Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Shiffer developed mesothelioma and sued CBS, whose predecessor, Westinghouse, provided a turbine set and asbestos-containing insulation for a power plant where Shiffer worked for several months in 1969-1970. Shiffer did not repair or maintain any Westinghouse equipment and did not install or remove any insulation material himself; no already-installed insulation was removed or disturbed during Shiffer’s time at the power plant. The trial court granted CBS summary judgment. The court of appeal affirmed. Shiffer failed to produce evidence raising a triable issue that Shiffer suffered bystander exposure to Westinghouse asbestos while at the plant. The trial court also properly denied plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration and a new trial, because evidence of potential harm from reentrainment of asbestos was not new and could have been presented in opposition to the original summary judgment motion. View "Shiffer v. CBS Corp." on Justia Law

Johnson filed a products liability action, claiming that chronic exposure as an auto mechanic to benzene-containing products led him to develop acute myeloid leukemia. Defendants included U.S. Steel, which supplied a fabricator with a benzene-containing coal residue, “raffinate,” once the principal ingredient in Liquid Wrench, a solvent for loosening rusted bolts and machine parts. The court granted U.S. Steel, summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support claims for negligence and strict products liability under a design defect theory, citing the “component parts doctrine” (“bulk supplier defense”), under which the manufacturer of a component is not liable for injuries caused by the finished product into which the component was incorporated unless the component itself was defective and caused harm. Distinguishing cases that have held raw asbestos to be inherently defective and to contain a design defect under the consumer expectations test, the court held that raffinate is not inherently defective. The court of appeal agreed that the supplier of a raw material used in the manufacture of another product can be held liable for a design defect under the consumer expectations test only if the raw material is itself inherently defective, but held that summary judgment was inappropriate because the record did not contain evidence under that test negating the existence of a design defect in U.S. Steel coal raffinate. View "Johnson v. U.S. Steel Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were injured when they started to cross the street after activating a pedestrian warning beacon and were struck by a vehicle. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the City, claiming that there were triable facts that the intersection/crosswalk was a dangerous condition. The court concluded that the City did not show design immunity as a matter of law. In this case, plaintiffs' theory is that the warning beacon, even though intended to make the crosswalk safer, did the opposite and lulled pedestrians to think it was safe to cross. Reasonable minds could differ on whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the intersection/crosswalk posed a substantial risk of injury to a pedestrian exercising due care. Therefore, the court concluded that this issue should be left to the jury and reversed the summary judgment order. View "Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a forest ranger at Yosemite National Park, filed suit against defendant, a public entity, after he was injured by a grease fire from a skillet in his rental unit. Defendant provided plaintiff and other tenants with fire extinguishers, but one was not available for plaintiff at the time of the grease fire. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for damages for the injuries he suffered, alleging that the absence of a fire extinguisher in the residence constituted a dangerous condition of public property. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the trial court properly applied the immunity statute by determining that liability was precluded by the immunity accorded to a public entity for failing to provide or maintain fire protection facilities or equipment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Puskar v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Lattimore brought a wrongful death action against two doctors and Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare arising from their care and treatment of Yvonne’s father, who had gone to the hospital for a blood transfusion, experienced gastrointestinal bleeding, and died. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment. The court of appeal reversed, finding that the declaration of Lattimore’s medical expert was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on whether treatment of her father violated the applicable standards of care applicable to physicians and surgeons. However, the medical expert declaration did not raise a triable issue of fact on the standard of care applicable to nurses and hospitals in general. View "Lattimore v. Dickey" on Justia Law

In 2009, on Highway 101 in Monterey County, a bus driver lost control of the vehicle, which collided with bridge rails. The bus, carrying 34 French tourists, rolled; 18 occupants were ejected. Several were thrown over the bridge onto railroad tracks. The driver and four passengers were killed; 21 were severely injured. Capitales Tours and other defendants moved to dismiss or stay California lawsuits, asserting that France was the suitable forum. Plaintiffs argued that most of the documents and witnesses were in California, and that medical personnel and hospitals would likely receive nothing if the cases were transferred. There were more than $5 million in outstanding medical bills. The court found that public and private interest factors favored France because plaintiffs sought application of the French Tourism Code and would require translation. The court stayed the actions for one year. If France accepted jurisdiction, the actions would be dismissed. Capitales initiated proceedings in Paris, but the pretrial judge invoked lis pendens, because the Monterey court had not completely declined jurisdiction. While appeal was pending in France, the California court of appeal affirmed the stay. On remittitur, Capitales moved to dismiss, citing plaintiffs’ failure to initiate proceedings in France and resistance to their jurisdiction. The court dismissed. The court of appeal reversed, holding that further proceedings are necessary before dismissal. View "Auffert v. Capitales Tours" on Justia Law

