This decision holds that a judge's denial of a motion for acquittal under Pen. Code 1118.1 in a criminal prosecution of the later plaintiff suing for malicious prosecution is sufficient to invoke the interim adverse decision rule, barring the required finding of lack of probable cause, without which the malicious prosecution action cannot succeed. The opinion also Cel-Tech's tethering test… Read More
An action to rescind a contract for fraud is an action on the contract for purposes of Civil Code 1717. Section 1717 is not limited to actions for breach of contract or seeking to enforce the contract. A party is entitled to attorney fees under section 1717 even when the party prevails on grounds the contract is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable… Read More
Proposition 244, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, clearly mandated that the new privacy agency had to promulgate regulations in 15 areas by July 1, 2022. It also provided that the agency could begin enforcing the Act on July 1, 2023. The agency didn't promulgate final regulations until 9 months after the deadline. This decision holds that the trial… Read More
Under W&I Code 15657.03, a court may issue a restraining order to prevent abuse of an elder. An elder abuse protective order “may issue on the basis of evidence of past abuse, without any particularized showing that the wrongful acts will be continued or repeated. (Gdowski v. Gdowski (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 128, 137.) There was substantial evidence to support issuance… Read More
Plaintiff leased greenhouses from defendant. Defendant did not disclose that the greenhouses contained asbestos and other hazardous substances. The jury awarded plaintiff damages on theories of negligence and premises liability. This decision holds that there was substantial evidence to support the verdicts despite the lease's indemnification and limitation of liability clauses. The indemnification clause did not apply if the landlord… Read More
A regional center for the developmentally disabled does not owe a duty of care to employees of residential facilities to which the regional center assigns mentally or developmentally disabled individuals for residence to protect the employees from injury by the assigned disabled persons. Generally, there is no duty to protect against harm by third parties absent a special relationship. The… Read More
Ordinarily, an employer is not liable for injuries an employee suffers on the way to or from work. However, under the premises line rule, the commute ends and the employee becomes entitled to Workers Compensation benefits for injury suffered once the employee has entered the employer's premises. Here, the court held that plaintiff, a UC Irvine employee, had not yet… Read More
The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk bars liability for injuries caused by a negligent surfer to a fellow surfer because those injuries were caused by risks inherent in the sport of surfing. Wipe-outs are common as are injuries from collisions with other surfers or their surf boards. Surfers often violate unwritten rules of etiquette governing surfing and surf… Read More
Website owners brought a class action against Google for displaying related items of interest including competitors' ads and uncomplimentary customer reviews along with copies of the owner's website page in response to a browser user's request to open that website page. This decision holds that the website owners have an insufficient property interest in the copy of the webpage Google… Read More
Plaintiffs alleged that Gilead was researching two alternative drugs to treat HIV and both passed Phase III trials with approximately equal effectiveness in HIV treatment but that Gilead chose to pursue the alternative that carried a risk of bone and kidney side effects instead of the alternative because doing so allowed it greater financial returns on its patent for the… Read More
Under Gov. Code 831.8(b), the state, an irrigation district, and their employees are not liable for injuries suffered in irrigation ditches, canals, or drains used for water distribution "if at the time of the injury the person injured was using the property for any purpose other than that for which the district or state intended it to be used." This… Read More
Under CCP 527.6(j), an anti-harrassment injunction may be extended only once for a period of 5 years or less without evidence of further harassment since the original anti-harassment injunction was issued. To obtain an additional extension of the injunction, post-order harassment must be shown. Read More
ERISA did not preempt an ERISA plan's suit against Bayer, the manufacturer of an allegedly defective pregnancy prevention device. The Plan's claims for negligence, products liability, failure to warn (of defects in the device), etc. did not act immediately and exclusively on ERISA plans. The ERISA plan was relevant to the claims only insofar as it granted the plan a… Read More
Persons paid under the In-Home Supportive Services program (Welf. & Inst. Code 12300 et seq.) to care for disabled and elderly California residents are not employees of the State of California which, therefore, is not vicariously liable for their torts, such as negligent driving in this case. Read More
This decision affirms a summary judgment for defendant in a slip and fall case based on the trivial defect doctrine. The discontinuity between the sidewalk and PG&E's manhole cover was less than an inch vertically. There was nothing that concealed the discontinuity of the pavement from view. The fact that the sidewalk was on a steep hill did not make… Read More
The San Francisco Fire Department and San Francisco Metropolitan Transit Agency are departments of the City and County of San Francisco, not independent public agencies. Hence, a fireman was a city employee and when he was injured by an MTA bus driver who drove through an active fire scene, severing a fire hose which caused the fireman serious injuries, the… Read More
Agreeing with Connelly v. Bornstein (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 783 and Garcia v. Rosenberg (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1050, this decision holds that CCP 340.6's one-year limitations periods governs a malicious prosecution action against the attorney for the opposing party in the underlying litigation. CCP 340.6(a)(2) tolls that one-year period during the time “[t]he attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the… Read More
In a heavy rainstorm, plaintiff slipped and fell in a swiftly moving water current running down a sloped driveway that she tried to cross to access one entrance to her apartment building. The danger of slipping in the water was open and obvious, so the landlord owed plaintiff no duty of care to warn her of the danger. Also, there… Read More
The city was not liable for plaintiff's son's death in a shooting in a city park. There was no dangerous physical condition of the park. The city had no duty to provide guard services or security cameras, particularly as there had been only two prior killings in the park during the previous 23 years. Read More
Plaintiff wandered drunk into a parking garage owned by defendant and engaged in "horseplay," ending up sitting on a 43 inch tall perimeter wall on an upper story of the garage, from which she fell to the ground, severely injuring herself. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant had hired a security service to, among other things, find and stop horseplay, as… Read More
