A medical expert testifying about causation in support of the party bearing the burden of proof in a medical malpractice case must be able to express an opinion “to a reasonable medical probability,” which means more likely than not. If the defendant tries to prove that something other than its alleged negligence caused plaintiff's injury, it bears the burden of… Read More
The trial court erred in vacating entry of judgment in California on a sister state judgment rendered in Missouri where plaintiffs lived. Missouri had personal jurisdiction over the California defendants since they had sent allegedly fraudulent communications to plaintiffs in Missouri, inducing the Missouri plaintiffs to enter into a contract for defendants' adoption services and pay defendants from Missouri. An… Read More
Under the out-of-pocket loss rule for fraud damages, a purchaser cannot recover the purchase price as consequential damages. However, in applying the out-of-pocket loss rule, the trier of fact is not limited to considering the market value of the product or service on the date it was purchased, but may also consider post-sale evidence that bears on its market value… Read More
A school owes its students a duty of care to protect them from foreseeable harm; that is, risks that the school knows or reasonably should know to exist. Here, the school had no prior indication that one of its teachers was having an affair with an underage student. The risk of inappropriate sexual behavior by teachers is not so great… Read More
In this asbestosis case, plaintiffs added Air Brake in place of a Doe defendant shortly after Boeing produced documents showing that Air Brake designed the brake shoes for its light rail cars, specifying brake pads containing asbestos. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on limitations grounds after concluding that plaintiffs "knew or should have known" of Air Brake's… Read More
While an employer has an affirmative duty to provide employees with a safe place to work (Lab. Code, § 6400(a); Seabright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590, 603), this decision holds that this duty does not include ensuring that an off-site meeting place for coworkers and business associates--such as at an employee’s private residence is safe… Read More
Under CCP 425.13, a plaintiff may not bring a claim for punitive damages in a medical malpractice case without first moving for and obtaining a court order allowing her to amend to allege that claim. The statute also provides that the motion to amend must be brought before the earlier of 2 years from filing of the action or 9… Read More
A store owner that holds its premises open to the public owes invitees a duty of care to keep the premises reasonably safe. A business that owns or leases only part of a larger business premises owes invitees a duty of care with regard to the entire premises, not just the part the business owns, leases or operates in. So,… Read More
If a foreign sovereign entity is subject to suit under one of the exceptions to immunity otherwise conferred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the Act does not affect the substantive law governing the entity's liability. Instead, 28 USC 1606 provides that when not entitled to immunity, "the foreign state shall be liable in the same manner and to the… Read More
This decision affirms a judgment holding that Ins. Code 533 bars insurance coverage for a judgment against Conagra for the public nuisance caused by Fuller Paint's pre-1950 advertising promoting the use of lead-based paint for interior paint on residential units. In the liability trial, the trial court found that Fuller had kwown at the time it made the advertisements that… Read More
On remand from the US Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Van Buren v. United States (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1648, the Ninth Circuit reaffirms its holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction barring LinkedIn from preventing HiQ from "scraping" data from public LinkedIn posts by threats of suit or technological blocking… Read More
The trial court correctly denied this lawyer-defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion, finding that this suit to collect the agreed price for its services was not based on protected speech. The fraud and concealment claim brought against the lawyer was for misrepresentations and concealments about the client-buyer's financial condition which induced plaintiff to enter into the services contract. Communications at the pre-contract stage… Read More
The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (49 USC 41713) preempted plaintiff's tort claims arising from defendant's decision not to use plaintiff's software that offered certain in flight deals to airline passengers. Refusing to follow the Ninth Circuit's minority view (Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir. 1998) 160 F.3d 1259), this decision holds that in flight deals are part… 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 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
A written waiver or release of future negligence claims or assumption of the risk in order to participate in recreational activities is enforceable. Here, a high school required its football team players to sign such a release. It barred plaintiff's claim for negligence in failing to diagnose the concussion he suffered playing football which led to serious brain damage. Plaintiff… Read More
The trial court made four errors in granting Amazon judgment in this Prop. 65 action against it based on its listing (and sale) of 11 skin whiting products that contained mercury. First, it improperly found that tests of individual samples of the products didn't prove that all of the product contained mercury. The test results showed mercury levels so high… Read More
The operator of a residential care facility owed its severely retarded resident a duty of care s to take cost-effective measures to protect the resident from foreseeable harm from people like the handyman who sexually assaulted her and who the facility knew posed a foreseeable risk of harm to its female residents.) Read More
Under W&I Code 15657.03, a court may issue a restraining order to prevent a defendant from committing threatened or repeated physical or financial elder abuse. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering such an order against a step child who, along with her mother, tried to unduly influence the mother's elderly husband to change his estate… Read More
The trial court instructed the jury to award plaintiff defendant's profits from the false advertising the jury found only if it found that the defendant acted wilfully. This instruction was contrary to the Supreme Court's later holding in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc. (2020) 140 S.Ct. 1492. So the jury verdict was reversed and remanded. However, disgorgement of… Read More
The Supreme Court holds that lenders and loan servicers do not owe borrowers a duty of care in handling their loan modification applications. Lender and borrower are in privity of contract, and the economic loss rule prevents recovery for purely economic loss based on negligence between contracting parties. The Biakanja factors apply only to parties not in privity of contract. … Read More
