

$60,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit.

Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

A whistleblower case exposing fraudulent practices in the state of California resulted…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$17,000,000

Data Breach

The Arnold Law Firm reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach…
Learn More

SETTLEMENT

$8,000,000

Truck Accident

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young…
Learn More

JUDGEMENT

$3,900,000

Car Accident

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck…
Learn More

Overview of Comparative Fault, Contributory Negligence and Joint and Several Liability

Jurisdictions that have adopted comparative fault, contributory negligence or joint and several liability may vary greatly in the apportionment of damages for plaintiffs. Victims involved in auto accidents should understand the system of recovery used in their jurisdiction, because a particular system may have a significant impact on their award.

  • Comparative fault is a system of recovery in which the defendant is responsible for damages based on the percentage of fault attributable to him or her. Comparative negligence jurisdictions are further divided into jurisdictions that follow pure comparative negligence or modified comparative negligence.
  • Contributory negligence refers to a system that completely bars a negligent plaintiff from recovery. Even if a plaintiff is 1 percent at fault in an accident, that plaintiff will be unable to receive any compensation. The rule is renowned for its harsh effect on the recovery of plaintiffs. The exception to this rule is the Last Clear Chance Rule, in which negligent plaintiffs are still able to recover compensation if they can show that a defendant had the last clear chance to avoid an injury. Contributory negligence is a rule followed by the minority of states in the U.S.
  • Joint and several liability is a rule that enables a plaintiff to recover the entire award of damages from any liable defendant. The defendants then must sue one another for contribution. California has modified its application of joint and several liability and bars this rule in cases involving the recovery of non-economic damages. California still applies joint and several liability for cases involving medical expenses, loss of earnings, burial costs, property losses, costs of repair and other damages with a specific calculation.

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

How Does Comparative Negligence Work?

There are currently two types of comparative negligence systems, and they are the pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence systems. Pure comparative negligence systems compensate plaintiffs for damages based on each party’s percentage of fault. Modified comparative negligence systems compensate plaintiffs only if a plaintiffs own fault does not exceed a certain percentage. In both pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence jurisdictions, a judge or jury will be responsible for determining the percentage of fault attributable to each party involved in the personal injury case.

Is California a Comparative or Contributory Negligence State?

California uses a pure comparative negligence system to determine the ultimate monetary compensation awarded to plaintiffs. California’s judicial system began following pure comparative negligence in 1975, with its decision in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 3d 804 (1975). In that case, a plaintiff had made a left turn over three lanes of traffic. At the same time, the defendants speeding vehicle struck the plaintiffs car. The California Supreme Court was faced with the decision of whether to continue to apply the common law rule of contributory negligence or to begin implementing comparative negligence in tort cases. Ultimately, the court held that comparative negligence was a preferable rule to the all-or-nothing contributory negligence rule.

The California judiciary continued to elaborate on its interpretation of comparative negligence in cases like American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978). In that case, the court addressed the need for a fair way of apportioning liability in cases involving multiple tortfeasors and adopted a rule of pure comparative negligence. American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) dealt with a case in which a boy alleged he was injured in a cross-country race due to the negligent construction of the course, while the defendant counter-claimed that the boys parents were also negligent in consenting to his participation in the race. The court concluded that Lis rationale continued to apply and that California’s tort system should apportion liability amongst multiple defendants.

Today, pure comparative negligence may function as a defense for a defendant involved in an auto accident with multiple defendants. The California judicial system allows a defendant to claim comparative negligence as a defense to reduce his or her own fault in a case. For example, a defendant who is only 20 percent at fault for contributing to a car accident will only be 20 percent liable for the ultimate award that a plaintiff receives. On the other hand, a defendant who is 95 percent at fault must cover 95 percent of the damages that a plaintiff receives. If the court finds that a plaintiff has suffered $100,000 in damages, then a defendant who is 95 percent at fault must pay $95,000 to that plaintiff. The judge or jury is tasked with determining the percentage of liability that is allocated to each defendant, as well as the amount of damages a plaintiff is entitled to receive.

