During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Damages

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Morgado v, City & County of San Francisco (2020)

CCSF wrongly terminated Morgado's employment as a police officer.  While he was no longer working for CCSF, Morgado was engaged as a broker, earning $181,000 in gross income.  This decision holds that Morgado's earnings as a broker must be offset agaisnt the damages he is awarded against CCSF whether for front or back pay.  Morgado is entitled only to be… Read More

B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020)

Agreeing with Thomas v. Duggins Construction Co., Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1105, the Supreme Court holds that an intentional tortfeasor is not entitled to the benefits of Proposition 51 and CIvil Code 1431.2.  An intentional tortfeasor is fully liable for all of the plaintiff's economic and noneconomic damages.  Whereas, under secction 1431.2, a negligent tortfeasor is liable for the amount… Read More

Johnson v. Monsanto Co. (2020)

California does not allow recovery of damages for the shortened life expectancy caused by plaintiff's contracting a disease from the defendant's product.  And, in awarding damages for pain and suffering, the jury may only award such damages during the period the plaintiff is actually expected to live due the contracted disease. Read More

Levin v. Winston-Levin

by Jan T. Chilton |

Probate Code 859 provides for an award of double damages if the court finds that the defendant son has in bad faith wrongfully taken . . . property belonging to a . . . dependent adult, . . .  or has taken . . . the property by the use of undue influence in bad faith or through the commission… Read More

Williams v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California

by Jan T. Chilton |

The trial court erred in failing to award the plaintiff the value of home health care and other household services provided to plaintiff’s decedent before his death by several of his children, as well as the value of nursing services that the decedent would have rendered to his wife had he not been injured by the defendant. Read More

Fernandes v. Singh

by Kerry W. Franich |

Noncompliance with a court order to disclose financial condition precludes a defendant from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of a punitive damages award on appeal. Read More

Thompson v. Asimos

The trial court erred in awarding damages in the amount of the difference between the amount of commission the parties sought in a separate suit against a third party and the amount for which they settled that suit, since the outcome of the lawsuit if prosecuted to completion was merely a matter of speculation.  Read More

Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

To support an award of damages for lost earning capacity, plaintiff must introduce evidence showing the career it is reasonably probable plaintiff would have pursued but for the tortious injury and the amount plaintiff would have earned in that career.  Read More

Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co.

In an insurance bad faith action, Brandt legal fees that the insured incurs in his successful effort to obtain insurance benefits are actual damages which must be included with other actual damages in computing the actual to punitive ratio, even if the parties stipulate to having the trial judge set Brandt fees after the jury has awarded both other actual… Read More