Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Torts

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

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.

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

While the Rowland factors' foreseeability factors weigh in favor of imposing a duty of care on employers to take safety measures to prevent employees from contracting COVID-19 and transmitting the disease to family members and others, the public policy factors weigh against finding such a duty of care and they outweigh the foreseeability factors.  Recognizing liability would create staggering risk… Read More

Applying Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 1130 to an at-will employment contract, this decision holds that to assert a tort claim for inducing breach of the contract, the plaintiff must allege independently wrongful conduct.  Here, plaintiff could not do so.  He lacked antitrust standing to rely on the antitrust violation that he had alleged as… Read More

Following Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1, this decision holds that when a plaintiff's injury results in part from one defendant's negligence and another defendant's intentional act, the court must on either defendant's request, submit a jury instruction and special verdict directing apportionment of liability as between the defendants under Civ. Code 1431.2. Read More

The interim adverse judgment rule bars malicious prosecution actions by establishing probable cause for bringing the action.  However, that rule applies only to judgments or rulings on formal dispositive motions, not oral remarks from the bench during the course of trial which are not rulings on any matter then pending for decision.  Furthermore, the fraud or perjury exception to the… Read More

This decision holds that Gov. Code 821.6 immunizes governmental entities and employees only from tort claims that allege damage resulting from the initiation or prosecution of official judicial proceedings, not injury from preparatory work such as investigation.  Other immunity provisions may apply to immunize the investigatory work, but section 821.6 does not. Read More

This decision holds that the US DOJ may move to dismiss a False Claims Act suit whenever it has intervened in the litigation, whether during the period the complaint remained sealed or thereafter.  However, the government must give the relator notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the dismissal.  In deciding whether to approve dismissal, the court must apply… Read More

Gov. Code 818 immunizes governmental agencies from liability for damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.  This decision holds that section 818 bars a claim for treble damages under CCP 340.1(b) for a childhood sexual assault resulting from the defendant's concerted effort to hide evidence relating to such assaults.  Section 340.1 imposes… Read More

The federal False Claims Act prohibits "knowingly" submitting a false claim.  It defines knowingly to mean actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard of truth or falsity.  (31 U.S.C. §3729(b)(1)(A).)  This decision holds that especially as read against the background of common law fraud which the False Claims Act builds on, the statutory definition of "knowingly" sets a standard governed… Read More

This decision holds that a complaint alleging a false implied certification violation of the California False Claims Act must be pleaded with particularity.  But, it also holds that the plaintiff satisfied that standard in this case in which plaintiff claimed that remarketing agents had breached their contracts with local agencies in setting the interest rates on local agencies' variable rate… Read More

Under California's False Claims Act, there is a public disclosure bar to suit if the information on which the suit is based was publicly disclosed in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a report, hearing, audit or investigation by the Legislature, or in news media.  (Gov. Code 12652(d)(3)(A).)  This decision holds that interest rates on government bonds automatically reported… Read More

Reversing Gonzalez v. Google LLC (9th Cir. 2021) 2 F.4th 871, the Supreme Court holds that the Justice Against Sponsors of International Terrorism Act of 2016 (JASTA; 18 USC 2333) which amended the ATA to include secondary civil liability for aiding and abetting, or conspiring to commit, acts of international terrorism requires proof of knowing assistance in criminal activity according… Read More

This decision extensively analyzes the trivial defect doctrine as applied to sidewalk discontinuities.  It rejects the defendant city's argument that the 1-3/4" discontinuity in this case was trivial as a matter of law.  A defect of that height generally is left to the jury to evaluate.  Also, the court's holistic consideration of other surrounding circumstances led it to reject the… Read More

Plaintiff wanted to give her cat "a good death."  She alleged an actionable fraud claim against the defendant vet for promising to give the cat a painless death, thereby getting plaintiff to agree to an intracardiac injection.  Plaintiff suffered damage from her reliance on that representation when her cat suffered a long and painful death instead.  Plaintiff also stated a… Read More

1 2 3 4 5 24