Li v. Yellow cab Company of California
13 Cal. 3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226, 119 Cal. Rptr. 858 (1975)
In this case of Nga Li v. the Yellow cab Company the dispute is all about whether or not Ms. Li should be awarded computation for her personal injuries that Robert Phillips did when he ran into her on November 21, 1968. Ms. Li was at some fault of the accident happening because she was stopped in the street and caused immediate hazard for other drivers. The driver that was at most fault was the defendant Mr. Phillips because he was going way to fast and ran a yellow light. Originally the court found that Ms. Li was contributory negligent due to her part in the accident happening. Later the court found that under the new doctrine, Mr. Philips (Yellow cab Company) would have to be liable for his portion of the accident.
In 1968 Nga Li (P) was struck on the right rear of her automobile by Robert Phillips, an employee of Yellow Cab Company (D). Mr. Phillips had been driving too fast through the intersection and collided with Ms. Li where she was stopped to make a left turn into a driveway. Ms. Li took the Yellow Cab Company to court due to personal injuries that had occurred because of the collision. The judgment for Ms. Li was that she was barred from recovery on the grounds that she was also contributory negligence. Ms. Li the plaintiff appealed.
That the Supreme Court of California concluded that the “all-or-nothing” rule of contributory negligence that exists in the state should be overruled and California should now adopt the system of “pure” comparative negligence.
Is there reasoning and rationale behind California not changing the law of comparative negligence and allowing Ms. Li to recover any damages that happened in the accident? So far 25 states have adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence, shouldn’t California?
In this case the California Supreme Court ruled that the...