Majority
—Defendant Melissa Nicole Nichols appeals from a victim restitution order following a judgment of conviction. A jury found her guilty of one count of driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury in violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) (count III). She was sentenced to two years in state prison. The trial court awarded full restitution to the parents of the victim for travel expenses and lost wages related to the parents’ attendance at court proceedings. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in declining to apply the doctrine of comparative negligence to reduce the restitution award.
We conclude that the doctrine of comparative negligence does not apply to reduce Penal Code section 1202.4[1] restitution to which the parents of a direct victim are entitled as reimbursement for their own economic loss. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Charges
Defendant was charged in an information with the murder of James Anthony Payne (§ 187, subd. (a); count I), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5, subd. (a); count II), driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury to Payne and Kandis Maddox (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count III), and driving with a 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b); count IV). It was also alleged as to counts III and IV that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon Maddox (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that defendant proximately caused death or bodily injury to more than one victim (Veh. Code, § 23558). Count I was dismissed, and the case proceeded to trial on the remaining counts.
Prosecution’s Case-in-chief
While defendant was visiting her friends, Kandis Maddox and Matthew Larson, at Maddox’s apartment, defendant informed them she had argued with her boyfriend, Anthony Payne, earlier that day. The two had an “off-again/on-again relationship.” Defendant told Maddox that Payne was seeing another girl and had bought a motorcycle to impress her. During the
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code in effect at the time of the charged offenses.
Maddox testified that at around 7:30 p.m. on this August evening, she and defendant decided to go to a bar with another friend, Jessica. Defendant drove her Pontiac Grand Am to pick up Jessica. They brought two or three cans of beer along with them because beer was expensive at the bar and they planned to drink them on the way to Jessica’s house.
While driving east on Carson Road, in Camino, they saw Payne on his new motorcycle. They first noticed him when he had “flown” past them going eastbound on Carson Road. Payne got in front of them and then stopped in the vicinity of Jacquier Road and Carson Road. Defendant pulled over, and Maddox rolled down her passenger window to talk to Payne. Maddox told him to leave them alone and “go back to his little girl.”[2] Defendant did not say anything to Payne. Payne then took off on Carson Road, heading east.
Joyce Chesser, a motorist, was also traveling eastbound on Carson Road. She saw Payne on the motorcycle, heading west on the same road, make a sharp U-turn ahead of her and drive east. Shortly after the motorcycle changed direction, Chesser saw defendant’s car stopped in the middle of Carson Road at the junction of Jacquier Road and the motorcycle was stopped next to the passenger side of the car. Chesser stopped her car some distance behind to wait for defendant and Payne to clear the road. After a few minutes, she saw defendant’s car proceed east on Carson Road, and Chesser continued eastbound as well. Chesser lost sight of defendant’s car around a curve. Payne stayed put until Chesser got to the curve and then sped around her on the dirt bank to the right side of the road headed east. Chesser also lost sight of Payne’s motorcycle around the curve.
About two or three miles up the road, Chesser came around the curve and saw dust, a wheel, and other debris flying in the air. Chesser and the driver in a car behind her pulled off the road. Chesser, who was a nurse, removed her CPR mask and gloves from her car and approached Payne, who was lying “quite a ways up the road” in the eastbound lane, but he was no longer alive. Then she approached defendant and Maddox, who were still in defendant’s car. She saw Payne’s detached leg in the front seat of the car, between defendant and Maddox. Chesser tried to calm defendant and Maddox, who were both injured and screaming, until the paramedics arrived. Chesser testified she did not remember what lane defendant’s car was in, but recalled it “maybe was more in the middle.”
Defendant and Maddox were transported by helicopter to the hospital. Maddox suffered a shattered eye socket and cheekbone on the right side of
2 The girl Payne was seeing was 18, Payne was 24, and defendant was 23.
Department of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Ronald Davenport responded to the crash scene. When he arrived, defendant’s car was “in the westbound lane, facing an easterly direction, [on the] wrong side of the road.” The car was damaged on the front passenger side. In particular, the front right wheel on the passenger side was kicked out and tapered in. Officer Davenport opined that the damage to the right passenger side of the car was unusual because normally, when a car crosses over a double yellow line, it only travels slightly over the fine, resulting in “left side to left side damage.” There were scrape marks on the pavement that started in the westbound lane and continued to the south end of an orchard, where the right front wheel of the car came to rest. Officer Davenport also observed two gouges in the center of the double yellow fines of the roadway that he opined were caused by the deflation of the right front wheel upon impact. There were no skid marks, and there were no visual obstructions in the roadway.
