Features

SAN FRANCISCO — Uninsured motorists injured in an auto accident caused by a government agency’s negligence cannot collect damages for pain and suffering, a divided California Supreme Court ruled Thursday. 

The high court said 1996 voter-approved Proposition 213 precludes such awards against the government, although the measure does allow uninsured motorists to collect damages to recover medical expenses, lost wages and other out-of-pocket costs. 

In the second time the court has ruled on Proposition 213, the justices ruled 5-2 that the measure prohibits most uninsured motorists from collecting damages for pain and suffering even if the accident was not the uninsured’s fault. Pain and suffering awards can run to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars. 

Justice Stanley Mosk, in a sharp dissent, said the proposition only was intended to immunize insured drivers from paying such damages. He said the court’s majority is wrongly interpreting the measure by granting immunity to government agencies, the bodies responsible for ensuring  

safe roadways. 

“Compensating the victims of injuries caused by unsafe design or maintenance of public streets for pain and suffering operates as a strong incentive for cities and counties to prevent or abate dangerous conditions, thus minimizing risks to the public,” Mosk wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Joyce L. Kennard. “It also serves the important social goal of compensating injured persons for damages caused by the negligent acts of public entities.” 

Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote that the majority’s view on Proposition 213 was fair. What would be unfair is holding a government agency liable for huge pain-and-suffering awards for uninsured motorists, he said. 

That is because governmental bodies must pay for damage to city property caused by an uninsured motorist involved in an accident, Baxter wrote. Siding with the uninsured motorist, he said, would undermine the proposition’s goal “to prevent such drivers from being rewarded for their irresponsibility and law breaking.” 

It is a violation of California law to drive without proof of auto insurance. Proposition 213 passed after it was estimated that one-fourth of the driving public does not have auto insurance. was intended to limit the courthouse rights of the uninsured. 

The case decided Thursday involved a 19-year-old uninsured motorcyclist who suffered severe injuries during a 1991 auto accident in Fontana. After waiting years for a trial, a jury found Fontana and San Bernardino County responsible for half the accident because of their negligence in roadway maintenance. 

The motorcyclist’s trial came months after the 1996 proposition became law. The court did not concern itself that his injuries occurred five years before the measure’s passage. 

The hedges and weeds that obstructed the roadway and partly caused the accident have since been cleared. 

“Whether he had insurance or not, it was still an unsafe roadway,” said Wayne McClean, the motorcyclist’s attorney. 

In all, the jury awarded the injured motorcyclist $455,000. That money, to pay for Russell Day’s lost wages and medical expenses, is not enough to cover future surgeries Day will need, McClean said. 

Dennis E. Wagner, San Bernardino County deputy county counsel, said he was pleased with the decision. 

“Frankly, I’m assuming that perhaps government entities around the state will have a sigh of relief regarding this issue,” Wagner said. 

Still, in 1999, the high court said uninsured motorists could collect damages for pain and suffering from an automobile manufacturer in a product liability case. 

The case decided Thursday is Day vs. Fontana, S084616.