The total damages award is made up of economic, non-economic and punitive damages. Economic damages are those damages that are easily calculated, which include lost wages and medical expenses. The court has greater discretion in calculating the total non-economic damages that a plaintiff may receive, which include pain and suffering and loss of consortium. Loss of consortium is also known as loss of enjoyment of life. The California Civil Code § 3294 defines punitive damages as those that result from malicious, fraudulent or oppressive behavior attributable to the defendant. A plaintiff must prove punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence.

Pure Comparative Negligence Jurisdictions

In pure comparative negligence jurisdictions, plaintiffs may still recover damages even if they are partially at fault in a negligence case. This rule also benefits plaintiffs involved in negligence actions in which their percentage of fault exceeds a defendants percentage of fault. For example, Rob and Sarah are involved in a car crash. In that case, the jury decides that Rob (the plaintiff) is 51 percent at fault for causing his own injuries, while Sarah (the defendant) is 49 percent at fault. Even though Robs percentage of fault outweighs Sarah’s fault, he can still recover compensation if the jury returns a verdict in his favor.

In a different example, perhaps the jury determines that Rob (the plaintiff) is 99 percent at fault for causing his own injuries, while Sarah (the defendant) is only 1 percent at fault. In this example, it would still be possible for Rob to recover 1 percent of the ultimate damages award from Sarah. His ultimate award would be reduced by 99 percent of the damages, but he would still be able to recover 1 percent of the award. Pure comparative negligence jurisdictions empower plaintiffs in allowing them to recover an award even in cases when their own negligence is greater than a defendants negligence.

Currently, there are 13 states that use a pure comparative negligence system of recovery. They are listed as follows:

  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • California
  • Florida
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Rhode Island
  • South Dakota
  • Washington

Modified Comparative Negligence Jurisdictions

In modified comparative negligence jurisdictions, plaintiffs face greater restrictions in obtaining compensation depending on their percentage of fault. While plaintiffs can still recover damages even if they are 99 percent at fault in pure comparative negligence states, this is not the case with modified comparative negligence states. Modified comparative negligence jurisdictions are divided according to those that abide by the 50 percent rule and those that abide by the 51 percent rule.

WE FIGHT FOR YOUR MAXIMUM INJURY COMPENSATION

Free Case Evaluation
CALL 916-777-7777

Comparative vs. Contributory Negligence

Comparative negligence enables otherwise negligent plaintiffs to continue to recover for their injuries despite this negligence. On the other hand, contributory negligence acts as a total bar to recovery for negligent plaintiffs. While a defendant may raise either rule as a defense, the only effect of comparative negligence is to reduce the plaintiffs ultimate recovery by his or her own negligence. In contributory negligence cases, a defendant is totally relieved from liability due to a plaintiffs contributory negligence.

In considering comparative negligence and contributory negligence, it is useful to analyze the impact of each rule in the context of a case involving a plaintiff who has contributed to her own fault. For example, perhaps there is a case involving a defendant who was speeding on the road and failed to signal a lane change. The jury finds the defendant 80 percent at fault, while it finds a plaintiff 20 percent at fault for talking on a cell phone at the time of the accident. If the defendant raises comparative negligence as a defense, then he will be required to pay for 80 percent of the plaintiffs award. If the defendant raises contributory negligence as a defense, then the plaintiff will not be able to recover anything for her damages.

California auto accident lawyers can help you if you have been involved in an accident that may involve principles of pure comparative negligence. Feel free to call one of our lawyers for an initial consultation of your auto accident case.

Negligence Systems across the U.S.

The following table summarizes pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence jurisdictions across the U.S.:

Pure Comparative Negligence 50 Percent Rule 51 Percent Rule
Alaska Arkansas Connecticut
Arizona Colorado Delaware
California Georgia Hawaii
Florida Idaho Illinois
Kentucky Kansas Indiana
Louisiana Maine Iowa
Mississippi Nebraska Massachusetts
Missouri North Dakota Michigan
New Mexico Oklahoma Minnesota
New York Tennessee Montana
Rhode Island Utah Nevada
South Dakota West Virginia New Hampshire
Washington New Jersey
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Texas
Vermont
Wisconsin

 

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

List of States Following the 50 Percent Rule

The 50 percent rule allows a plaintiff to recover damages only if he or she is 49 percent at fault or less. Stated in another way, a plaintiff is completely barred from recovery if he or she is 50 percent at fault or more. In a hypothetical example, a plaintiff found to be 48 percent at fault may still recover damages in this jurisdiction. However, that same plaintiff may not recover damages if he or she is 50 percent at fault. The following 12 states adhere to the 50 percent rule:

