Source: https://www.shouselaw.com/personal-injury/hit-by-DUI-driver
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:58:00+00:00

Document:
People injured by a drunk or intoxicated driver have the right to sue for damages. The driver does not need to be convicted of a DUI before a civil lawsuit can be filed.
1. When can someone sue a drunk driver in California?
2. When is a driver negligent under California law?
5. Does the defendant need to be convicted?
5.1. Is a DUI conviction proof of negligence?
6.1. Are punitive damages recoverable against a DUI driver?
7. Can families of injured people sue a DUI driver?
8. What if I was partly to blame for an accident with a DUI driver?
9. Does insurance cover DUI drivers?
10. What should I do if I am hit by a drunk driver?
California allows people to sue for damages when they are injured by a drunk or drugged driver.
Negligence "per se" occurs when a defendant violates a law or statute meant to protect other drivers and pedestrians. In other words, violation of a statute is, in and of itself, proof of negligence.
Example: Fred is a long-distance truck driver. One day as Fred is backing up his truck he hits and kills a pedestrian.
Two days before the accident, Fred smoked marijuana. A urine test after the accident reveals the marijuana in Fred's system.
Both federal and California law prohibit commercial drivers from operating a vehicle while using drugs.7 So the victim's family brings a California wrongful death lawsuit based on negligence per se.
California has a number of laws related to driving and drinking or using drugs.
California's basic DUI law is set forth in Vehicle Code 23152 VC. Under VC 23152(a) it is a crime to operate a motor vehicle while "under the influence" of alcohol and/or drugs.
Vehicle Code 23152(b) makes it a crime anyone 21 or older to drive with a blood alcohol concentration ("BAC") of 0.08% or higher.
Vehicle Code 23152(d) makes it a crime to drive a commercial vehicle with a BAC of .04% or higher.
Commercial drivers who drive between states are also subject to federal motor carrier safety laws, as discussed in subsection 3.9, below.
Commencing July 1, 2018, it is illegal for anyone to drive with a BAC of 0.04% or higher when a passenger for hire is in the vehicle.
Vehicle Code 23140 makes it a crime for a driver under age 21 to drive with a BAC of .05% or higher.
An underage driver with a BAC of .05% or higher is considered too drunk to drive, even if he or she is not actually impaired.
California also has a “zero-tolerance” law for underage drivers. Under Vehicle Code 23136 it is an infraction for an underage driver to have a BAC of .01% or higher while behind the wheel.
Although this is not technically a DUI, it is a violation of law. So by testing positive for any alcohol, an underage driver will be considered negligent per se if sued in a civil lawsuit.
However, the plaintiff will still need to prove that the accident was caused by the defendant's impairment. It may be hard to do this if the only statute violated was VC 23136.
There is an exception for people who are participating in a court-approved narcotics treatment program for opioid dependence.
In such a case, use of a substance such as Methadone, LAAM or Buprenorphine does not constitute a violation of Vehicle Code 23152(c).14 (However, a driver on these substances may still be negligent for other reasons).
California Vehicle Code 23612 VC sets forth California's “implied consent” law. It states that by driving in California, motorists give their consent to a chemical test if lawfully arrested on suspicion of DUI.
Refusing to take a chemical test is a violation of VC 23612. Therefore, a driver who refuses to take a breath or blood test may be considered “negligent” per se.
Regardless of what DUI statute the defendant violated, the plaintiff must still prove that the violation caused the plaintiff's injury.
A defendant does not need to be found guilty of the crime of DUI as a prerequisite to suing for damages in California.
This is because California criminal laws and civil liability laws serve different purposes and have different burdens of proof.
Criminal DUI laws exist to punish drunk drivers and deter others from driving while intoxicated. Guilt must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt” and all 12 jurors must agree.
"Preponderance of the evidence" in a DUI lawsuit means it is “more likely than not” that the defendant drove under the influence and injured the plaintiff. In addition, only nine of the 12 jurors need to agree.
A conviction for DUI is sufficient to prove that the defendant was negligent per se. This is because violation of a statute constitutes per se negligence under California law.
So even if the defendant avoids jail time by pleading to a California “dry reckless” or other vehicle code violation, it will still be negligence per se.
