How about this . . . .
In most states, the concept of contributory negligence has been replaced by the doctrine of comparative negligence. I know you know the difference, but for those who do not: under a contributory negligence theory, if the plaintiff contributed in any way to the accident, he/she would be barred from any recovery. With comparative negligence, that is no longer the case. In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, the fault of both the plaintiff and the defendant is assigned a percentage and is compared. If the plaintiff was 10% at fault and the defendant 90%, then the plaintiff's recovery and the defendant's liability is apportioned accordingly.
I think the bad condition of this particular road clearly contributed to this accident. For example, if the truck had been driving along a flat stretch of straight line, desert freeway, it is much more likely this would never have happened. I am sure the steepenss of the grade was a contributing factor here combined with a lot of other things about the road.
I don't think Becki is saying the truck driver is without fault. I think all she is doing is pointing out that there might be another factor here that contributed to the accident. As you well know, in any, major personal injury case involving a vehicle collision, if there is anything at all wrong with the road, the road department will be joined as a party defendant on the theory that whatever was wrong with the road contributed in some way to the accident.
Now - the extent to which the road contributed to the accident in this case is another matter. It may have been very slight. It may have been nonexistent. And the company's decision to route this driver on that particular road certainly plays a part in the whole picture. That's not the point of my discussion here. The point of my discussion is that, I think Becki's contribution to this topic is legitimate and valid and I think that she does not deserve the treatment she has been getting on this thread.
Hey, Trucking is highly Dangerous, therefore, highly Regulated. Who's advocating right now for giving Illegal's a free pass on Licensing and Insurance, in California? To what end? This Driver either did not have the skill and experience needed to be behind that wheel, or the care, either way it is negligence. Nothing on you or Becky, just on the kind of world you are trying to open Pandora's box to.
WTF do "illegals" have to do with this thread? I have been away from it and have not read all of the posts - is some moron deflecting the issue of the OP? It would appear so. How do you know the driver in this case didn't have the skill or experience to operate a big rig? Are you just assuming this because there was an accident? And, once again, what does being an illegal have to do with anything?
I find it ironic that California is currently considering legislation to give a free pass to those without proper Licensing and Insurance, and something like this pops up. Either the Driver was Licensed and should have known better, or He was not qualified to be in the rig in the first place. If you checked out my first post in the thread, I did lay out my position for you George, I stand by it. Road Safety should not be a Political Football. There are plenty of bad roads to choose from. Driver responsibility is the bottom line no matter where you find yourself. Privilege and exception, exemption, a corrupting force no matter the hand, George.