Officer Davenport testified that he had worked 18 years for CHP, had advanced accident investigation training, and had investigated thousands of driving under the influence cases. Based on this training and experience, he opined that the collision occurred while Payne was traveling westbound and defendant was traveling eastbound on Carson Road, and defendant turned into Payne’s westbound lane, striking Payne head on. Officer Davenport further opined that Payne was traveling at a high rate of speed, and swerved to the left to avoid defendant’s car. As he swerved left, the right side of Payne’s motorcycle collided into the right front bumper of defendant’s car, ejecting the motorcycle over the car, and ejecting Payne in a southwesterly direction over the car. The motorcycle came down hitting the pavement and continued along the pavement until it finally came to rest 80 feet down the roadway on the south side shoulder of the road.
Sergeant Robert Snook testified that he worked for CHP for over 30 years and, before retiring, led a multidisciplinary accident investigation team (MAIT), which specializes in accident reconstruction. Sergeant Snook’s team was tasked with determining the speeds, position of the vehicles in the roadway, and how the car and motorcycle interacted. His team performed three complete inspections of the car and motorcycle during the seven-month investigation, including one with a crane truck where the motorcycle was inverted and flown over the roof of the car. Based on this investigation, the
After Sergeant Snook retired, another member of his team, Sergeant Steven Day, took over the lead role in the MAIT investigation into defendant’s collision. Sergeant Day was involved in the investigation from the beginning. Sergeant Day testified as an expert in accident reconstruction, and he also opined that defendant was traveling in the eastbound lane and turned into Payne’s westbound lane. Sergeant Day also agreed that Payne was in the westbound lane and turned left, toward the double yellow line and eastbound lane, to avoid defendant’s car. Sergeant Day testified that the evidence showed Payne was not traveling in the eastbound lane because if he had been in that lane, the debris would have gone in the other direction, north of the roadway. Additionally, physical evidence, including blood and fluid from the motorcycle, was found on top of the car, indicating that Payne went over the car in a straight direction from the westbound lane.
The MAIT investigation concluded that Payne’s motorcycle collided into the right front bumper of defendant’s car, the bumper collapsed, and the motorcycle’s windscreen collided into the very front, right-hand corner of the car. The motorcycle then traveled rearward, until the top portion of the handlebars hit the right front rim of the right front wheel of the car, crushing that rim, and leaving a bolt imprint on it. The front forks, handlebars, and front wheel of the motorcycle exploded, shot off to the side of the car, and deflected down. The rear portion of the motorcycle pivoted about the front end of the car, along with the rider, standing the motorcycle on its nose at the front tire and inverted itself as it went over the fender, into the windshield, and up over the top of the car upside down. The motorcycle and rider continued straight off the back of the car because there was not anything on the car to diverge the path of travel. There was a hole in the windshield caused by Payne’s right leg penetrating it. Plastic cowling and a tool bag from the motorcycle were also in the windshield. There was stamping in the sheet metal on the roof of the car and the top of the windshield, which the team attributed to the motorcycle’s exhaust system.
David Barbieri, Ph.D., a forensic toxicologist, testified that Payne had methamphetamine and amphetamine in his blood. He opined that the levels of methamphetamine and amphetamine in Payne’s blood were above the typical therapeutic levels. However, he also testified that methamphetamine stays in a person’s system for “three-plus days.”
James Tucker, a friend of defendant’s family who knew Payne as an acquaintance, testified that he saw Payne on the day of the accident. He saw Payne at a mutual friend’s house around 2:30 or 3:00 a.m. and stayed until around 6:30 a.m. People at the house were using methamphetamine, although Tucker did not see Payne using any.
