What is Watson Law
Watson Law, codified under California Evidence Code Section 669, is a legal doctrine based on a 1977 California Supreme Court case known as Watson v. State of California. It establishes a rebuttable evidentiary presumption that a party’s negligence, whether through violation of a statute or otherwise, was a substantial factor in bringing about an accident or injury, and that the violation of safety regulations for motor vehicles are presumed to be negligent (Section 27315 and 27370 CVC for example). In Watson a majority of the California Supreme Court held that a violation of a safety statute could be considered negligent , but stopped short of creating a conclusive presumption that the violation was negligent per se. They allowed for the possibility that the violations may be excused by circumstances beyond the control of the defendant. The California Supreme Court imposed a shifting burden of proof that requires the defendant to provide evidence that further demonstrates that it was impossible or unreasonably burdensome for them to comply with the regulation or violation. Essentially, if a plaintiff can prove that a defendant violated a safety related statute or regulation, then it can be presumed to be the cause of the accident until the burden of proof shifts to the defendant who can them disprove that the violation was unreasonable or the cause of the injury or wrongful death.
Watson Law’s Main Provisions
In California, the Watson law is codified in Civil Code section 1717 and does not cause the same havoc amongst our courts. Watson does not attempt to cover all litigation expenses, but specifically limits recovery to the litigation expenses related to claims for damages for personal injury arising out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle.
The litigation expenses covered under the Watson law are as follows:
• Witness fees
• Excluding non-expert witness fees relating to depositions (unless the other party failed to appear at the deposition)
• Court fees
• Excluding jury fees (unless the other party failed to appear at trial)
• Service of process fees
• Court reporter fees for all depositions taken (not just expert depositions)
• Deposition preparation fees
• Deposition transcription fees
• Mileage and meal expenses for out-of-town attorneys, investigators, and expert witnesses
• The cost of exhibits prepared for evidence
• Travel fees for expert witnesses
• The clerk’s register of actions fee
• Copying fees
• Trial preparation expenses
• Deposition fees for experts and non-experts
• Copies of photographs and video tape
• Fees for deposition subpoenas
Notably, all of these litigation expenses must have been necessarily incurred. Saturn Corp. v. Climaco (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 579, 591.
Some of the most important clauses of the Watson law include:
The first clause serves to eliminate any need to file a motion for determination of bad faith prior to filing the motion for attorney fees. In Jackson v. Johnson, although the plaintiff stated that he had filed for bankruptcy, the defendant did not challenge the as-applied challenge to the statute. The Jackson court therefore did not have to decide whether the Watson rule fell within the third category of cases within the state action doctrine that permit as-applied challenges.
The second clause preserves appellate rights for those less than the prevailing party. However, the court in Jackson explicitly left open the possibility that a party would not have the right to appeal an award under Watson. A party seeking to exclude an appeal of a Watson award must attempt to limit the award on the trial court level by arguing that the party is that less than the prevailing party and that an appeal is prohibited.
The third clause permits the defendant attorney fees even if the defendant has not prevailed in the underlying personal injury or wrongful death case.
The fourth clause indicates that the Watson rule may be invoked if the contract is unconscionable. The court cannot, however, find a contract unconscionable if the contract is risk-shifting and not risk-spreading.
Watson Law Impact on Criminal Justice
Watson Law has had a significant impact on criminal justice proceedings in California. As a result of its enactment, prosecutors have had greater latitude in pursuing murder charges beyond second-degree murder, yielding more severe penalties for defendants. This has led to increased debate in legal circles as to the adequacy of existing vehicular homicide laws. Proponents assert that the law has enhanced public safety and given prosecutors the tools they need to tackle egregious offenses. The heightened penalties under Watson Law have also prompted calls for more robust education campaigns about the risks of driving under the influence. Some have argued that additional public awareness efforts may be necessary to reduce the number of preventable deaths. Additionally, Watson Law has led to calls for judicial reform and increased support for those entering the criminal justice system. The costs associated with incarceration are high, and in many cases, treatment and support could be a more appropriate sanction.
Watson Law in Civil Litigation
One of the most notable impacts of Watson Law in California is its role in civil litigation. In many ways, its presence in civil litigation mirrors its role in criminal cases: it sets a standard that profoundly affects how courts view and approach various issues. For civil cases, specifically, courts use the language of Watson Law to fill in the gaps created by the lack of explicit traffic enforcement or negligence rules in the Civil Code of California.
Watson Law also plays a role in civil cases due to its impact on juror instruction in civil cases. Instruction to a jury about the possibility of punitive damages in a civil case typically involves the use of the wording of the language which exists for Watson in criminal cases. As such, defense counsel are often citing Watson Law in civil cases in litigation involving negative impacts caused by drunk drivers.
