Sometimes trifles cause grave ills.

No, I’m not talking about the church potluck.

Consider the situation of a rear-end car crash.  The driver behind is 100% at fault, right?  Nope.  ICBC will nearly always claim the driver in the front car did SOMETHING to contribute to the crash.  That’s what lawyers call “contributory negligence”.  Let’s say the jury accepts that the driver ahead applied his brakes suddenly (say to avoid running over a squirrel), and that was negligent: It was 1/10 the cause of the collision.  Front driver 10% at fault, rear driver 90% at fault.  Rear driver pays 90% of the judgment for the front driver’s injuries losses and harms.  So far, so good.

What if there were more than one person mostly at fault?  Say, Bill lets his drunk friend Buddy drive them home from the bar, and Buddy drives Bill’s car through a red light?  Of course, Buddy has only the minimum $200K insurance.  Bill has $5 Million.  Buddy T-Bones the car containing Mr. and Mrs. Nice and their children Vera and Raleigh.  The crash puts Mr. Nice in hospital for a month: ruptured spleen, smashed ribs, lung damage, heart damage.  He needs three years of rehab before he can return to light-duty work.  Little Vera suffers a brain injury when her head smashes into the door-frame.  She needs 24/7 care by professionals.  Not the sort of thing Mrs. Nice could do, safely.

All that care, lost income and pain and suffering comes to $4 Million.

ICBC says that Mr. Nice entered the intersection when he should have seen Buddy roaring up, clearly not intending to stop.  The jury agrees and says Mr. Nice was 10% at fault.  Buddy and Billy were equally at fault: 45% each.

So far so good?  Take 10% off the $4 Million damages, and the Nice family gets $3.6 Million, right?

Nope.

Once there is contributory negligence by a plaintiff, the defendants are no longer jointly liable for the damages they caused.  Their liability is separated – lawyers say “liability is several” (from severed).

In this scenario, 45% of the fault goes to Billy.  He’s got $5 Million insurance (more than the damages), so ICBC pays 45% of the $3.6 Million – that’s $1,620,000.  Buddy is liable for the other 45%.  Oops, he’s only got $200K total insurance.  ICBC pays that.  Of course Buddy’s also a deadbeat, so the Nices can’t collect anything from him personally.  The Nices therefore end up with $1,820,000 out of the jury’s verdict for $3.6Million ($4 Million less 10%).

Think THAT’S fair?

Our court rules prohibit telling the jury HOW MUCH insurance each party as.  Most people probably assume that ICBC will end up covering the whole tab – that’s why ICBC has a monopoly, right?  To protect people?  So, many jurors likely think their verdict will be carried out.  Hardly any assume that their verdict may result in a completely different result than what they intended.

You gotta wonder about a court system that mandates misleading the citizens who are supposed to decide the issues.

Think carefully when you think about blaming the victim.