Alfred Ferrari, a licensed mechanical engineer and a certified safety professional, testified as an expert on accident reconstruction. Ferrari testified that he worked as a forensic expert for attorneys and insurance adjusters, and he specialized in vehicle collisions, mechanical failures, walkway accidents, and personal injuries involving machinery or devices. He opined that Payne’s motorcycle was traveling between 84 and 91 miles per hour at the time of impact. He agreed with the prosecution experts that Payne applied his front brakes. However, he opined that the point of impact occurred in the eastbound lane rather than the westbound lane. Ferrari opined Payne was traveling westbound in the eastbound lane, head on toward defendant at the time of the impact. In reaching this conclusion, Ferrari disputed evidence that the point of impact was denoted by a marking on the pavement left by defendant’s right tire and opined the impact was six feet before the scrape in the pavement started. Ferrari further opined the collision was not quite head on; it was “a little bit angled.” Finally, Ferrari opined it was “plausible that . . . Payne’s high speed was accompanied by other forms of risk-taking,” and he could not rule out the possibility that Payne precipitated the accident because he believed the point of impact was within the eastbound lane.
Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence
Sergeant Snook disputed Ferrari’s opinion that the point of impact occurred in the eastbound lane, six feet away from the gouges in the road. Sergeant Snook opined that the evidence clearly showed that there was very little lateral displacement in the collision, contrary to Ferrari’s assertion. He opined that defendant’s car was straddling the double yellow line with the front of the car completely in the westbound lane at the point of impact. He opined that Payne was at or near the center of the double yellow line, just barely in the westbound lane, at the point of impact. Had the point of impact occurred in the eastbound lane as opined by Ferrari, then Payne would have traveled
Verdict and Sentencing
The jury found defendant guilty on count III, driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury to both Payne and Maddox (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)). The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining counts and special allegations. The trial court declared a mistrial as to those charges and allegations.
Thereafter, the parties agreed that the defense would not challenge the jury’s findings and the prosecution would dismiss the remaining charges and enhancements. The parties further agreed that defendant’s conviction was not a strike. Pursuant to the agreement, the trial court dismissed the remaining counts and enhancements. The court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years imprisonment on count III.
During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it would impose victim restitution in accordance with the probation report recommendation, and ordered defendant to pay victim restitution to Payne’s mother, Lisa Patterson, in the amount of $14,635.33.[3] At defendant’s request, the court scheduled a hearing.
Restitution Hearing
Prior to the restitution hearing, the defense argued that the amount of restitution should be reduced under the comparative negligence doctrine pursuant to People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 751 ] (Millard). The trial court identified the issues here as whether the comparative negligence doctrine applied in Millard is applicable when a deceased victim’s family is seeking restitution rather than the victim, and whether factually, the victim’s negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing the economic loss.
Defense counsel argued that for comparative negligence purposes, there was no distinction between a victim and a victim’s family. He further argued
3 The probation report noted, “Even though Mrs. Patterson received money from the defendant’s insurance company, her expenses were greater than the amount received. She is requesting restitution in the amount of $14,635.33.” However, the probation report did not contain an itemization of Patterson’s expenses or indicate how much she received from defendant’s insurance company.
The trial court ruled that comparative negligence does not apply to restitution ordered to be paid to the deceased victim’s family. The court reasoned that if Payne had survived and claimed victim restitution, then Millard “would dictate that the doctrine of comparative negligence could be utilized to potentially reduce any restitution.” The court observed that based on article I, section 28, subdivision (e), of the California Constitution and Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (k), immediate surviving family of the crime victim are separate victims. The court then noted that Millard stands for the proposition that “a victim’s comparative negligence can be utilized against him or her in determining restitution.” But the court further reasoned that Millard does not cover the victims (victim’s parents) in this case: “Our victims were not comparatively negligent. The victims in this case did not contribute to this accident. The victims in this case are not subject to the rule of comparative negligence.”
Defense counsel moved for reconsideration of the trial court’s ruling. The court reiterated its prior reasoning, adding that its analysis was reinforced by
4 CACI No. 407 states: “[Name of defendant] claims that [name of decedent]’s own negligence contributed to [his/her] death. To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following: [¶] 1. That [name of decedent] was negligent; and [¶] 2. That [name of decedent]’a negligence was a substantial factor in causing [his/her] death. [¶] If [name of defendant] proves the above, [name of plaintiff]’a damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of [name of decedent]’a responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.”
5 CACI No. 430 states: “A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm. [¶] [Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.]”
The court awarded restitution to the victim’s parents in the amount of $16,330.72, based on the total economic loss of $24,750.53 and subtracting the $8,419.81 in burial expenses, which was paid for by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCB). The court found that the $16,330.72 in restitution should be offset by the $9,375 the Pattersons received directly from defendant’s insurance company,[6] for a remaining total award of $6,955.72.
