Trusted Content
命題213：基礎知識
喺1996年，加州選民通過咗第213號提案（「213號提案」），呢個亦都係個人責任法，第213號提案對加州司機喺車禍中受傷嘅賠償有深遠嘅影響。非經濟損害通常稱為「痛苦同苦難」嘅損害，包括身體損傷、毀容同聯盟損失嘅賠償。呢啲損害同醫療費用或者損失嘅收入唔同，呢啲損害冇一個精確、可量化嘅金額。
之後，加州立法機關將213號提案編碼為民法第3333.3同3333.4條。具體嚟講，民法3333.3適用於喺犯重罪嗰陣受傷嘅司機：
喺任何基於疏忽嘅損害賠償訴訟中，如果原告嘅傷害係以任何方式由原告犯下任何重罪，或者即時逃離呢個罪行近似引起，而原告已經被正式定罪，一個人就唔可以追回任何損害賠償。
Civil Code section 3333.4 contains similar language and applies to persons driving without insurance or driving drunk at the time of the incident. Indeed, one major purposes of Prop 13 was to lower insurance premiums in California by reducing insurance companies’ liability for certain types of crashes. (Valentich v. United States [Prop 213 limits claims for those who contribute nothing to the insurance pool].) Over the 25 years since Prop 213 was enacted, California courts have helped defined the contours of the law. Indeed, it has been a controversial law and has withstood numerous constitutional challenges including those brought under the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. In fact, California courts interpreting Prop 13 have done so broadly.
For example, in Day v. City of Fontana, an uninsured motorcyclist was injured after colliding with a car while driving on a public roadway. The motorcyclist sued the City of Fontana, amongst other defendants for his injuries. The motorcyclist’s theory against the city was that the city had allowed vegetation at an intersection to become overgrown, thus blocking the motorcyclist’s sight lines. However, the trial Court refused to allow the motorcyclist to present evidence related to his noneconomic damages at trial. The Court of Appeals ultimately agreed, finding that Prop 213 applied to the motorcyclist. Importantly, Day v. City of Fontana is a reminder to all drivers, motorcyclists included, that they should always carry insurance while driving.
另一個廣泛嘅例子係Honsickle 訴高等法院嘅例子，喺Honsickle案中，司機曾經善意地試圖獲得保險，但係被保險公司拒絕。 213號提案嘅例外。即係話司機要喺意外發生嗰日有責任保險，先可以避開213號提案嘅收回上限。
呢個唔代表第213條係完全冇例外。事實上，民法第3333.4條嘅明確語言創造咗幾個例外。具體嚟講，第3333.4條允許一個冇保險嘅司機向一個喺撞車期間被定罪嘅司機收取經濟損害賠償，而第213條條例唔適用於喺未保險嘅公司駕駛車輛嘅員工insure 213嘅另一個重要例外係當一部車嘅司機喺另一架車上面有保險，但係涉及車禍嘅車輛係冇保險嘅，而且係由另一個人擁有。
Ultimately, it is important for every California driver to understand the basics of Prop 213. It has had the unfortunate effect of prohibiting indigent drivers who cannot afford insurance from collecting the full value of their personal injury auto claims. If you or a loved one are involved in a crash there may be additional legal complexities due to Prop 213 that require the knowledge and expertise of an attorney. The lawyers at MKP Law Group, LLP have years of experience working with persons who are injured in all sorts of crashes, including those categories specifically identified by Prop 213. If you or a loved one was hurt in a crash, contact MKP Law Group, LLP online or call us at 310-870-3395 for your 100% free consultation today.
