University of California-San Diego Student Blocks Highway In Anti-Trump Protests and Sues School After She Is Hit By Car

View image on TwitterMariana Flores, a sophomore at the University of California-San Diego, has a curious concept of not just tort liability but personal responsibility.  She is suing UCSD for being hit by a car on the highway.  However, she was taking part in a protest illegally blocking the highway at the time.  She is suing the University of California Regents, the city and county of San Diego, the state of California, and the driver of the car.

The protest was over the presidential victory of Donald Trump and Flores was demonstrating on I-5 (an eight lane highway) when the car hit her and crushed her pelvis, fractured her leg, and caused other injuries.  She does not blame herself or the protesters.  She blames the university for not stopping her from doing such a reckless thing.

Flores is arguing that the university was aware of the protest for hours without adequate planning.  She argues that university officials encouraged the protest and did nothing to control her and other protesters.

 

Flores’ complaint maintains that anyone employed by the university who encouraged or supported the protest would be sufficient to established liability.

The effort is clearly to get a jury to find not that Flores was without fault but that there was comparative fault by UCSB.  The case is an argument against a “pure” comparative negligence standard like the one used in California.  In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, a plaintiff may recover damages even if he or she is more at fault than the defendant. The award is reduced by whatever the percentage of fault is assigned to the plaintiff.  Other states use a partial or modified comparative fault system where you are barred if you are 50 percent or more at fault in your own accident.  In the traditional contributory negligence states Flores would have been barred for even one percent of fault (absent a finding under “last clear chance” doctrines).

It is a good thing that UCSD is not simply caving into this lawsuit with a settlement. I fail to see the basis for liability based on the facts alleged by Flores.

What do you think?

56 thoughts on “University of California-San Diego Student Blocks Highway In Anti-Trump Protests and Sues School After She Is Hit By Car”

  1. Screw the ” institution of higher education”. Maybe a few successful dumb a$$ lawsuits like this may have a positive impact on this ” institution”.

  2. There needs to be counter claims for damages against her. There needs to be an injunction to bar her from entering the town, the school, the roads. She needs a California Enema.

  3. Apparently UCSD’s rigorous academic standards doesn’t include anything that teaches critical-thinking skills to their freshman class. My daughter graduated from there and is now an RN. Not to worry though, she completed her first 2 years at a community college and was well grounded before attending UCSD.

    I’m just trying to imagine what little was running through this student’s mind while standing in front of the approaching vehicle. The school said I have rights. The school said pedestrians have the right of way. That’s Donald Trump behind the wheel! I’ll be a hero. Where’s my iPhone. I should be studying. Damn, that car isn’t stopping. WTF!

  4. Flores is taking a deserved beating for her stupidity by the commenters at the original article at the UCSD paper. One commenter astutely mentions Flores broke CA Vehicle Code 21960, which prohibits pedestrians from being on controlled access highways (one can only walk from a disabled car to a nearby phone or aid station or separate car there to provide aid, etc.). Isn’t it likely the lawsuit would be dismissed on these grounds?

  5. Can the University sue her parents for raising such a stupid child that would go play ‘protester’ on a 8 lane Freeway?

  6. How did the University encourage or support the protest on the interstate? If the protesters were driven to the interstate by University personnel – maybe. But verbal encouragement alone should be insufficient for liability.

  7. From the article;
    “not doing anything and failing to act is legally the same thing as supporting the protest.”

    The First Amendment does not compute apparently.

    Is in loco parentis still in effect at this campus???

  8. The better cause of action against UCSD would be in failing to provide school crossing guards.

  9. I wonder if the driver of the car that hit this fool has a case against UCSD if the school knew about the protest

  10. I agree with the Mariana Flores that the University of California-San Diego contributed to her injury. UCSD is a Leftist institution masquerading as an institution of higher learning. However, the facts are that UCSD promotes and encourages all of the planks of the Leftist agenda from the top level down and any teacher there who does not tow the Leftist line is ostracized and canned. Among the key planks of the Leftist agenda at UCSD, apart from their pro-Islamocommunazi, anti-Israel, anti-free speech and anti-liberty programs, UCSD is, of course, strongly anti-Trump. Flores was only following the guidance of UCSD officials.