DISCUSSION
Comparative Negligence in Determining Victim Restitution
A. The Parties’ Contentions
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to apply the comparative negligence doctrine in determining the amount of victim restitution. Specifically, defendant contends that “[a] court cannot unreasonably dismiss civil law doctrines when applying its discretion to analyzing victim restitution.” Defendant further argues, ‘“There is no principled reason why the civil doctrine of comparative fault should be allowed to apply in the criminal restitution context, but only against a surviving victim who was to some degree at fault, but not against his heirs as would be done in a wrongful death case.” The People contend that Millard was wrongly decided and regardless, it is inapplicable to the facts of this case because the victim’s parents did not contribute to Payne’s death and because Payne’s own conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the collision.
6 The Pattersons received $9,375 of the $15,000 settlement amount and the balance was paid to the VCB based on a lien for the funeral expenses.
B. Analysis
Victim restitution is mandatory under the California Constitution. Article I, section 28, subdivision (b), to the California Constitution provides in pertinent part: “(A) It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to seek and secure restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer. [¶] (B) Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(A)-(B).) For the purposes of victim restitution under our Constitution, the parents of the direct crime victim are separate victims. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (e); see also Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (k)(3)(A).) These constitutional provisions were enacted by the voters as part of Proposition 8, the Victims’ Bill of Rights of 1982 (Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 652), and they were subsequently amended by the electorate in Proposition 9, Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law (Marsy’s Law) (Prop. 9, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2008) eff. Nov. 5, 2008; Cal. Const., art. I, § 28). The original constitutional provision in Proposition 8 required the Legislature to enact a statutory scheme implementing the broad mandate in the constitution. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, former subd. (b); Giordano, at pp. 652, 655-656.) One such provision is section 1202.4.[8]
7 Accordingly, we need not address the People’s argument that Millard was wrongly decided or that Payne’s conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the collision.
8 Other restitution provisions can be found in section 1203.1, subdivisions (b) and (j), which provides that when a defendant is granted probation, a trial court may in its discretion require the defendant to pay restitution as a condition of probation. As our high court noted in People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114 , 1132 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 681 , 899 P.2d 67 ], restitution imposed as a condition of probation under section 1203.1 may be imposed when a trial court determines it is “fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done, that amends may be made to society for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person resulting from that breach, and generally and specifically for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer.” (§ 1203.1, subd. (j).) In ordering restitution as a condition of probation, “a trial court could properly determine restitution would serve a salutary rehabilitative purpose by directing the defendant to accept the social responsibility.” (Carbajal, at p. 1125.) Thus, such restitution serves the additional rehabilitative purposes specified in section 1203.1. (Carbajal, at p. 1125.) The restitution ordered under section 1203.1 need only be “ ‘reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.’ ” (Carbajal, at p. 1123, italics added.) The People suggest Carbajal’s reasoning has application here. However, defendant in this case was sentenced to prison and restitution was ordered under section 1202.4. Whether comparative negligence could or should be applied when restitution is ordered as a condition *342 of probation, given that such restitution need only be reasonably related to the goal of deterring future criminality, is not before us.
Victims are entitled to an amount of restitution so as to make them whole but not more than their actual losses arising out of the defendant’s criminal conduct. (People v. Fortune (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 790 , 795-796 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 872 ].) One object of restitution under section 1202.4 is to ‘“restore the economic status quo” by returning to the victim “ ‘funds in which he or she has an ownership interest’ ” following a criminal conviction. (Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 658.) However, “a restitution order ‘is not. . . intended to provide the victim with a windfall.’ ” (Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 28.)
As she did in the trial court, on appeal, defendant relies primarily on Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th 7 , to support her contention that the comparative negligence doctrine should be applied here to reduce the restitution owed to the victim’s parents. At issue in Millard was the amount of restitution owed to the injured victim of the defendant’s driving under the influence with injury conviction. The victim there survived and sought restitution for his medical expenses and future lost earnings. (Id. at pp. 20-24.) The trial court in Millard reduced the victim’s restitution by 25 percent because of the victim’s comparative negligence. (Id. at p. 36.) The Millard court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by reducing the restitution award, because ‘“a trial court is not precluded from applying the doctrine of comparative negligence to reduce the amount of Penal Code section 1202.4 victim restitution that a criminally negligent defendant must pay when the victim’s negligence was also a substantial factor in causing his or her economic losses.” (Millard, at p. 41.)