  • Arkansas
  • Colorado
  • Georgia
  • Idaho
  • Kansas
  • Maine
  • Nebraska
  • North Dakota
  • Oklahoma
  • Tennessee
  • Utah
  • West Virginia

List of States Following the 51 Percent Rule

The 51 percent rule states that an accident victim may only recover damages if his or her percentage of fault does not reach 51 percent. In other words, a plaintiff must be found to be 50 percent at fault or less in order to recover damages under this rule. A plaintiffs compensation will also be reduced based on his or her percentage of fault. The following 21 states apply the 51 percent rule:

  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Hawaii
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Iowa
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Montana
  • Nevada
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • Ohio
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • South Carolina
  • Texas
  • Vermont
  • Wisconsin
  • Wyoming

Types of Cases Involving Pure Comparative Negligence

Our personal injury lawyers handle a variety of cases that involve pure comparative negligence. Here are some types of cases our attorneys handle and that may involve pure comparative negligence:

  • Car Accidents
  • Truck Accidents
  • Motorcycle Accidents
  • Boating Accidents
  • Other Vehicular Accidents
  • Personal Injury Accidents

In auto accidents involving pure comparative negligence, there are also certain cases in which a plaintiffs recovery may be reduced by his or her own negligence. According to the California Office of Traffic Safety, distracted driving is involved in 80 percent of vehicle accidents. Some of the behaviors that may contribute to a plaintiffs percentage of fault in auto accidents may include:

  • Texting while driving
  • Talking on a cell phone
  • Listening to loud music
  • Applying cosmetics
  • Consuming food or drinks
  • Fatigue
  • Reading maps or other materials

Even if you were an accident victim and engaged in one of these distracted driving behaviors, you still may be able to obtain recovery. Contact one of our California auto accident lawyers to learn more about pure comparative negligence laws and how they may impact your case.

Damages and Recovery for Plaintiffs in Pure Comparative Negligence Cases

Even if a plaintiff has contributed fault to his or her own injuries, there are various forms of recovery that may still be available. Pure comparative negligence jurisdictions like California still allow a plaintiff to obtain compensation when he or she has been negligent in an accident. The following types of damages may be available to plaintiffs in pure comparative negligence jurisdictions:

  • Lost Wages (past, present and future)
  • Medical Expenses
  • Pain and Suffering
  • Loss of Consortium
  • Property Damages
  • Punitive Damages

"*" indicates required fields

Address*
SMS*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Need Help? Contact Our Skilled Lawyers Today

If you have questions about a pure comparative negligence claim, don’t delay in speaking with one of our auto accident lawyers to discuss your legal options. You may be eligible to recover compensation for lost wages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and property damage.

We are committed to resolving your legal issues in a timely manner and have successfully litigated many car, motorcycle and truck accident cases in the Sacramento area.

To contact us today, call our team at (916) 777-7777. There are no upfront costs and your initial case review is free.

LATEST NEWS

Treble Damages in California Trucking Cases

justice4you January 30, 2026

California law provides a specific statutory remedy for victims injured by impaired commercial vehicle drivers when their employers fail to meet federal safety requirements. Understanding when treble damages apply—and how they differ from standard punitive damages—is crucial for truck accident victims seeking maximum compensation. What Are Treble Damages? Treble damages allow injured parties to recover three times their actual damages under specific legal circumstances. In California trucking cases, this remedy is narrowly defined and differs significantly from general punitive damages available in other personal injury cases. California Civil Code § 3333.7: Statutory Treble Damages Requirements for Recovery Under California Civil Code § 3333.7, injured parties may recover treble damages from a commercial motor vehicle driver’s employer when all of the

California Trucking Accidents: Standards of Care

justice4you January 29, 2026

California law establishes different standards of care for trucking operations depending on the type of service provided. While most commercial trucking companies transporting freight are subject to ordinary negligence standards, federal motor carrier safety regulations impose enhanced duties that can significantly affect liability in truck accident cases. Key Takeaways: Commercial carriers of goods generally DO NOT have the duty of “utmost care” Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) DO create heightened standards in specific situations Large truck drivers must exercise greater caution than ordinary motorists Licensed motor carriers have nondelegable safety duties Common Carrier Standard: When Does “Utmost Care” Apply? The Enhanced Duty for Passenger Transportation California Civil Code section 2100 requires carriers of persons for reward to use “the

