California Case Law - The FindLaw California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Injury & Tort Law Category

Nelson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. C059615

November 23, 2009 2:44 PM | No TrackBacks

In plaintiff-trust's suit against defendant-Exxon claiming contamination of its water supply and other allegations, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court's order substituting Cook Endeavors for the Trust as plaintiff in this action is affirmed; and 2) peremptory writ of mandate is issued directing the superior court to vacate its order granting Exxon's motion for summary adjudication on plaintiff's punitive damages claim.     

Read Nelson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. C059615 [HTML]

Read Nelson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. C059615 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Cantil-Sakauye

Counsel
For Appellant:   Baron & Budd, Scott Summy, Celeste A. Evangelisti, John L. Yates, Carla M. Burke; Stevens, O'Connell & Jacobs, Charles J. Stevens, David A. Cheit, Bradley A. Benbrook; Sher & Leff, Victor M. Sher, Richard M. Franco

For Appellee:  Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Jeffrey J. Parker, Whitney Jones Roy, Karin Dougan Vogel; Morgan Lewis & Bockius, David L. Schrader

Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc., No. B205735

November 20, 2009 12:52 PM | No TrackBacks

In plaintiff's suit against the defendant for sparking a brush fire that caused a significant damage to his ranch, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant forfeited any error in the jury's verdict form; 2) jury's award of restoration damages in excess of the property's value was supported by substantial evidence and was not excessive as a matter of law; 3) the undisputed evidence established that plaintiff did not reside on the property at the time of the trespass, and his storage of personal property there was not the type of "occupancy" that would justify his recovery of annoyance and discomfort damages; 4) tree damage caused by a negligently spread fire is wrongful injury to trees caused by a trespass subject to mandatory doubling pursuant to Civil Code section 3346, notwithstanding the general provision governing fire damage in Health and Safety Code section 13007; and 5) substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that plaintiff intended to use the property for raising livestock, entitling him to an award of attorney's fees under Code of Civ. Proc. section 1021.9. 

Read Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc., No. B205735 [HTML]

Read Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc., No. B205735 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mosk

Counsel
For Appellant:    Horvitz & Levy, Lisa J. Perrochet, Robert H. Wright; Lyddan Law Group and Jeffrey D. Lyddan

For Appellee: Law Offices of Douglas G. Gray, Douglas G. Gray; Cotkin & Collins, Robert G. Wilson and Terry L. Kesinger

Johnson v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., No. B210799

November 20, 2009 12:21 PM | No TrackBacks

In plaintiff's suit against the defendants arising from injuries he sustained as an HVAC technician while working on defendants' air conditioning equipment, trial court's judgment in favor of defendants is reversed as the sophisticated user defense applies to the negligence cause of action, but not to the strict liability cause of action. 

Read Johnson v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., No. B210799 [HTML]

Read Johnson v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., No. B210799  [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Armstrong

Counsel
For Appellant:  Metzger Law Group, Raphael Metzger and Gregory A. Coolidge

For Appellee:   Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad, Mary-Christine Sungaila, Dean A. Bochner; Atkins & Evans, Irwin S. Evans, Cynthia L. Sands; Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor, Kevin C. Mayer; Prindle, Decker & Amaro, James G. Murray

Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc., No. B200006

November 18, 2009 2:59 PM | No TrackBacks

In plaintiffs' products liability suit against defendants for injuries caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products aboard US Navy vessels, trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed in where: 1) plaintiffs have not shown that defendant manufactured, supplied, or distributed the products which caused his exposure to asbestos; and 2) defendant is not liable in strict liability for failing to warn of the dangerous properties of those products or for a design defect in those products.     

Read Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc., No. B200006 [HTML]

Read Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc., No. B200006 [PDF]

Filed November 17, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Kitching

Counsel
For Appellant: Simon, Eddins & Greenstone, Brian P. Barrow

For Appellee:  Gordon & Rees, James G. Scadden, Don Willenburg; Munger, Tolles & Olson, Mark H. Epstein, Paul J. Watford and Julie D. Cantor

Nutragenetics, LLC v. Sup. Ct., No. B217853

November 18, 2009 2:51 PM | No TrackBacks

In plaintiff's suit against the defendants alleging he was defrauded into investing in their company, defendants' petition for writ of mandate is denied as trial court properly found plaintiff's peremptory challenge to the judge to be timely where: 1) the second lawsuit involves a different defendant and different causes of action asserted against that defendant; and 2) the second lawsuit does not arise from conduct in, or involve enforcement or modification of an order in, the first lawsuit.     

Read Nutragenetics, LLC v. Sup. Ct., No. B217853 [HTML]

Read Nutragenetics, LLC v. Sup. Ct., No. B217853 [PDF]

Filed November 17, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mohr

Counsel
For Appellant:    Stearns Kim & Stearns, Lawrence B. Bemis, Ryan E. Stearns and Lauren B. Browne

For Appellee:  Gallo & Associates, Ray E. Gallo and Sharon S. Laveson

Cassel v. Sup. Ct., No. B215215

November 13, 2009 12:07 PM | No TrackBacks

In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit, his request for writ of relief from two orders excluding evidence in favor of his former attorneys is granted and the orders vacated as the communications are a client and his attorney, outside the presence of, and not otherwise communicated to, any opposing party or the mediator, and reveal nothing said or done in the mediation discussion. 