The Millard court reasoned that criminal defendants are required to reimburse their victims only for those economic losses suffered “ ‘as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct,’ ” and ‘“[i]f the doctrine of comparative negligence were not applicable, a criminally negligent defendant could be required to reimburse a victim for economic losses that were
The instant case is distinguishable from Millard. Here, the people seeking restitution are the direct crime victim’s parents. Under the California Constitution and section 1202.4, they are separate victims and they sought restitution for their own personal economic loss, not that of their son.[9] In Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th 644 , our high court held that victims under section 1202.4 may recover restitution only for losses suffered personally, and may not “step into the shoes” of another victim to recover that victim’s losses. (Giordano, at p. 657 [the victim’s wife, however, was entitled to recover her personal loss of future economic support resulting from the victim’s death].) In our view, the parents here do not step into the shoes of the victim for purposes of comparative negligence where they seek restitution for their own personal losses. They were not negligent, they had nothing to do with their son’s death, and they merely sought restitution for personal economic losses related to attending the criminal proceedings. The Millard
9 Our case is also different from the situation in People v. Runyan (2012) 54 Cal.4th 849 , 858-859 [ 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 674 , 279 P.3d 1143 ], where our high court held—based partially on Marsy’s Law—that when a crime victim has died, restitution owed to that person for economic loss personally incurred by the victim as a result of the commission of the crime is properly payable to the decedent’s estate. Here, the parents do not seek restitution on behalf of their' son’s estate, but rather they seek it for their' own personal economic loss.
Despite whatever fault the deceased victim may have had here, defendant nevertheless committed a crime and was convicted of that crime. The prosecution of that crime resulted in criminal proceedings attended by the victim’s parents. But for the commission of that crime, there would not have been court proceedings and the victim’s parents would not have personally incurred any economic losses. (See People v. Crisler (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1503 , 1509 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 887 ] (Crisler) [victim’s mother, father, and stepfather were entitled to expenses and wages lost as a result of attending court proceedings in the defendant’s prosecution; these expenses would not have been incurred had the defendant not killed their son].) The parents’ attendance at the court proceedings and the costs associated with that attendance were a direct result of defendant’s criminal conduct. (See Moore, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 1233 [the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the defendant to pay a nontestifying burglary victim for the wages he lost while attending court proceedings; such losses were a “direct result” of the defendant’s conduct].) There was no negligence by the parents here that could be said to have “caused in part” their losses. (See Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 39.) Thus, the parents, standing in their own shoes as separate victims, were entitled to restitution for the cost of attending court proceedings and lost wages.
As we have noted, the Millard court concluded there were no “compelling policy or other reasons to preclude the application of the doctrine of comparative negligence” in that case. (Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 39, italics added.) The same cannot be said here. Here, the parents incurred expenses at no fault of their own. In our view, we give full effect to the constitutional provisions twice enacted by the voters and the statutory provisions enacted by the Legislature classifying certain family members of a crime victim as separate victims for restitution purposes by distinguishing the situation where a negligent surviving victim seeks restitution for his losses from the situation presented here, where separate nonnegli-gent victims claim restitution for their own economic loss. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (e); Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (k)(3)(A).)
Defendant relies on discussion from this court’s opinion in People v. Dehle (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1380 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 461 ] (Dehle) in further support
In Dehle, the trial court granted restitution to the wife of the victim in a vehicular manslaughter case to compensate her for lost future earnings and household services. (Dehle, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1385-1386.) But the restitution hearing was flawed because the prosecution did not attend, and this court remanded for a new restitution hearing. (Id. at pp. 1386, 1391.) In doing so, the court reasoned that because the prosecution was not present to advocate on behalf of the People (not just the victim), the People “at large” were not heard on several issues. (Id. at p. 1388.) The court stated, “While we express no opinion on the resolution of these issues, they include, among others, the following: given the fact that it appears that the decedent was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident, whether the decedent’s own negligence contributed to his death and whether defendant should be required to make restitution for economic harm caused in part by the victim himself . . . .”[10] (Dehle, at pp. 1388-1389, italics added.) Defendant argues Dehle is important because it suggests comparative fault should be a consideration even in a case where a separate victim (the wife of the victim) sought restitution. Yet, it is clear from the italicized text (which was omitted from defendant’s briefing) that this court took no position on the application of comparative negligence or the other legal and factual issues it listed. (See fn. 10, ante.) Moreover, this court was careful to recognize that “the focus of a restitution hearing in a criminal matter—economic compensation to the victim, rehabilitation of the offender, and the deterrence of the offender and others from similar conduct—is different from the focus of a civil wrongful death action even though the former raises many of the same issues as the latter.” (Dehle, at p. 1389.) In the context of the situation before us, where we give the constitutional and statutory provisions broad and liberal construction to ensure the separate victims are fully reimbursed (see Moore, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 1231), we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay the parents for their economic losses associated with attending the criminal proceedings.