Punitive Damages in California Personal Injury Cases

justice4you January 28, 2026

What Are Punitive Damages? Punitive damages are extra money a court can order a wrongdoer to pay, on top of the money that compensates an injured person for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The main goal of punitive damages is not to repay the victim, but to punish especially bad behavior and to discourage similar conduct in the future. Think of punitive damages as a financial penalty for conduct that is much worse than ordinary carelessness. In California, punitive damages are not common. They are reserved for cases where the defendant’s conduct is particularly harmful, intentional, or shows a conscious disregard for the safety or rights of others. Most personal injury cases involve simple negligence (for example,

Settlement - $3,900,000

Car Accident

The fatal collision between plaintiff’s Jeep Liberty and defendant’s Volvo truck left Ryan Eisenbrandt’s surviving wife and parents with a judgment of $3.9 million, but the defendant’s insurance company refused to pay. This resulted in a second, intense legal battle between Plaintiffs and Defendant’s insurance company.

During the pendency of the wrongful death case, Defendant’s insurance company had filed a federal court action to rescind the defendants $1,000,000 insurance policy, claiming that defendant had made misrepresentations when applying for that policy. Initially, the federal court agreed with the insurance company, granting summary judgment that effectively denied recovery to the Eisenbrandts given the defendant was otherwise insolvent. The Arnold firm and the Eisenbrandts refused to accept this unfair outcome. They appealed the federal judge’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court and sent the case back to the same federal judge for a trial on the merits.

Christine Doyle of the Arnold Firm tried the case in February 2011 in front of the same judge who had previously thrown out the Eisenbrandt’s case. A unanimous advisory jury and the trial judge, after hearing the true facts about the insurance company’s effort to avoid responsibility, found in the Eisenbrandts favor. After four years of fighting for what is right, the insurance company was ordered to pay up.

Settlement - $8,000,000

Truck Accident

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

Late one spring afternoon, the Arnold Law Firm received a call from Angela, a young mother of three. She was calling from the hospital where her husband Christopher had been air-lifted for treatment of severe injuries from a tragic motor vehicle accident earlier that day. Angela’s mother, a past client of our firm, had encouraged her to give us a call.

As it turns out, Angela’s prompt contact with us was a very important decision for their family. Immediate representation allowed our team to secure critical evidence right away — appropriate storage and analysis of the vehicle to avoid tampering, timely professional photography of the scene, and interviews of involved parties — which ended up being imperative to the details of Christopher’s case.

A commercial vehicle had failed to stop at a rural stop-sign intersection, colliding with the compact sedan driven by Christopher, an active 33-year-old father. The impact caused extensive damage to his spinal cord in the cervical area. Despite multiple surgeries, rehabilitation programs for physical and psychological therapy, and in-home care, his injuries rendered him a paraplegic, paralyzed from the mid-chest. In an instant, life as he had known it was gone forever.

At the time of the accident, the at-fault driver of the commercial vehicle was acting within the scope of his employment with a large corporation. With the employer being directly liable, as such, defense counsel fought hard to minimize Christopher’s damages, claiming that his being unemployed at that time devalued his losses. Our legal team made sure Christopher’s true losses were represented, including his potential income, his options and mobility, his ability to provide for and support his family, and the lifetime of care he now needed. Christopher’s injuries also dramatically affected his spouse’s daily life, resulting in a claim on her behalf.

Furthermore, the extent of Christopher’s injuries were, in part, due to defects involving the dual-restraint system in his own vehicle. Despite the manufacturer’s efforts to deny any responsibility, the Arnold Law Firm established negligence relevant to his case.

The result was a settlement of $8 million — the largest pre-trial settlement for this type of case in the region. Christopher now has the resources to receive the ongoing care he now requires, improve the quality of his life and take care of his young family.

Verdict - $10,200,000

Motorcycle Accident

The Arnold Law Firm is pleased to report that our attorneys received a $10.2 million verdict handed down in Modesto. Defense counsel was Kevin Cholakian of San Francisco. The defense rejected a 998 within the $1 million policy limits three years ago. The highest defense offer was $350k.

