Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


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.

A real estate broker whom the court appointed to determine the listing price and sell the property in a partition action is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from one of the co-owner's claims for breach of fiduciary duty and other torts. The broker was appointed by the court for his expertise to carry out the court’s order to sell the property… Read More

A shopping center landlord was not entitled to immunity from an independent contractor's personal injury suit under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 because the landlord did not hire the contractor.  A shopping center tenant did.  Also, the landlord did not delegate to the tenant the landlord's responsibility for maintaining in safe condition the portion of the premises… Read More

Langford, a CHP officer, killed Silva's son while speeding to respond to an emergency call.  Langford was statutorily immune from liability under Vehicle Code 17004, but the CHP was not.  Gov. Code 815.2(b) immunizes a government entity when its employee is immune except as "otherwise provided by law."  Vehicle Code 17001 otherwise provides, making an entity liable for death or… Read More

Plaintiff's complaint alleged a viable Sherman Act section 1 antitrust conspiracy among dentist members of the Dental Board of California to harass and intimidate plaintiff which sought to engage in a disruptive new direct to consumer model of marketing clear dental aligners to members of the public.  The members of the dental board were not immune from antitrust liability merely… Read More

Plaintiff owner of a gated residential community sued defendant, a private water company, for repeated failures of a 12-inch water main that defendant constructed at plaintiff's request to serve two fire hydrants in the development as well as the domestic water needs of the residents.  This decision affirms the defense judgment.  The inverse condemnation claim failed because the water main… Read More

Indian tribes and their business entities are entitled to tribal immunity from suit in state court.  However, the tribe's officers and employees may not invoke tribal immunity if the suit seeks to recover damages or other relief from them individually.  Tribal judges, however, are entitled to common law judicial immunity from suit for actions taken in their official role as… Read More

A bicyclist was killed when he collided with a truck making a right turn in a section of a city street that lacked a marked bicycle lane, unlike most of the rest of the street which had a bike lane marking.  The city established the three elements of its design immunity defense under Gov. Code 830.6.  The city had approved… Read More

The trial court properly dismissed this personal injury suit by a bicyclist against Orange County under Gov. Code 831.4 which provides government entities absolute immunity from suit for injuries sustained while engaged in bike riding or while on a bike trail.  Plaintiff was injured when he rode his bike into a fence separating two parts of a bike trail.  The… Read More

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230(c)(2)) grants immunity from liability to an interactive service provider for providing the means of restricting access to materials that are of a violent or sexual nature or is “otherwise objectionable.” This decision holds that "otherwise objectionable" is not broad enough to encompass software that is objectionable only because it is… Read More

A governmental entity is immune from suit for the conduct of its employees or agents which could constitute a tort only if done by the governmental entity itself, in this case an abuse of process suit based on its employees and agents allegedly misuse of discovery in a civil action to audit the plaintiff's records for unclaimed property. Read More

Defendant city government is immune from liability for accidents caused by police vehicular pursuits if it has promulgated a suitable written pursuit policy and requires annual training and certification by all officers that they have received, read, and understood the policy; the officers need not have actually signed the required certifications. Read More

In order to claim design immunity, a public entity does not need to show that the employee who approved the challenged design actually considered the safety feature that plaintiff claims should have been included in the design and then omitted it; rather it only needs to show substantial evidence supporting the design’s reasonableness. Read More

Under the Government Code’s “trail immunity” provision, the City of Pasadena was immune from plaintiff’s negligence claims after he slid over an unguarded ten-foot retaining wall while trying to reach a pedestrian trail in the middle of the night. Read More

1 2