Legal Question in Personal Injury in California

Re: prop 213

If you were a driver of an uninsured vehicle involved in a collision and you are sure there is no coverage for your vehicle under any policy, you may be restricted to economic damages absent unusual circumstances until the proposition is declared unconstitutional. Pedestrians and passengers do not suffer the same restrictions.

The law unfairly discriminates against children 16-18 year olds who are not employed but miss school, homemakers who provide a valuable service but do not get a paycheck and the cost of proving their loss is lost in expert fees, and retired people who are not employed, provide many voluntary services but are not paid.

The law was designed to get everyone to buy car insurance but acts harshly when someone does not have the money.

Lost wages are hard to prove for the self employed, who usually work around their medical appointments but give up a lot while being unable to establish much in "lost wages".

If you have serious injuries, you should see a lawyer. If you do not, consider yourself fortunate and make sure you have insurance if you operate a car in the future.

What the law says you are not entitled to when not insured is damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress---general damages. These damages may be the largest. You may no longer be able to do the activities you live for or work to get money to allow you to do. You may not be able to visit your family. You may not be able to lift and hug your child. You may not be able to hike and enjoy the outdoors. You may not be able to volunteer for a group that brings you great satisfaction. You may not be able to enjoy sports and the physical exercise that allows you to be more efficient in your work. General damages helps compensate for these losses and others like them. They are important damages that some people do not realize are often the most important losses people incurr.