(Note that it does not work the other way around. Being found liable in a civil lawsuit for DUI does not establish guilt under California's criminal DUI laws).
But the defendant has the right to introduce evidence showing that his or her impairment did not cause the plaintiff's damages.
The plaintiff's injuries did not result from the accident.
Loss of a limb or the use of a limb or other body part.
Malice is usually what will apply in a drunk driving case. In this context, “malice” does not mean evil or bad intent.
When does drunk driving constitute malice?
All of these causes of action arise from the loss of the companionship and financial support of a loved one.
In many cases, punitive damages are recoverable when a family member is hit by a DUI driver.
Just because another driver was DUI, this does not necessarily mean he or she was 100% responsible for an accident.
Unlike some states (such as Nevada), California does not require that the defendant be 50% or more responsible for an injury. A plaintiff can sue even if the defendant was only slightly at fault.
Example: Beth has been drinking to celebrate her birthday. On her way home, she rolls through a stop sign. As she is doing so, Art is driving in the other direction and talking on his phone. He doesn't see Beth roll through a stop sign.
Beth and Art collide and both are injured. When the police come, Beth blows a .08 on her DUI breath test.
Art sues Beth on a theory of negligence per se for $50,000 in medical bills and lost wages. Beth countersues for $10,000 in chiropractor bills.
A jury decides that Beth's drinking was not the reason she drove through the stop sign. They find that Art's inattention was the main reason for the accident. They attribute blame 30% to Beth and 70% to Art.
So Beth is entitled to 70% X $10,000 ($7,000) from Art.
Art is entitled to 30% X $50,000 ($15,000) from Beth.
The amounts are offset against each other. Beth owes Art $8,000.
The aggregate policy limits of all applicable policies do not cover the plaintiff's damages.
Will insurance cover punitive damages?
Therefore, if awarded punitive damages, the plaintiff will have to try to collect directly from the defendant. This may prove impossible If the defendant has no assets or too little to cover the full award.
But insurance companies will still pay for compensatory damages such as medical and car repair bills.
An experienced California car accident lawyer can analyze your case and the defendant's assets and help you determine whether it is worth it to file suit.
Someone hit by an intoxicated driver in California should call the police, if possible. A police report and chemical test (if one was given) are the best way to prove someone was operating a motor vehicle while drunk or high.
Photos or video of the vehicles and the accident site are also extremely useful.
It is also a good idea to write down everything you can remember about the accident as soon as possible afterward.
This information will be needed in order to make an insurance claim or file a lawsuit.
If you were hit by a drunk or stoned motorist, we invite you to contact our California auto accident attorneys for a free consultation.
Call us at 1-855-LAWFIRM to discuss your case in confidence with an experienced California car accident attorney.
Note that California has two laws that apply to underage drivers who drink and drive. Violation of either may constitute “negligence per se.” But the plaintiff will still have to show that the defendant's drinking caused the accident. This is easier to do if the defendant was DUI with a .05% or higher BAC than merely violating California's "zero-tolerance" policy for underage drinking and driving.
California Vehicle Code 23152 VC; Vehicle Code 23153; Vehicle Code 312.
California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 400. Negligence—Essential Factual Elements.
Same. See also Civil Code 1714(a); CACI 700. Basic Standard of Care; Bewley v. Riggs (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 188.
Evidence Code 669. See also CACI 418; Spriesterbach v. Holland (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 255.
Toste v. Calportland Construction (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 362.
49 C.F.R. § 382.213; Vehicle Code 23152(f).
Facts based on Toste, endnote 6.
Vehicle Code 23152 and 23153; CACI 709.
Vehicle Code 23152(e). See also Public Utilities Code 5431.
See Vehicle Code 312, endnote 2.
Vehicle Code 23152(c); See also, Health and Safety Code 11875.
49 CFR Part 382, Subpart B – Prohibitions.
49 CFR 382.201 - Alcohol concentration.
49 CFR 382.213 - Controlled substance use.
A former district attorney, Harvard-educated California personal injury attorney Neil Shouse founded and manages the Shouse Law Group. He has been named one of the country's Top 100 Civil Lawyers by the National Trial Lawyers Association.
See Pittman v. Boiven (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 207; Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325.
Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890.
G. D. Searle (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22.
CACI 405. Comparative Fault of Plaintiff.
Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 382
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.