In the 1960’s, Hellam worked at his grandfather’s boiler business, MBS, and was exposed to asbestos-containing products, including Crane’s, while refurbishing boilers. Hellam sued Crane and others after he developed mesothelioma, a fatal cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. Hellam reached settlements with several defendants. A jury awarded him $937,882.56 in economic damages and $4.5 million in noneconomic damages on his design-defect claim, allocating 75 percent of the fault to MBS, 13 percent to Western Plumbing, seven percent to Crane, and the remainder to other defendants. The court of appeal affirmed. Meanwhile, Hellam disclosed pre-verdict settlements that allocated 50 percent of settlement proceeds to Hellam’s personal-injury claims and 50 percent to any future wrongful-death claims by Hellam’s sons. The trial court approved that allocation, ruled that it would apply 17.2 percent of the pre-verdict settlement proceeds as a setoff against Crane’s liability for economic damages, and ordered Hellam to provide unredacted versions of the agreements for its review. Hellam had total settlement proceeds of $2,192,500 from nine defendants. The court of appeal affirmed, reclassifying one settlement as post, rather than pre-verdict. The court upheld the 50/50 allocation of proceeds, the setoff for pre-verdict settlements, denial of Crane’s request to review unredacted versions of the agreements, and refusal to apply a setoff for possible recoveries from asbestos bankruptcy trusts. View "Hellam v. Crane Co." on Justia Law

Diamond was injured while riding as a passenger in a taxi that was involved in a collision with another car. She settled claims against the taxi driver, the owner of the cab, and the Yellow Cab Collective. The Yellow Cab parties agreed to participate at the Diamonds’ trial. A jury found both drivers were negligent and attributed 60 percent responsibility to the driver of the other car, Reshko. The Diamonds were awarded $406,698.00, plus fees and costs. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the pretrial settlement between the Diamonds and the Yellow Cab parties. Because it was prevented from learning about the settlement, the jury was denied the opportunity to consider the effect of that settlement on the trial strategies the parties employed with respect to material conflicts in the trial evidence. Many of those conflicts bore directly on determining the primary cause of the accident and the extent of damages. It is reasonably probable that the jury’s resolution of conflicting evidence pertaining to at least some of the material disputed issues would have been more favorable to the Reshkos if the jury had been made aware of the settlement. View "Diamond v. Reshko" on Justia Law

In 1994, defendant Felicia Alford, then a minor, settled a personal injury claim against certain insureds of defendant State Farm Fire. Under the settlement, State Farm Life was to deliver an annuity providing for guaranteed payments. In July 2012, Alford entered into a contract with RSL Funding, LLC under which she received $30,000 in exchange for a $50,000 portion of the payment due on August 11, 2016. RSL assigned its payment to Extended Holdings, Ltd. (EHL). The trial court approved the transfer, and State Farm did not contest the transfer. A year later, Alford entered into a second contract with RSL in which Alford agreed to assign to RSL $25,000 of the $100,000 payment due on August 11, 2016, and $25,000 of the payment of $151,558.80 due on August 11, 2021, in exchange for a current payment of $22,500. RSL filed a petition for approval of the transfer. State Farm filed an opposition to the petition, asserting, among other grounds, that: (1) the proposed transfer would violate a California Ins. Code, sec. 10139.5, subd. (e)(3)), which provided that an annuity issuer and settlement obligor may not be required to divide payments; and (2) the proposed transfer would materially increase State Farm’s burdens and risks. The trial court approved the transfer petition, and State Farm appealed. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court’s order indeed violated section 10139.5(e), and State Farm did not forfeit its right to oppose that order. The Court reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings. View "RSL Funding v. Alford" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, including Jack and Nancy Cooper, filed suit against Takeda, manufacturers of the prescription drug Actos, which is used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Coopers appealed the trial court's grant of Takeda's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and Takeda's alternative motion for new trial on the grounds that without the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Smith, the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and that the trial court should not have instructed the jury regarding concurrent causation. The court concluded that the trial court erred in striking the expert’s testimony. The court concluded that, by requiring that the expert rule out all other possible causes for Jack Cooper’s bladder cancer, even where there was no substantial evidence that other such causes might be relevant, the trial court exceeded the proper boundaries of its gatekeeping function in determining the admissibility of the complex scientific testimony. The court also concluded that the evidence supported giving a jury instruction on multiple causation. Accordingly, The court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the order granting a new trial, as well as the subsequent judgment entered in favor of Takeda, and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to enter a new judgment based on the jury’s verdict. View "Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals" on Justia Law