Comparative fault government defendants California litigation presents a distinct strategic challenge when the individually culpable defendant, often a driver whose conduct was extreme or even criminal, defaults or has no meaningful assets or insurance to satisfy a judgment. In these cases, the practical value of the plaintiff's recovery often depends entirely on how effectively the case against the public entity co-defendant is built and preserved, since the public entity is frequently the only defendant capable of paying a judgment that reflects the true severity of the harm. A wrong-way collision on a public park road, where the impaired driver defaulted and the city ultimately paid $23.75 million, illustrates how that dynamic plays out.
1431.2
Civil Code section governing several liability for noneconomic damages
$60M+
Estimated damages exposure that drove the public entity to resolve the case
California follows a system of pure comparative fault, meaning a plaintiff's own negligence, if any, reduces but does not bar recovery, and multiple defendants can be assigned different percentages of fault reflecting their respective contributions to the harm. A jury is not required to find that any single defendant caused the entire harm. Each defendant's liability is generally several, tied to its own percentage of fault for noneconomic damages under Civil Code section 1431.2, while economic damages typically remain subject to joint and several liability among defendants found to share fault. This framework matters enormously when an individual defendant, such as an impaired driver who committed a serious criminal offense, defaults, is incarcerated, or otherwise lacks the resources to satisfy any judgment. If a public entity co-defendant is found to share even a meaningful percentage of fault, and the harm involves catastrophic injury with correspondingly large economic damages, joint and several liability for economic damages can make the public entity responsible for the great majority of the actual, collectible recovery.
When an individually liable defendant defaults or is otherwise removed from active participation, through incarceration, bankruptcy, or default judgment, the plaintiff's strategy against the remaining public entity defendant becomes correspondingly more important. Defense counsel for the public entity will often try to use the defaulting defendant's absence to its advantage, arguing that the jury should assign the overwhelming majority, if not the entirety, of fault to the absent, more obviously culpable party, since that party cannot appear to contest the allocation. Effective plaintiff strategy focuses the jury's attention on the public entity's own independent conduct and decision-making, rather than allowing the case to become solely a referendum on the absent defendant's misconduct. Side-by-side visual comparisons of a blind curve with and without obstructing vegetation help jurors understand that the public entity's own choices, independent of anything the absent defendant did, created a foreseeable and preventable risk.
A default judgment against an individual defendant establishes that defendant's liability but does not, by itself, resolve how a jury allocates percentages of fault among all responsible parties for purposes of the remaining defendants' liability.
Counsel should be prepared to litigate fault allocation at trial even where an individual co-defendant has already had default entered, since the public entity defendant will still contest its own percentage of responsibility vigorously.
In catastrophic injury cases, the settlement dynamic is often driven less by the ultimate fault percentage and more by the sheer size of the total damages exposure, which gives a public entity strong incentive to resolve the case before a jury values those damages.
In the underlying case, the public entity remained the collectible defendant after the driver defaulted.
The case behind this page
The full story of the Fiesta Island blind corner and the $23.75 million recovery.
Read the wrong-way cyclist collision case against a California cityRelated doctrine
How the substantial factor standard keeps a dangerous condition claim alive despite a criminal driver.
See the dangerous condition analysisRelated breakdowns from this case and our dangerous condition practice.
We take government liability referrals involving multiple defendants as counsel or co-counsel and pay statutory referral fees.
Refer a caseCalifornia's pure comparative fault system allows a jury to assign different percentages of fault to each defendant, including a public entity, based on their respective contributions to the harm, without requiring any single defendant to be the sole cause.
A default judgment establishes that defendant's liability, but the plaintiff's practical recovery may depend heavily on the remaining public entity defendant's share of fault and, for economic damages, joint and several liability among defendants found to share responsibility.
A public entity often settles based on its total damages exposure at trial, particularly in catastrophic injury cases, since a large potential jury verdict creates strong incentive to resolve the case regardless of the entity's anticipated fault percentage.