10 The other issues identified by the Dehle court were: “whether it was just to deny [the wife] restitution for her attorney fees in the underlying action against the insurance carrier because her attorney refused to produce his billing records; whether the proper measure of [the wife]’s economic loss was the loss of [the victim]’s gross income to age 67, adjusted as it was by [the wife]’s expert witness, or something less than that, such as [the victim]’s taxable income; whether it was appropriate to reduce [the victim]’s gross income by 30 percent per year based on an estimate of his personal consumption; and whether the victim restitution statutes allow for or require compensation for the loss of a decedent’s services around the home and, if so, the proper measure of that compensation.” (Dehle. supra. 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1389.)
Similarly, before the voter’s 1986 enactment of Civil Code section 1431.2 in Proposition 51, damages for loss of consortium were not reduced because of the negligence of the deceased spouse. (Lantis v. Condon (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 152 , 157-159 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 22 ] (Lantis)) In Lantis, the court reasoned that reducing a widow’s damages for loss of consortium by the amount of contributory negligence attributable to her husband would “force a plaintiff, who was herself free from fault, to pay a penalty for the negligence of another.” (Id. at p. 159.) Additionally, the Lantis court observed, “If the injury [the wife] suffered were a broken leg while riding in a vehicle driven by her contributorily negligent husband, there would be no question but that his contributory negligence would not destroy or mitigate her right to full recovery. [Citation.] There is no reason why injury to her psychological and emotional state should be treated any differently than injury to her physical well being.” (Id. at p. 157, citing Wilkins, supra, 232 Cal.App.2d at p. 462.) We find the reasoning in Lantis persuasive here.[11] Separate crime victims like the parents in this case are analogous to the plaintiffs in Wilkins and Lantis.
Defendant also cites civil law principles. She argues that since a surviving heir’s damages can be reduced by the application of the comparative negligence doctrine in a wrongful death case, so too should the parents’ restitution award be reduced here. Defendant relies on Craddock, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th
11 Subsequent to Lantis. the voters enacted Proposition 51 and Civil Code section 1431.2 (Craddock v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1300 , 1309-1310 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 881 ] (Craddock)). Civil Code section 1431.2 provides in pertinent part: “(a) In any action for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, based upon principles of comparative fault, the liability of each defendant for non-economic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint. Each defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault, and a separate judgment shall be rendered against that defendant for that amount. [¶] (b) [¶] . . . [¶] (2) For the purposes of this section, the term ‘non-economic damages’ means subjective, non-monetary losses including, but not limited to, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation.” (Italics added.) This enactment effectively abrogated the holding in Lantis. (See Craddock, at p. 1311 [holding that the trial court correctly reduced a spouse’s loss of consortium award “under the compulsion” of Civ. Code, § 1431.2].)
Defendant also relies on Horwich v Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 222 , 980 P.2d 927 ], another wrongful death case, for its observation that “some defenses can be asserted equally against the decedent or the heirs, principally comparative negligence.”[12] (Homdch, at p. 284.) The Homdch court explained that in wrongful death cases, “principles of comparative fault and equitable indemnification support an apportionment of liability among those responsible for the loss, including the decedent.” (Id. at p. 285.) But the court also noted that wrongful death is the product of a statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60, which provides standing to assert a “ ‘cause of action in favor of the heirs as beneficiaries [of a decedent], based upon their own independent pecuniary injury suffered by loss of a relative, and distinct from any the deceased might have maintained had he survived.’ ”[13] (Horwich, at p. 283.) “The right to sue for wrongful death damages is a creature of statute, and exists only so far and in favor of
12 Defendant also cites Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.tth 764, 770 [ 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 313 , 248 P.3d 1170 ], a wrongful death case where a spouse’s recovery following her husband’s death in a collision was limited where the jury found the decedent to be 90 percent at fault. However, that case does not discuss the doctrine of comparative negligence or its application to third parties in any detail.
