The year 2024 comes with new laws that impact the practice of personal injury law in California. The legislature enacted traffic laws to establish new standards of care at crosswalks and intersections. With these measures, lawmakers seek to reduce the risks to pedestrians, bicyclists, and those at intersections. Other changes expand remedies for certain personal injury victims and impact how parties pursue personal injury claims in California courts.
Parking Within 20 Feet of a Crosswalk Now Unlawful
Assembly Bill 413 prohibits motorists from parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk or within 15 feet of a crosswalk containing a curb extension. Through December 31, 2024, violators will receive warning tickets. Citations and associated fines for violations begin January 1, 2025.
This legislation aims to reduce the risk of crashes at intersections. According to the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, intersections account for 36 percent of traffic accidents nationwide. A blocked view of the intersection was a culprit in 60,000 of those incidents.
Traffic accidents at intersections and other places along or near roadways often victimize pedestrians. In 2021, the state saw 11,444 pedestrian accidents that resulted in injury or fatality. The California Department of Developmental Services reports that 1,108 pedestrians died in traffic accidents in California – leading the nation in that metric. The National Highway Safety Traffic Administration states that, in 2022, nearly 24 percent of pedestrian fatalities took place at intersections.
Bicyclists to Follow the Pedestrian Walk Signals
Effective January 1, 2024, bicyclists enjoy the same privileges as pedestrians when it comes to crosswalks. Specifically, Assembly Bill 1909 provides that those in both groups may use the crosswalk when prompted by a “WALK” signal. In other words, bicyclists obey the signals given to pedestrians at intersections, unless a specific bicycle signal indicates something different.
Under the prior law, bicycles had to await a green traffic signal to proceed. This followed the general approach of treating bicyclists the same as automobile drivers.
Increased Maximum for Non-Economic Damages in Medical Malpractice Cases
California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, passed in 1975, limited non-economic damages in medical practice cases. In these types of professional negligence cases, plaintiffs claim among their damage’s harms such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of consortium. The Act in its original form limited recovery for these non-economic damages to $250,000.
With the passage of Assembly Bill 35 in 2022, California raised the cap to $350,000, effective January 1, 2023. The law increases the maximum allowed non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits by $40,000 each year through the end of 2033. For 2024, the cap sits at $390,000.
Speed Cameras
Six cities – Glendale, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose – may mount cameras to catch speeders. Assembly Bill 645 establishes a pilot program of speed cameras. The devices photograph the license plates and cars of those exceeding the speed limit in particular zones. With the plates captured, the municipalities can mail citations to the offending vehicles' registered owners. The law authorizes citations with fines ranging from $50 to $500 for motorists traveling 11 mph over the posted speed limit.
As reported by the University of California – Berkeley's Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, speeding accounted for nearly three out of every 10 deaths in 2021 throughout the nation. Speed-related deaths in California stood at 35 percent of the fatalities in California in 2021. Between 2017 and 2022, unsafe speeds contributed to 18 percent of crashes in San Francisco. During that same period, one in five fatal crashes resulted from driving at an unsafe speed.
Vehicles moving at excessive or unsafe speeds require more distance to stop after the driver sees danger or otherwise a need to brake. With higher speeds come more force upon collisions and, thus, a greater chance of serious injury or death. Speeders tend to lose control of the vehicle.
Higher Limits for Small Claims Court and Limited Civil Claims
California divides its Superior Court system (trial court) into three divisions: small claims, limited civil cases, and unlimited civil cases. Each one has a limit for dollar amounts. As of January 1, 2024, the jurisdictional limits are increased as follows:
*Small claims court: $12,500, from $10,000
*Limited civil claims: $35,000 from $25,000
*Unlimited civil claims; Above $35,000, from above $25,000
Small claims court affords litigants shorter waits for a hearing and ruling on personal injury claims. However, parties in small claims court cannot have attorneys. A plaintiff who chooses small claims court cannot obtain a judgment in excess of $12,500, even if medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering were to exceed that amount.
California law now caps “limited civil claims” at $35,000. This means a plaintiff who chooses this course cannot recover more than $35,000. Unlike small claims courts, the limit civil claims level permits parties to have lawyers. For claims for damages north of $35,000, injured parties sue for “unlimited civil claims.”
Typically, if you are injured, you may maintain an unlimited civil claim. The fact that your damages actually or ultimately do not exceed $35,000 does not call for you to remove your case to the limited civil level.
With discovery, the parties develop a record and evidence of the extent and amount of your damages. Defense lawyers request medical bills, medical records, pay stubs, and tax forms to substantiate or diminish damage claims. In a limited civil case, parties may have only 35 written questions (interrogatories) or requests for document production and take one deposition.
New Rules for Initial Disclosures in Lawsuits
With Senate Bill 235, litigants will now have the obligation to furnish documents and an initial list of witnesses within 60 days after a request by the opposing party for such information. A party who fails to do so may face a $1,000 sanction. This rule runs from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2026.
Prior law gave parties 45 days from a court order to identify those with knowledge of claims and defenses, records of such, and agreements with insurance companies or others to reimburse or indemnify. The sanction for non-compliance was $250. The new law departs from the prior law that required a court order to trigger the exchange of information and documents rule.
Defense Expert Opinions on Medical Causes of Injuries
Physicians and other medical professionals called by plaintiffs' lawyers give medical opinions that some act of negligence or condition caused an injury. To testify to such an expert opinion, the medical professional must be able to do so with a "reasonable degree of medical probability." This means that it is more likely than not that something was a medical cause of an injury.
A panel of the California Court of Appeals ruled in 2022 that defendants could call experts to give alternative causes without having to meet the "reasonable degree of medical probability" standard. In response to that opinion, California Evidence Code 801.1 now requires that experts testify with a reasonable degree of medical probability that such alternative conditions, events, or acts were a medical cause of the injury.