    While Flores was obviously mindlessly protesting along one of the busiest highways in California, mindlessness is taught to all UCSD students and any independent thinking is strongly disapproved of and censured. In fact, any genuine thinking whatsoever is considered to be anathema at UCSD.

    So UCSD might as well settle.

  11. Awarding citizenship as an accident of birth without fulldisclosure of the the responsbilities that accompany each and every right is a guarantee those rights will be take anway …wlthout notice. Thus we have those who weep sorrow over those who play stupid in the streets during rush hour traffic while others steal five or six constitutional rights with a new right manufactured and not approved by the citizens or the states under Nine and Ten and call them heros?

    Had the young wise fool had tgo sign up for the miltitary draft to get her free education as did the men, and had the men been made fully aware of what that eighteen year old signature meant they may have given pause until ready to accept the social contract instead of treating it as a birthright.

  12. Sophomore….wise fool by definition. Students should be not heard and preferably not seen until they have completed some recognizable degree of education. Sophomore in a USA school? About equal to a high school secondary student in Mexico.

    1. You mean Japan and Sweden right? Mexico? Here in Cali, they had to lower the standard for auto entry into the CSU system to a “D” for those students taking three college entry classes. Yes, a “D.” Meanwhile, the state just passed a law disqualifying any and all exit exams. Ask yourself why; ask yourself who is the majority of students in Cali…Hint: It’s one of the two countries you named in your post.

      Last New Year’s Resolution was not to post much on the internet, but your post was either radically satirical or radically ridiculous.

    2. Mexico? You really think the education system there is so superior? Maybe that’s why we are flooded with all of the STEM graduates who have been forced into agricultural work?
      Once they get here, they dominate Silicone Valley, right?

  13. That lawsuit should be used as the definition of a frivolous lawsuit! The attorney that filed the lawsuit should be disbarred, or at the very least, suspended for at least one year and required to take ethics lessons, particularly on the issue of what constitutes a frivolous. I am not an attorney but I worked in the legal field in California for over 20 years and I do not see how any reasonable attorney could agree that this lawsuit has any merit whatsoever.

  14. My thoughts as a parent of two college kids, if UCSD faculty or UCSD staff at a CxO like position (VP of Diversity or some such) were encouraging a protest on I-5, or even encouraging a protest that was not monitored and then led to folks going onto I-5, then hell yeah, UCSD should be kicked in the ass, punched in the face, and should pay through the nose.

    Campuses like to slough off their responsibilities to these kids….

    1. IF the institution cannot control nor protect serious students on their facility why are we funding them? They are doing no public service or improving the general welfare and only ripping off the taxpayersin a charade of a pretense of education … in between football games.

    2. ” responsibilities to these kids….”

      Funny, I thought you became an adult at 18. So how about they act like adults and take real classes that require enough time to make “protesting” impossible.

  15. side note: I kinda understand, but not for the same reasons she’s suing.

    I figure she mine as well, cause everyone hates her anyway, we all hate each other now and no one really cares about pretty much anyone, except maybe their close friends/family, maybe. Certainly not about the Nation, these endless wars, corrupt banks, cheating tax evading global corporations and of course the 6 owner MSM propagandist. You can’t beat the owners of the New Empire.

    When the banks went full TARP in 08/09 I felt the nation’s attitude was, “As long as it’s not me.” Now things have settled into, “Every man for himself.” Keep your head down, mouth shut, stay inside and don’t get any big ideas.

  16. Poor little snowflake. She’s never been held responsible for any self-generated negative outcomes in her life: bad grades, poor performances, job failures, law violations, and more. Now that she’s an adult, even in the KommyNanny Republik of Kalifornia, she’s about to have her eyes opened in the rudest of awakenings.

    And poor UCSD. It must be in the midst of an ultimate dilemma. Were it any other state’s institution of higher learning involved, it would surely be lined up on the wrong side of the law.

  17. stop me before I kill myself again?

    So if my job is so hard and I hurt myself (cause it’s driving me and and everyone working there nuts, and if anyone complains we’ll be fired), I can blame the employer and sue them?

Comments are closed.