Read Cassel v. Sup. Ct., No. B215215 [HTML]

Read Cassel v. Sup. Ct., No. B215215 [PDF]

Filed November13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Jackson

Counsel

For Appellant:   Makarem & Associates, Ronald W. Makarem, Peter M. Kunstler and Jamie R. Greene

For Appellee:   Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Peter Q. Ezzell, Nancy E. Lucas and Stephen M. Caine

Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. E044098

November 11, 2009 11:28 AM | No TrackBacks

In plaintiff's wrongful death suit against the defendant, arising from an accident where a pickup truck driven by plaintiff's deceased husband collided with a tractor-trailer driven by defendant's employee, a jury verdict for plaintiff is reversed and remanded where: 1) as a matter of law, the employee owed no duty to the decedent to avoid stopping in the emergency parking area; 2) the employee's negligence did not proximately cause the accident, and notwithstanding the conclusion that the record does not contain substantial evidence that the employee's negligent act or omission caused plaintiff's injuries, plaintiff cannot recover against defendant based on the facts in the record as a matter of public policy; and 3) the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of plaintiff's expert on causation and as such, the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.     

Read Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. E044098 [HTML]

Read Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., No. E044098 [PDF]

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Hollenhorst

Counsel

For Appellant:   Bell, Orrock & Watase, Stanley Orrock; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Timothy T. Coates and Lillie Hsu

For Appellee:   Shernoff Bidart Darras Escheverria, Frank N. Darras, Lissa A. Martinez; Donahue and Horrow and Michael B. Horrow

Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Sup. Ct., No. B212761

November 11, 2009 11:22 AM | No TrackBacks

In plaintiffs' suit against the defendant-Cruise Line  brought under the California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the False Advertising Law (FAL), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), over charges added to the price of shore excursions taken during a cruise, trial court's order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment is vacated and remanded where: 1) trial court erred in concluding that the CLRA cause of action was barred by Civil Code 1781(c); 2) a plaintiff asserting UCL, FAL and CLRA must show that he or she relied on the defendant's misrepresentations; 3) plaintiffs did not rely on any representations made by defendants; 4) there are no material questions of fact about the cost of excursions. 

Read Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Sup. Ct., No. B212761 [HTML]

Read Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Sup. Ct., No. B212761 [PDF]

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Flier

Counsel

For Appellant:   Kaye, Rose & Partners, Bradley M. Rose, Carolyn J. Kaye, Aksana Moshaiv and André M. Picciurro

For Appellee:   Bailey Law Group, Mohammed K. Ghods and William A. Stahr

Jackson v. Yarbray, No. B204321

November 11, 2009 11:02 AM | No TrackBacks

In plaintiffs' malicious prosecution action against defendants involving an ealier case that arose from unsuccessful efforts to merge with businesses owned by defendants, trial court's finding that defendants are liable for the malicious prosecution of a civil action and award of $700,000 in general damages for emotional distress and $2.41 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the judgment as to defendant's counsel who had represented them for part of the time the action was pending is affirmed in its entirety as the trial court did not err in concluding plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving counsel had acted with malice; 2) portion of the judgment awarding compensatory damages is reversed in part and remanded to determine the amount of attorney fees and costs properly recoverable as special damages by the plaintiffs as the trial court erred in precluding any recovery by the plaintiffs for attorney fees incurred in defending the underlying action; and 3) judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects.     

Read Jackson v. Yarbray, No. B204321 [HTML]

Read Jackson v. Yarbray, No. B204321 [PDF]

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Perluss

Counsel

For Appellant:  Law Offices of Yvonne M. Renfrew and Yvonne M. Renfrew

For Appellee:  Robert T. Yarbray, Lobb Cliff & Lester, Mark S. Lester, Robert J. Mitchell and Orlando J. Villalba, for Best Best & Krieger, LLP

Doe v. Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, No. B209557

November 9, 2009 10:38 AM | No TrackBacks

In fifteen plaintiffs' statewide clergy sex abuse case against defendants, trial court's order sustaining defendants' demurrers without leave to amend is affirmed as childhood sexual molestation victims whose claims were time barred before January 1, 2003, had to sue during the ensuing one-year revival period regardless of whether they had yet discovered the link between the earlier abuse and their adult outset of psychological injuries from that abuse. 

Read Doe v. Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, No. B209557 [HTML]

Read Doe v. Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, No. B209557 [PDF]

Filed November 6, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Rubin

Counsel

For Appellant:  Zalkin & Zimmer, Irwin M. Zalkin and Devin M. Storey

For Appellee:  Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman and Lee W. Potts; Shea Stokes Roberts & Wagner, Maria C. Roberts, Shirley Gauvin, and Christina Yates

« Immigration Law | Main Index | Archives | Intellectual Property Law »