 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anaya v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County2/13/2002
of non-economic damages arising out of the automobile collision.
2.
We hold in these writ proceedings that the City, as the owner and operator of the helicopter, is not entitled to the benefit of section 3333.4 -- because Plaintiffs' helicopter-related theories are that the City negligently inspected, serviced, maintained, equipped, and operated the helicopter, none of which are property-related theories of liability related to the City's roads and highways. Just as a products liability claim against the manufacturer of the vehicle involved in an accident lacks the "necessary connection" between the uninsured motorist's injury and his operation or use of the vehicle (Day v. City of Fontana, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 273), so too does Plaintiffs' claim against the City as the owner and operator of the helicopter lack the "necessary connection" between Plaintiffs' injury (Norma's death) and Plaintiffs' operation and use of the vehicle that collided with the sanitation truck.
The City, in its capacity as owner and operator of the helicopter, faces "no potential of direct harm to itself or its property from uninsured drivers who fail to comply with the state financial responsibility law." (Day v. City of Fontana, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 281.) In addition, there is nothing in the record before us to suggest that the City, as owner and operator of the helicopter, is "affected by the existence of uninsured motorists" or that, in this capacity, it was "among those whom the initiative was intended to protect." (Ibid.) And there is nothing about the capacity in which the City is sued as owner and operator of the helicopter "that directly implicates a 'principle of fairness having to do with the financial responsibility laws.'" (Id. at pp. 281-282.)
3.
We leave it to the parties and the trial court to draft appropriate jury instructions and verdict forms for jurors' allocation of damages, and we express no views on those issues.
DISPOSITION
The petition is granted, and a writ shall issue commanding the superior court (1) to vacate its order granting the City's motion for summary adjudication and (2) to issue a new order denying the City's motion. Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs of these writ proceedings.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.
We concur:
SPENCER, P.J.
MALLANO, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|