13 In pertinent paid. Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 provides as follows: “A cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another may be asserted by any of the following persons or by the decedent’s personal representative on their' behalf: [¶] (a) The decedent’s surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children, or, if there is no surviving issue of the decedent, the persons, including the surviving spouse or domestic partner, who would be entitled to the property of the decedent by intestate succession. [¶] (b) Whether or not qualified under subdivision (a), if they were dependent on the decedent, the putative spouse, children of the putative spouse, stepchildren. *348 or parents. As used in this subdivision, ‘putative spouse’ means the surviving spouse of a void or voidable marriage who is found by the court to have believed in good faith that the marriage to the decedent was valid. [¶] (c) A minor, whether or not qualified under subdivision (a) or (b), if, at the time of the decedent’s death, the minor resided for the previous 180 days in the decedent’s household and was dependent on the decedent for one-half or more of the minor’s support.”
Under the original version of California Constitution, article I, section 28, subdivision (b), enacted in Proposition 8, and the current Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivisions (1) and (g), trial courts need not award full restitution when there are “compelling and extraordinary reasons.”[14] (§ 1202.4.) No such reasons appear in the record before us. To the contrary, there are compelling reasons supporting the trial court’s exercise of discretion. As this court noted in Crisler, it is entirely reasonable that a deceased
14 Although the Millard court expressly disclaimed reliance on this exception (Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 42, fn. 16), we nevertheless observe that, at least under the statute, trial courts may have discretion to award less than full restitution (Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 661). However, as the People have noted, the amendments made in Marsy’s Law deleted the “compelling and extraordinary” exception, and the official voter information guide explained, “[T]his measure requires that, without exception, restitution be ordered from offenders who have been convicted in every case in which a victim suffers a loss.” (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2008) analysis of Prop. 9 by Legis. Analyst, p. 58 <http://vigarchive.sos. ca.gov/2008/general/analysis/prop9-analysis.htm> [as of Feb. 9, 2017].) Whether the statutory exception is still viable after Marsy’s Law remains to be determined, but whether it remains viable makes no difference here. If Marsy’s Law has served to abrogate the statutory exception, our holding is consistent with the intent of the voters who enacted Marsy’s Law in that it provides full restitution to the parents of the deceased victim. If the statutory exception is still viable, as we explain, there are no compelling and extraordinary reasons that would warrant depriving the parents of the full amount of restitution to which they are entitled.
We conclude that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in declining to apply comparative negligence to the parents’ restitution claim.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Butz, Acting P. J., and Duarte, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 10, 2017, S240755.
Cases cited
- People v. Millard 175 Cal.App.4th 7 p. 338, p. 342
- People v. Giordano 42 Cal.4th 644 at 657 p. 340, p. 343
- People v. Taylor 197 Cal.App.4th 757 at 761 p. 342
- People v. Moore 177 Cal.App.4th 1229 at 1231 p. 342
- People v. Mearns 97 Cal.App.4th 493 at 500-501 p. 342
- People v. Baker 126 Cal.App.4th 463 at 470 p. 342
- People v. Fortune 129 Cal.App.4th 790 at 795-796 p. 342
- People v. Crisler 165 Cal.App.4th 1503 at 1509 p. 344
- People v. Dehle 166 Cal.App.4th 1380 p. 344
- Wilkins v. Sawyer 232 Cal.App.2d 458 at 462 p. 346
- Lantis v. Condon 95 Cal.App.3d 152 at 157-159 p. 346
- People v. Neely 176 Cal.App.4th 787 at 800 p. 347
- People v. Blackburn 72 Cal.App.4th 1520 at 1535 p. 347
- Horwich v. Superior Court 21 Cal.4th 272 p. 347
- Kwang Hoon Kim v. Song Yi 139 Cal.App.4th 543 at 546 p. 348
- Atkins v. Strayhorn 223 Cal.App.3d 1380 at 1395 p. 348