The case involved a blind corner dirt fire road collision between a truck driven by the defendant and a motorcycle driven by the plaintiff Dan Nixon. THe plaintiff had no recollection of the collision. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had too much speed for the corner and lost control. The plaintiff’s son (who identified the wrong curve in discovery) claimed that the defendant was on the wrong side of the curve, causing his dad to make an unsuccessful emergency maneuver. The jury assessed 70% fault to the defendant and 30% to plaintiff.

The plaintiff, now 50-years-old, suffered a dislocated right knee with popliteal artery rupture which has left him with an unstable knee, and permanently damaged lower leg. Because of vascular damage he is not a candidate for knee reconstruction or replacement. The plaintiff’s treating doctors testified that he will require an above knee amputation within 20 years. Past lost wages were $78,000 and past medicals were $570,000. The jury awarded $7.5 million in general damages (3 m. past and 4.5 m. future) as well as all future economic damages asked for by the plaintiff. The jury deliberated for 3 and a half hours.

Settlement - $17,000,000

Data Breach

Infinity/Kemper Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, and Mason, Lietz, & Klinger, and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP, reached a settlement in the Kemper and Infinity data breach class action lawsuit, also known as Irma Carrera et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, filed in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:20-cv-01883. The settlement is valued at over $17 million.

The Honorable Judge Martha M. Pacold granted Preliminary Approval of the settlement on October 27, 2021.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the class members will receive access to Aura’s Financial Shield Services for a period of 18 months, up to $10,000 for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses reasonably traceable to the Data Breach, up to 3 hours of time spent remedying issues related to the breach at $18 per hour, and $50 for Class Members who are California residents.

History of the data breach: On April 8, 2021, the Arnold Law Firm and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman, & Herz LLP filed the first class action complaint against Kemper and Infinity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Irma Carrera Aguallo et al. v. Kemper Corporation and Infinity Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01883. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se, (3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices, (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices, (5) violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq., (6) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., (7) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statute § 501.201, et seq., (8) breach of implied contract, (9) declaratory judgment, and (10) unjust enrichment arising from the data breach.

Settlement - $18,276,000

Qui Tam / Whistleblower

Whistleblowers Represented by Arnold Law Firm Expose Fraudulent Practices by the Pill Club, Case Settled With California DOJ

The Arnold Law Firm and the Hirst Law Group represented two whistleblowers who helped expose fraudulent practices by a start-up online pharmacy company called The Pill Club.

The company allegedly used fraudulent practices to bill California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, for their services. The Pill Club is also alleged to have violated state laws by allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe contraceptive products to women without proper supervision or training from a licensed medical doctor.

For their part in blowing the whistle on the company they worked for, and as part of California Qui Tam laws, the whistleblowers and their attorneys recovered $4.9 million from the $18.275 million settlement paid to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California Department of Insurance (CDI).

Settlement - $60,000,000

Data Breach

Morgan Stanley Class Action Data Breach Settlement Attained by the Arnold Law Firm

The Arnold Law Firm, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. and others, reached a settlement in the Morgan Stanley data breach class action lawsuit, also known as In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-05914-AT. The settlement resulted in a $60 million settlement fund to benefit class members.

The Motion for Preliminary Approval was filed on December 31, 2021 with the Honorable Judge Analisa Torres.

In addition to substantial injunctive relief, the 15 million class members will be provided access to Aura’s Financial Shield services for at least two years, which includes a $1 million insurance policy protecting each subscriber, credit monitoring, identity freezing, dark web monitoring, income tax protection and more services. The fund will also provide payments to people who submit valid claims for out-of-pocket expenses and/or up to four hours of lost-time incurred as a result of the data breach. Lost time allows victims of the data breach to be paid at $25 per hour for up to four hours of attested time spent dealing with the data breach. Out-of-pocket expenses can be claimed up to $10,000 if the costs or expenditures are fairly traceable to the data breach.

History of the data breach: On July 29, 2020, the Arnold Law Firm and Morgan & Morgan filed the first class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Sylvia Tillman et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05914. The complaint asserted claims against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) negligence per se; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unlawful Business Practices; and (6) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Unfair Business Practices.

Settlement - $3,767,000

Truck Accident

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.