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.

Negligence

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.

Mrs. Ek, while working at See's, caught COVID allegedly due to See's negligent failure to implement procedures to prevent spread of infection.  While Mrs. Ek was home sick, she infected Mr. Ek, who later died of COVID.  This decision holds that the Workers Comp. Act does not preempt Mr. Ek's heirs' wrongful death suit.  The derivative injury doctrine under which… Read More

Following Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, this decision holds that MICRA's one-year limitations on medical malpractice claims and $250,000 limit on non-economic damages did not apply to this elderly woman's who was sexually assaulted by the defendant elder care facility's male attendant, based on a jury's finding that the defendant was not only guilty not only of general… Read More

Gov. Code 831.7 immunizes governmental entities from liability for any injury arising out of a hazardous recreational activity.  This decision holds that unlike Gov. Code 846 which applies only to premises liability claims, section 831.7 more broadly immunizes government entities from claims whether for hazardous conditions of property or employee negligence in connection with hazardous recreational activities.  The decision also… Read More

Though the filming and exhibition of a public television reality show regarding persons aspiring to be models was entitled to protection under the Anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16(e)), the plaintiff, a real, well-known model, presented enough evidence to show a probability of success on her claims for invasion of privacy, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and misappropriation of her… Read More

Plaintiff's faithless manager embezzled $154,000 by taking checks payable to plaintiff, endorsing them with a squiggle that might have approximated his name, and depositing them in his own account at JPMorgan.  Because the deposits were by ATM and each check was for less than $1,500, no human inspected them.  Held, the trial court erred in granting JPMorgan summary judgment.  JPMorgan… Read More

In determining whether a defendant's tortious conduct was the proximate cause of plaintiff's damage, the court must view the general set of circumstances not the particular facts of the case.  So, here, the defendant escrow company's negligence in closing an escrow for the sale of a house led foreseeably to the seller's incurring damages in the form of attorney fees… Read More

A defendant can be held liable for negligent misrepresentation on two disparate theories.  First, under Rest.2d Torts section 311, a defendant may be liable for negligent misrepresentation in endorsing a product that physically harms the plaintiff.  (See Hanberry v. Hearst Corp. (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 680.)  Here, plaintiff suffered no physical injury and so couldn't rely on that theory to pursue… Read More

1 2 3 6