Torts

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

Deputy sheriffs arrested Collins, thinking he was drunk and interrupted the paramedics' review of his medical condition.  When Collins was finally seen by a doctor, he was misdiagnosed.  As a result of the poor medical treatment, Collins suffered extensive injuries.  This decision holds that (1) despite having probable cause to arrest Collins, the deputies can be liable in negligence for… Read More

A bicyclist was killed when he collided with a truck making a right turn in a section of a city street that lacked a marked bicycle lane, unlike most of the rest of the street which had a bike lane marking.  The city established the three elements of its design immunity defense under Gov. Code 830.6.  The city had approved… Read More

Even though home protection contracts are regulated under a separate part of the Insurance Code (Ins. Code 12740 et seq.) and are subject to the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Ins. Code 790.03), this decision holds that home protection contracts are sufficiently different from insurance so that the homeowner cannot state a claim against the contract issuer for tortious breach of… Read More

The trial court did not err in awarding attorney fees to defendant noteholder when it prevailed against plaintiff borrower's negligence and fraud claims that were aimed at preventing enforcement of the note and deed of trust through nonjudicial foreclosure.  Even though the plaintiff pursued tort theories, the gist of the action was to prevent enforcement of the note and deed… Read More

A patient may sue a physician for negligently recommending a course of treatment if (1) that course stems from a misdiagnosis of the patient’s underlying medical condition, or (2) all reasonable physicians in the relevant medical community would agree that the probable risks of that treatment outweigh its probable benefits.  The patient's informed consent to the treatment does not absolve… Read More

A guide to nutritional supplements that professed to be neutral but was allegedly favorable to a competing manufacturer that paid it handsomely for high rankings was commercial speech, largely because the manufacturer's payments gave the guide an economic motivation (apart from merely selling guides) to make the speech.  The guide also made false statements insofar as it denied plaintiff's products… Read More

Negligent misrepresentation differs from intentional misrepresentation on at least two elements.  For fraud, the defendant must know the representation is false; whereas, for negligent misrepresentation, lack of a reasonable basis to believe the representation is true will suffice.  Also, for negligent misrepresentation, no showing of intent to deceive is required, just an intent to induce reliance on the misstated fact. … Read More

Under CCP 340.5, the statute of limitations on a medical malpractice claim expires at the earlier of three years from the date of injury or one year from the date of discovery.  Injury from the failure to diagnose a latent, progressive condition occurs “when the undiagnosed condition develops into a more serious condition,” and that more serious condition is made… Read More

Under the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act, a "transfer" made with actual intent to defraud creditors is voidable.  This decision holds that the statutory term "transfer" does not impose any requirement that property be transferred from a debtor to a third party.  Instead, a transfer from the debtor to himself can qualify as a voidable "transfer" for purposes of the UVTA… Read More

This decision finds that plaintiff stated a viable claim for fraudulent transfer of properties from Shahen Minassian to his wife Alice via a fraudulent marital dissolution degree with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors, including plaintiffs who secured a $100 million judgment against Shahen in underlying litigation.  The complaint alleged badges of actual intent to defraud:  transfer to… Read More

In Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, the Supreme Court held that to state a claim as a bystander for negligent infliction of emotional distress suffered as a result of seeing injury to another person, the bystander plaintiff had, among other things, to be present at the scene of the accident when it occurs and be aware at… Read More