Press Releases, News & Notes
October, 1997
WARNING MOTORCYCLISTS!
Court Upholds Proposition 213
AIN/INCOM, October 28, 1997-- In the first appellate ruling on California's Proposition 213, the 2nd District Court of Appeal issued a 2-1 decision upholding the constitutionality of the voter-approved uninsured motorist measure against charges that it violates equal protection and due process and California's single-subject initiative rule- The court also found that Prop 213 is retroactive and does apply to any cases that had not gone to trial by January 1st, 1997.
The ruling in Yoshioka V. Superior Court, B110759, rejected a three-pronged attack on the initiative mounted by an uninsured motorist who was rear-ended by another motorist in July 1994, well before the voting public approved Prop 213 by a margin of 3-1.
"We find that the initiative withstands constitutional muster on all three grounds and therefore must deny his petition for a writ of mandate,' wrote Justice Fred Woods, who was joined in his opinion by Justice Richard C. Neal.
The third jurist, Justice Earl Johnson, dissented, arguing that provisions of Proposition 213 should not be applied to cases that were filed before the measure went into effect. but had not reached trial by the January 1st effective date.
Although many critics complained that the law is inherently unfair because it deprives many accident victims, who are not at Fault, of the right to full recovery for their injuries, the court cited voters' 78% approval of the initiative in rendering their decision.
Proposition 213 was billed to the public as denying the right to sue to drunk drivers and fleeing felons, but also applies to California's estimated 4 million uninsured drivers (27.7%)...even if they are seriously injured or permanently disabled through no fault of their own. Also remember that the state recently lowered the Blood Alcohol Content (SAC) to .08, so if you've tipped a couple of beers and then get left-turned on your way home, you will be denied any compensation for pain and suffering and can only collect for hospital charges and actual out-of-pocket damages to your property.
"In effect, it says we will continue to pay you for the damage to your property interests - your medical bills and lost income-- but not the damage to your person.. The loss of such a right is not merely an adjustment or a cap or a reduction in the amount of damages, but the total elimination of the species of damages most closely related to our status as human beings and not mere bill-payers and work horses,' said Justice Johnson in his dissent.
An appeal of the decision to the State Supreme Court appears likely, and other appellate court decisions are pending. If those court decisions do not agree, it could further prompt the state high court to review the measure. Aid to Injured Motorcyclists (AIM) will continue to fight alongside other consumer rights advocates to right this wrong to innocent traffic accident victims, but in the meantime California motorcyclists are warned to GET INSURED, and RIDE SAFE & SOBER.
NOTE: In addition to the uninsured motorist provisions of Proposition 213, on January 1st, 1997, AB65O, the Mandatory Enforcement of the Financial Responsibility Law, went into effect and it is now mandatory to SHOW PROOF OF INSURANCE in order to register your vehicle, if you am stopped' bye police officer for a traffic violation, or am involved in an accident Failure to do so can result in heavy fines and impoundment of the vehicle.
