Watson

Watson v. Department of Transportation

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 1046·68 Cal. App. 4th 885·80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 594·98 Daily Journal DAR 12882·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9205
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 18, 1998C028935California3,718 words

Opinion

Opinion

Blease, J.

After an automobile collision between her car and one driven by Charles Watson at a traffic intersection, arising from the resetting of the traffic signals by a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) employee, Patty Huffman sued Caltrans and Watson for personal injury. The jury found Huffman and Caltrans at fault and Watson not at fault. Watson thereafter recovered a judgment on a cross-complaint against Caltrans awarding him the attorney’s fees incurred in the defense.

Caltrans appeals from the judgment contending the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.6 in these circumstances. We agree.

Section 1021.6 does not provide a way around the American rule that each party to a lawsuit must pay his or her own attorney’s fees in the commonplace case of a multiparty tort action.

We will reverse the judgment.

Facts and Procedural Background

On June 5, 1995, a power outage affected traffic control signals at the intersection of Bridge Street and Highway 99 in Yuba City. The traffic lights were flashing red in all directions. Watson drove into the intersection and stopped because his vision of the southbound lanes…

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.