Quackenbush

Quackenbush v. Superior Court of S.F.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 1091·60 Cal. App. 2d 454·60 Cal. App. 4th 454·70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 271·97 D.A.R. 15
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 24, 1997A078530California4,983 words

Opinion

Opinion

Phelan, J.

Proposition 213, adopted by the voters in November 1996, restricts damage recovery for certain categories of injured automobile owners and drivers in actions arising out of their use of motor vehicles. Specifically, two groups, (1) persons convicted of drunk driving (a term we use to include driving under the influence of drugs) for their conduct at the time of the injuries and (2) uninsured motorists, are excluded from noneconomic damages. A third group, felons committing or fleeing from crimes, is barred from all damages caused by the negligence of the other party. Responding to a constitutional attack upon the measure, the San Francisco County Superior Court has issued an injunction preventing expenditure of state funds to implement the uninsured motorist portions of Proposition 213.

Charles Quackenbush, Insurance Commissioner of the State of California, Peter G. Stamison, Director of the Department of General Services, and Kathleen Connell, Controller of the State of California (referred to collectively as Quackenbush), ask us to vacate the superior court’s injunction and to bar further proceedings in the underlying action. We grant the requested relief. We are…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.