Martin Di Caro reports that the “Bicycle and Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Amendment Act of 2014” is unlikely to make it out of the Judiciary and Public Safety Commitee tomorrow and so will die. It has been expanded to include other vulnerable users.
According to Di Caro, Cheh is the swing vote and is going to vote against it.
Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), says she cannot support the legislation in its current form. It would compromise crash victims' ability — especially in major accidents — to be fully compensated if they are injured by more than one person, she says.
There she's referencing Joint and Several liability. The plan was to amend the law to protect J&SL. The amendment was based on a similar one from some other state (I didn't write down which one. Oregon maybe?)
So that would leave Wells and, I believe, Bonds for - and Cheh, Bowser and Evans against. So, we'll see.
It is interesting that one of the two parties opposed to the bill is the Trial Lawyers Association and that comparing their list of leadership to Mary Cheh's Office of Campaign Finance Report, they contributed at least $14,500 of the $368,000+ she's raised since 2006.
Update: From a DCist article.
"Trial lawyers are concerned this could be the camel's nose under the tent," Wells said. "That it could impact the size of the awards."
Wells said trial lawyers hold "a lot of sway in the John Wilson building."
"We just went through an election cycle, they contribute a lot of money to campaigns," he said. "And that will have an impact."
Grosso noted that, between the first hearing and now, he worked with trial lawyers who expressed concern over the bill to make changes. "There's no reason why this shouldn't move forward, but there's obviously some hesitancy," he said.
Why is this even an issue? In such cases, can't the proportionate liability just be rescaled among those responsible parties that are able to pay?
Posted by: scoot | November 07, 2014 at 08:11 AM
The number of pedestrians and cyclists not getting claims accepted under contributory has got to far out way the odd accident that would fall into joint and several. And that's even assuming that it is even impacted or couldn't be adjusted for in the law.
Could the Trial Lawyers hesitancy be based more on the view that any partial switch to a comparative standard would soon be made across the board and, therefore, tort calims against a Mr Deep Pockets be hindered?
Posted by: jeffb | November 07, 2014 at 09:50 AM
Just called Councilmember Bonds in support (At-large). Number is here: www.anitabonds.com/contact
Markup hearing is at 11:30.
Posted by: xmal | November 07, 2014 at 11:15 AM
scoot:
It is definitely an issue. For more info read this: http://www.waba.org/advocacy/campaigns/dc-contributory-negligence/
As a Ward 3 resident I just reached out to Cheh to inquire regarding her plans if she does indeed vote against.
Posted by: ja_friend | November 07, 2014 at 12:02 PM
The trial lawyers opposition the bill seems backwards to me. If you changed the negligence rules, it makes lawsuits more likely. And drivers already have at least one asset that can be seized, making them a better target for lawsuit. Can someone explain this to me?
Posted by: SJE | November 07, 2014 at 04:51 PM
Any change in the underlying statute means that all precedent-setting case-law has to be relitigated. Trial attorneys generally take cases on contingency and get paid when they win. So the cost of all that relitigation falls on them as a group. In the long term it may become easier to win lawsuits, but in the short term it becomes a lot more expensive. I can see why trial attorneys would oppose changes to the liability standard.
Posted by: contrarian | November 07, 2014 at 05:03 PM