Understanding Proposition 51 and How It Affects Shared Liability

Proposition 51, also known as the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986, governs shared liability in personal injury cases. When more than one party is responsible for causing an injury in California, determining which party bears legal responsibility for payment can be legally complex.

Understanding how Proposition 51 works is important for anyone pursuing a claim that involves more than one defendant.

What Proposition 51 changed

Prior to the enactment of Proposition 51, California followed the traditional doctrine of joint and several liability, under which, where more than one defendant was found liable for an injury, any one defendant could be held responsible for the entirety of the plaintiff’s damages, regardless of that defendant’s proportionate fault.

As a result, plaintiffs often went after the defendant with the most resources, known as the “deep pocket,” even if that party was only partly responsible.

Proposition 51 modified this framework with respect to non-economic damages. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1431.2, each defendant is only responsible for their share of non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life) in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault.

Even with the updated rule for non-economic damages, joint and several liability still applies to economic damages. Under the joint and several liability rule, any defendant can be held liable for the full amount of economic damages, including medical bills, lost wages, and other financial losses.

How the law works in multi-defendant cases

A simple example helps show how this works in practice. Consider three people involved in a car accident. The plaintiff has $200,000 in economic damages and $300,000 in non-economic damages. If the jury finds Defendant A is 60% at fault and Defendant B is 40% at fault:

• Economic damages – Both defendants are jointly and severally liable for the full $200,000. If Defendant B cannot pay, Defendant A may have to pay the entire amount.
• Non-economic damages – Defendant A is responsible for $180,000 (60% of $300,000), and Defendant B is responsible for $120,000 (40% of $300,000). Neither has to pay more than their share of non-economic damages.

The difference matters most when one defendant cannot pay, for example, if they are insolvent or uninsured. In these cases, the plaintiff might not be able to collect all of their non-economic damages.

That is why it is important to plan your case early. A personal injury lawyer can help find all possible responsible parties to improve your chances at full recovery.

Why Proposition 51 often benefits certain defendants

In practice, under Proposition 51, defendants with more financial resources, like employers, corporations, or government agencies, can limit how much they pay for non-economic damages.

Before this law, a plaintiff could ask the “deep pocket” defendant to pay the full amount if other defendants could not pay. Now, each defendant only pays their share of non-economic damages proportional to their share of fault. This can be a problem for plaintiffs if one defendant is uninsured or has few assets.

This issue is magnified in cases where non-economic damages make up most of the damages award. In serious injuries with significant pain and suffering, emotional distress, or loss of quality of life, non-economic damages can be substantially higher than economic damages.

When Proposition 51 limits a wealthy defendant’s share to their percentage of fault, the plaintiff can lose out on significant compensation. That is why it is important to find every possible responsible party and obtain insurance information early in cases with multiple defendants.

When Proposition 51 does not apply

There are important exceptions to Proposition 51’s application:

Intentional torts

After the California Supreme Court’s ruling in B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020), defendants liable for intentional wrongful acts generally cannot invoke Proposition 51 to reduce their share of non-economic damages.

Vicarious liability

When a defendant’s liability is derived from someone else’s conduct, such as an employer being held liable for an employee’s negligence under respondeat superior, the vicariously liable defendant can be held responsible for the entire share of non-economic damages attributable to the tortfeasor.

Strict liability cases

Courts apply Proposition 51 in strict product liability cases, but the interaction between strict liability and comparative fault remains fact-specific.

How Proposition 51 affects settlement strategy

Proposition 51 impacts how certain personal injury cases are settled.

Defendants with a small share of fault are less likely to offer large settlements because they would only have to pay their share of non-economic damages at trial. Obtaining a settlement from only one defendant in a multi-defendant case could make it more difficult to recover the full amount of damages from the remaining defendants.

A defendant who settles prior to the other defendants may seek a “good faith settlement” determination from the court, which can bar other defendants from pursuing contribution from them. This can complicate the allocation of the remaining liability. A personal injury lawyer can help by analyzing fault, reviewing available insurance coverage and assets, and negotiating the best outcome.

The role of comparative fault

Proposition 51 operates in conjunction with California’s pure comparative fault system. In this system, the plaintiff’s own negligence is also considered, which can lower the amount of non-economic damages they can collect from each defendant. For instance, if the plaintiff is 20% at fault, their recovery is reduced by 20%, and the remaining 80% is allocated among each defendant.

Common scenarios where Proposition 51 applies

Proposition 51 often appears in cases, including, but not limited to:

• Multi-car accidents with more than one driver at fault.
• Premises liability claims where both a property owner and another party caused a dangerous condition.
• Medical malpractice cases with several healthcare providers.

In all of these situations, knowing the difference between economic and non-economic damages and how each is divided can significantly impact the result.

Protecting your claim in multi-defendant cases

When more than one party is responsible for an injury, the legal process becomes more complex. Proposition 51 is a key part of this framework in California.

To handle your case properly, you need to know how fault is divided, how damages are sorted, and how to plan settlements based on each defendant’s resources. If you have been hurt in an accident with multiple parties, contact McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP to talk to a personal injury lawyer who can help protect your rights and pursue fair compensation.