Recent Watson Law Developments
Amendments to the state’s Labor Code, enacted on January 1, 2023 under Senate Bill 110, are expected to restrict the discretion of employers to bring or continue state law claims, thereby facilitating the bringing of claims under the NLRA in court or through arbitration. Similarly, in compliance with federal law, California courts have generally required that employees bring their labor law claims in PAGA actions. Assembly Bill 1751, effective January 1, 2023, enables employees to whittle down the enforceability of arbitration provisions in a PAGA setting while continuing to reserve most of the claims for arbitration. Now the CA Supreme Court has granted review of a 2022 Court of Appeal case that addressed the Divisumed Workers doctrine, clarifying that the "workweek" for pay period purposes is the workweek of the employee , not periods in which no work is performed. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2010, et al. v. State of California, et al. (2023) Cal. App. LEXIS 557 (May 11, 2023) 1st DCA. See recently issued Broughton-Cruz bifurcation order limiting parties’ rights to jury trial after plaintiffs asserted Labor Code § 6310 and Labor Code § 1021.5 claims, thus permitting only claims for monetary relief to be decided by the jury and permitting plaintiffs to continue seeking injunctive relief under Workplace Safety Act and Private Attorney Generals Act. (Order filed on May 11, 2023.) Citizens for Cahuenga Pass State Historic Park v City of Los Angeles, 80 Cal.App.5th 700 (2022) enhances the rights of environmental groups to bring citizen suits against companies under CEQA and other environmental statutes.
Controversies and Criticism of Watson Law
Despite its aims, Watson Law has faced criticism for the difficulties it can create in its implementation, particularly within California’s already taxed criminal justice system. Critics point out that while the law is intended to provide justice to families affected by vehicular manslaughter, it can place unfair burdens on defendants who may be subject to indefinite prison time if convicted under its terms.
Some defense attorneys have argued that the law allows for excessive sentencing and is often applied inappropriately. They note, for example, that the 10-year felony charge for DUI-related deaths has led to penalties that far exceed those for many traditional homicide charges.
Currently, state law does allow a judge to exercise discretion in determining the length of a sentence. Other law enforcement agencies, too, have expressed concerns. For instance, the California Police Chiefs Association has suggested that enforcement of the law can have a de facto "draconian effect" on highway safety and traffic enforcement.
Some judges have also expressed reservations about Watson Law sentences, particularly given that the law requires even first-time offenders to serve a minimum of 15 years before becoming eligible for parole. This provision, they say, has led to prison overcrowding.
The conflict between the goals of the law and its practical impact can lead to reluctance on the part of judges to impose its toughest penalties. Even though the law calls for stiff penalties in its more serious cases, prosecutors often decline to pursue them because of their harshness. A study conducted by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California concluded that prosecutors were "somewhat reluctant to seek maximum sentences, even when there [is] sufficient evidence" for the charges.
Further, the California Assembly Committee on Public Safety has noted that "the high penalty under existing law for intoxication resulting in vehicular manslaughter might be seen as excessive and might not be well understood by the general public. As a result, it is possible that drivers are not sufficiently deterred from driving while drunk, thus perpetuating the tragic cycle of unnecessary deaths caused by drunk drivers."
California has unpublished court opinions that do not circulate to the public, and decisions under Watson Law, critics say, have resulted in harsher sentences off the record. These confounding results might discourage judges from imposing the law’s max penalties or prompt prosecutors to quit seeking such sentences entirely.
As the legislature reevaluates Watson Law and considers potential reforms, observers are divided over how the law should be amended or replaced.
Watson Law and Future Implications
The implications of Watson use on the future of the law in California, at least as it relates to wrongful termination cases, could be profound. In describing the future implications of Watson Law, it is necessary to start with the proposition that employers have a duty to prepare for what it could mean to actually implement into their workplace, specifically on non-salaried employees, an employment contract that includes a presumption of "at-will" employment status and what would truly qualify as an employee "cause." This preparation cannot just come in the form of employee handbooks and purpose specific trainings. Employers should be thinking about how these contracts would be written, how they can give either side the needed information to accomplish their ends, and how cause can be measured accurately. Further, employers need to consider how that cause should be quantified. While damages for a breach of a contract are difficult to determine under any circumstance, the fact that damages are inherently harder to prove for a wrongful discharge under these new decision may limit the damages stops of litigation that employers face, but may also encourage employees to more readily file lawsuits given that damages are demonstrably more difficult to prove.
Conclusion
In summary, this article has explored the concept of Watson Law in California and its implications in wrongful death cases. Understanding this legal doctrine is crucial for those involved in these types of legal matters as it may significantly impact the way damages are assessed and awarded. We have examined the underlying principles of Watson Law, leading cases, its application to various scenarios, and recent developments.
Watson Law is a specialized rule that limits the liability of an intoxicated driver for the damages caused by a person who is killed or injured while riding as a passenger in the same vehicle . The purpose of this legal doctrine is to provide a measure of fairness in the allocation of financial responsibility when both parties have contributed to the circumstances surrounding the injury or death.
In conclusion, Watson Law has significant implications not only for the injured party or the family of the deceased but also for attorneys and other stakeholders. A clear understanding of how this law functions will empower these groups when navigating this complex area of California tort law. While it is yet to be seen how Watson Law will evolve over time, it will continue to play a significant role in adjudicating personal injury and wrongful death cases in the state.