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.

Torts

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.

The trial court erred in denying class certification in this action arising from allegedly terrible conditions at an apartment complex which the defendant owner had advertised as a luxury apartment building with many fancy amenities, but which was instead plagued with trashed common areas and other defects.  Reliance is not an element of the claim for false advertising under B&P… Read More

California's 2-year statute of limitations rather than Connecticut's 3-year statute of limitations applies to a products liability claim brought by plaintiff who then resided in and were injured in Connecticut by the defendant California manufacturer's malfunctioning medical robotic surgery device.  A statute of limitations serves the state's interest in protecting its defendants against stale claims on which memories will have… Read More

As a general rule, a defendant owes no duty to protect another against harm that the defendant's own act or omission has not caused.  In particular, a defendant generally owes no duty of care to protect another from a third party's wrongful acts.  In deciding whether an exception to that general rule applies to a particular case, the court should… Read More

Under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, a new car manufacturer that is unable to repair the plaintiff's new car after a reasonable number of attempts must replace it or make restitution in an amount equal to the actual price paid or payable by the buyer of the car plus incidental damages.  (Civ. Code 1793.2(b)(2).)  When the plaintiff has leased rather than… Read More

Gov. Code 835, which imposes liability on governmental entities for dangerous conditions of their property, does not impose liability for injury that may be caused by conditions of the property to someone who never came in contact with it.  Here, plaintiff claimed that the unsanitary conditions of a downtown police station caused Wong, a policeman, to catch typhus.  Plaintiff, who… Read More

Daughter owed a duty of care to in-home healthcare aides she hired to assist her two elderly parents to warn the aides that there were loaded firearms on the premises.  It is foreseeable that a worker in the home would be injured by a loaded weapon, and public policy favored imposing a duty on the daughter who knew of the… Read More

The trial court erred in instructing the jury that a manufacturer remained liable on its limited new car warranty well after the mileage or temporal limits had expired so long as the defect had been reported during the warranty's duration and had not been "fixed."  Instead, CACI 3231 correctly summarizes Civ. Code 1795.6, which extends the warranty period only if… 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

Plaintiff contracted mesothelioma, allegedly from asbestos-concrete pipe manufactured by defendant, a successor to Johns Manville's asbestos-concrete business.  A $15 million punitive damage award is reversed for lack of evidence that an officer, director or managing agent of defendant acted with malice, oppression or fraud or authorized or ratified any conduct.  Romo v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1115 doesn't… Read More

The Biomaterials Access Assurance Act (“BAAA”), 21 U.S.C. § 1602(1)(A) immunized defendant, the manufacturer of a portion of a hip replacement prosthesis from liability that arose when a portion of the prosthesis supplied by defendant broke after implantation, requiring a new surgery and replacement.  The act provides immunity for those supplying parts of a human implant. Read More

1 2 3 26