Attorneys Back Move for Liability Suit Limits

Leaders of California’s cities and counties, usually at odds with the legal profession over the high cost of public liability suits, were joined by trial lawyers Tuesday in proposing legislation to dramatically limit judgments against local governments.

The unusual agreement, hammered out at the suggestion of Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, would make it far more difficult for accident victims to file suits against cities and counties in a number of instances and reduce the size of awards in others.

Specifically, the proposals would limit local government liability for development-caused landslides and submerged hazards at beaches, indemnify law enforcement departments for accidents arising from police chases, and protect local officials from being personally sued over acts committed by a city or county. The package of proposed bills also would make it more difficult for victims to collect damages where insurance already covered costs of an injury.

Van de Kamp, who announced the agreement, called the proposals “the most important legislative reform of the (liability) system in decades.”

Opposed Similar Reforms

Trial lawyers had successfully opposed similar reforms in the Legislature in past years as unfair to victims. But Van de Kamp said this package of bills is different because it would fix “what was broken without destroying the rights of accident victims.”

Sources on both sides of the issue said trial lawyers were motivated to act in the hope of heading off a much broader-based liability ballot initiative that not only proposes to limit the size of court judgments, but would drastically reduce legal fees as well.

A coalition of businesses and physicians that is readying the initiative measure for the June, 1988, ballot had been counting on support from cities and counties to lend greater legitimacy to its claims that unwarranted lawsuits are costing the public millions of dollars.

That same coalition had sponsored Proposition 51 on the June, 1986, ballot, the “deep-pockets” initiative, which restricted “pain and suffering” awards in certain cases. The vocal support of city and county officials in that campaign--particularly in television advertisements--is largely credited for the measure’s overwhelming victory.

Representatives of both the League of California Cities and the County Supervisors Assn. of California confirmed Tuesday that they had agreed to drop their support for the coalition’s initiative in exchange for trial lawyer backing on the package of reform legislation.

Trial lawyers also received a promise from the local government officials that they would support separate legislation lengthening the period of time in which victims could file injury claims to 180 days from the current 100 days.

“I don’t think they are doing anything wrong,” Van de Kamp said of the concessions made by city and county officials. “But I must tell you if I were working with the (business) group that developed these initiatives, I’d be concerned (about not having public officials in their campaign). . . . They represent public fiduciaries and they are spokespersons for the public interest.”

Peter Hinton, past president of the California Trial Lawyers Assn., denied that his organization is supporting the package of liability reforms for political reasons. His group, Hinton said, is merely responding to “legitimate grievances” from local government which, he added, had “suffered uniquely” from difficulties in obtaining reasonably priced liability insurance.

At the same time, Hinton said, by “removing public entities” from support of the rival initiative, he is confident that the “self-interest of the others that remain in the coalition will be more obvious” to voters.

Frank Schubert, a spokesman for the business coalition, played down the damage to the business-backed ballot proposal, saying that he expects individual city and county officials to support the campaign.

The trial lawyers’ agreement to back reforms for local government, he added, proves that the lawyers “see our initiative as a serious threat to their ability to make a very handsome income. Consequently they are trying to pick off members of the coalition who they think can hurt us.”

The trial lawyers and local government leaders have only four weeks to push their proposal through both houses of the Legislature before lawmakers adjourn for the year. The Legislature is due to reconvene Monday after a four-week summer recess.

However, the supporters said they have a good chance for quick passage, because it was primarily the objections of trial lawyers that had held up most liability reform proposals in recent years.

Hinton also said his group had received qualified support from Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) and that Gov. George Deumkejian in recent talks had “expressed pleasure” that trial lawyers were negotiating with local government officials.

In seeking support for their proposals on Tuesday, local government officials cited several recent multimillion-dollar awards against cities and counties.

In one 1984 case, a man paralyzed after diving in shallow water near the Balboa Pier collected $6 million in damages from Newport Beach. The courts ruled that the city had lost its automatic immunity from such suits when it altered the “natural condition” of the beach by providing lifeguards.