Civil Actions - Illegal Evidence - Vehicle - CA

Section § 40830

This law section states that if you break a traffic law because a federal law, a military order, or a directive by California's Governor during emergencies requires it, that doesn't automatically mean you were negligent in a civil lawsuit. In such cases, negligence has to be proven separately from the violation itself.

Simply put, breaking the specific law due to higher authority orders doesn't count as negligence by itself, but negligence can still be argued and proven in court.

In either of the following circumstances a violation of any provision of this code does not establish negligence as a matter of law, but in any civil action under either of the circumstances negligence must be proved as a fact without regard to the violation. The circumstances under which this section applies are either:

(a) Where violation of the provision was required by a law of the federal government or by any rule, regulation, directive or order of any agency of the federal government, the violation of which is subject to penalty under an act of Congress or by any valid order of military authority.

(b) Where violation of the provision was required in order to comply with any regulation, directive, or order of the Governor promulgated under the California Emergency Services Act.

negligence in civil cases federal government orders military authority ...

Section § 40831

In civil cases, just driving over the speed limit doesn't automatically mean you're negligent. You have to prove that going that fast was actually careless or dangerous in the situation to establish negligence.

In any civil action proof of speed in excess of any prima facie limit declared in Section 22352 at a particular time and place does not establish negligence as a matter of law but in all such actions it shall be necessary to establish as a fact that the operation of a vehicle at the excess speed constituted negligence.

civil action prima facie speed limit proving negligence ...

Section § 40832

This law says that if your driver's license has been suspended or revoked, the records or details of the hearing that led to that suspension or revocation cannot be used as evidence in any civil lawsuit.

No record of the suspension or revocation of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle by the department, nor any testimony of or concerning or produced at the hearing terminating in the suspension or revocation, shall be admissible as evidence in any court in any civil action.

driver's license suspension license revocation evidence in civil cases ...

Section § 40833

This law states that certain reports and actions related to vehicle accidents, and any findings or security deposits associated with them, cannot be used as evidence in court to prove negligence or carefulness of any person when suing for damages.

Neither the report required by Sections 16000, 16001, 16002, or 16003, the action taken by the department pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 7 (commencing at Section 16000), the findings, if any, of the department upon which action is based, nor the security filed as provided in that chapter shall be referred to in any way, or be any evidence of the negligence or due care of any party, at the trial of any action at law to recover damages.

vehicle accident reports evidence exclusion negligence ...

Section § 40834

This law states that if you're convicted of a motor vehicle violation, that conviction can't be used to automatically decide issues in a later civil lawsuit. In other words, just because you were found guilty in traffic court doesn't mean the same issue can't be argued again differently in a civil case.

A judgment of conviction for any violation of this code or of any local ordinance relating to the operation of a motor vehicle or a finding reported under Section 1816 shall not be res judicata or constitute a collateral estoppel of any issue determined therein in any subsequent civil action.

motor vehicle violation civil action judgment of conviction ...