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.

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

A bankruptcy trustee may avoid prospective liability for premises liability on property of the bankrupt estate by abandoning the property to the debtor.  However, the abandonment will not operate retrospectively to absolve the trustee of liability for injuries a visitor to the property suffered before the trustee abandoned the property.  Also, the Barton doctrine (Barton v. Barbour (1881) 104 U.S.… Read More

A civil harassment order is affirmed due to deficiencies of the pro per appellant's opening brief.  It didn't separately state and title its arguments or support them with authority and citations to the record.  Insofar as it attacked the sufficiency of the evidence, it failed to set forth a fair recital of all the relevant evidence. Read More

A civil harassment injunction entered in favor of an attorney for one of a divorcing couple against the attorney for the other spouse was reversed.  Insofar as the injunction was based on emails that defendant sent plaintiff about the divorce, the emails didn't threaten violence and so were protected First Amendment speech which could not be considered in support of… Read More

Following Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, this case holds that bar owners owe their patrons a special duty of care to assist their customers who become ill or need medical attention, to warn of known dangers and, in circumstances in which a warning alone is insufficient, . . . to take other reasonable and appropriate… Read More

Michael Jackson's corporations owed a duty of care to protect minors from Jackson's sexual predation even though the corporations were wholly owned and controlled by Jackson.  A corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator… Read More

Defendant's "Nature Fusion" products featured those words on the front label along with a picture of an avocado on a leaf.  This decision holds that the label was not false advertising because it was ambiguous and the back label clarified the product's actual contents so that no reasonable consumer who examined both front and back would think that the product… Read More

Under Education Code 44808, a school district is generally not liable for injuries students receive while not on school property.  There is an exception to that immunity, however, when the district has undertaken to provide students transportation to and from school and the student is injured while he is or should be under the immediate and direct supervision of a… Read More

As amended in 1984, the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act excepted from the definition of "employee" "individuals employed by a club, camp, recreational operation, restaurant, museum, or retail outlet," whether for-profit or not-for-profit, so long as the individiuals are covered by a state worker's compensation scheme.  This decision holds that general federal admiralty and maritime law follows this statutory… Read More

A manufacturer is liable in strict liability for injuries foreseeably caused by a feature of the product design that could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design.  Here, plaintiff fell from a scissor lift when he failed to close the chain avross the opening to enter the lift's platform.  The manufacturer offered an alternative… Read More

1 2 3 23