## Facts

- Jose L. Clemente, a pedestrian, was struck by a motorcycle in a Los Angeles intersection and suffered catastrophic, permanently disabling injuries.
- California Highway Patrol Officer Arthur Loxsom, while en route to freeway patrol, was directed to the accident scene.
- Loxsom activated emergency flashers, summoned an ambulance and the Los Angeles Police Department, and may have directed traffic.
- A van driver told Loxsom he had stopped to let Clemente cross and that the motorcyclist did not stop and hit Clemente; the motorcyclist admitted striking Clemente and said he did not see him.
- Loxsom told the motorcyclist to move the motorcycle out of the street, instructed him not to leave, and to wait for LAPD; Loxsom then departed before ambulance or LAPD arrived.
- Loxsom did not obtain the motorcyclist’s name, license information, or the motorcycle’s license number, and did not obtain identification from the van driver.
- The motorcyclist and van driver left before LAPD arrived and were never located despite later efforts.
- Clemente alleged that Loxsom’s failure to secure identifying information destroyed Clemente’s ability to pursue civil recovery from the at-fault motorcyclist.

## Issues

1. Whether, given a prior appellate ruling in the same case, defendants could relitigate whether an officer and the State may be liable for negligent failure to obtain identifying information from an accident tortfeasor.
2. Whether admitting percentage “permanent disability” ratings (derived from workers’ compensation concepts) in a civil tort trial was error requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine to treat the prior appellate determination that the pleadings stated a cognizable negligence claim as binding in subsequent proceedings.
- The court held that admitting percentage-based “permanent disability” ratings in this civil tort action was error.
- The court concluded the evidentiary error was not prejudicial in light of the record and the severity of Clemente’s injuries.
- The judgment for Clemente was affirmed (subject to a minor modification not affecting liability).

## Legal Principles

- Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a legal rule necessary to a prior appellate decision in the same case generally binds the parties and courts in later stages of that litigation, limiting attempts to relitigate settled legal issues.
- A plaintiff may recover for a distinct, compensable loss where a defendant’s negligence foreseeably destroys the plaintiff’s ability to pursue civil redress against an underlying tortfeasor; damages may be proved with reasonable certainty given the circumstances, not with absolute precision.
- Workers’ compensation “permanent disability” percentage ratings are generally inadmissible in civil tort trials because they are technical, potentially misleading, and risk substituting a numerical “bottom line” for the jury’s independent damages assessment.
- Erroneous admission of such disability-percentage evidence does not require reversal absent a reasonable probability it affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a substantial plaintiff’s verdict, holding that prior appellate recognition of the negligence theory controlled under law of the case, and ruling that percentage “permanent disability” evidence was improperly admitted but harmless on this record.


Clemente v. State, 40 Cal. 3d 202 (Cal. 1985)