Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

After Secundino Medino died of asbestos-related mesothelioma, Medina's estate and his family filed suit against several defendants, including BWMT, alleging claims for negligence, strict liability, and wrongful death. The court affirmed the district court's grant of nonsuit to Eli, Medina's great-grandson, and rejected Eli's contention that substantial evidence showed that he was dependent on Medina for one-half or more of his support, thereby conferring upon him standing to assert wrongful death claims. The court affirmed the noneconomic damages awarded to Medina's daughters because the court concluded that they were amply supported by the record and were not the product of passion or improper evidence. However, the court reversed as to the punitive damages because plaintiffs' limited evidence of BWMT's financial condition was not sufficient to sustain an award of punitive damages. Finally, the court affirmed the jury's allocation of fault. View "Soto v. BorgWarner Morse TEC" on Justia Law

After Secundino Medino died of asbestos-related mesothelioma, Medina's estate and his family filed suit against several defendants, including BWMT, alleging claims for negligence, strict liability, and wrongful death. The court affirmed the district court's grant of nonsuit to Eli, Medina's great-grandson, and rejected Eli's contention that substantial evidence showed that he was dependent on Medina for one-half or more of his support, thereby conferring upon him standing to assert wrongful death claims. The court affirmed the noneconomic damages awarded to Medina's daughters because the court concluded that they were amply supported by the record and were not the product of passion or improper evidence. However, the court reversed as to the punitive damages because plaintiffs' limited evidence of BWMT's financial condition was not sufficient to sustain an award of punitive damages. Finally, the court affirmed the jury's allocation of fault. View "Soto v. BorgWarner Morse TEC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a products liability suit, alleging that defendants are liable for the their injuries after using the medical device known as Infuse. At issue was whether the presence of a so-called “nominal defendant” can prevent the remaining defendants from obtaining a forum non conveniens dismissal when, in the absence of the nominal defendant, the action can and should be pursued in alternative forums. The court concluded that the presence of a nominal defendant cannot defeat a forum non conveniens dismissal which should otherwise be granted. In this case, the trial court correctly granted the forum non conveniens dismissal in favor of all other defendants, but erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ action against the nominal defendant. Instead, the court should have severed the action against the nominal defendant and allowed it to proceed in California. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "David v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner Hyundai Motor Company petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to stay a scheduled judgment debtor examination of its president and chief executive officer over a dispute regarding an attempt by real-party-in-interest to collect supposed postjudgment interest of $462.50 on an attorney fee award of $42,203. Hyundai promptly paid the entire fee award, but refused to pay any additional sums for interest. Rosen accepted the tendered amount but deducted $462.50 as an interest payment, allegedly leaving part of the principal balance unpaid. From this initial $462.50, Rosen claimed that Hyundai owed more than $13,000 for additional interest and attorney fees in less than a six-month period, "one of the best growth investments we have seen." The Court of Appeal granted Hyundai's request: "[t]here is a short answer to Rosen’s claim for postjudgment interest: the attorney fee order was filed months before the entry of the final judgment in this matter. By law, postjudgment interest accrues in lemon-law cases at the time the final judgment is entered. When respondent court filed and entered its final judgment on November 21, 2014, Rosen’s attorney fee award had long been paid. As a result, Rosen is not entitled to postjudgment interest of $462.50, or in any amount." View "Hyundai Motor America v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Windsor Food Quality Company, Ltd. manufactured Jose Ole frozen food products, using ground beef supplied by Westland/Hallmark Meat Company. In 2008, after a voluntary United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recall of Westland beef, Windsor made a claim under its Contamination Products Insurance policy issued by defendants-respondents QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited and Underwriters of Lloyds, London. After Lloyds denied coverage on various grounds, Windsor sued for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court granted Lloyds's summary judgment motion, finding no triable issues of material fact and no coverage. Windsor appealed. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that Windsor could not claim coverage for the recall of Westland's ground beef. The Court agreed with the trial court there were no disputed material facts and no bad faith by Lloyds. View "Windsor Food Quality v. Underwriters of Lloyds etc." on Justia Law

Grebing was injured while exercising at a 24 Hour Fitness facility in La Mirada. The trial court granted 24 Hour summary judgment, holding that Grebing had signed a valid release of liability and 24 Hour did not act with gross negligence. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the release cannot relieve 24 Hour of liability for gross negligence, and that there was a triable issue of fact whether 24 Hour was grossly negligent; that the release does not relieve 24 Hour of liability for its own negligence; and that 24 Hour was in the chain of distribution for the rowing machine on which Grebing was injured and could be liable based on products liability. View "Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Velasquez worked at a company that made food flavorings, moving diacetyl, in closed and open containers. He breathed ambient diacetyl particles while mixing liquid and dry flavorings. Material safety data sheets attached to the containers warned that diacetyl was “harmful by inhalation,” but, consistent with industry practices at the time, did not warn of specific risks. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health did not issue exposure limits until years later. During a 2005 incident, Velasquez inhaled fumes from a concentration that included acetaldehyde, but not diacetyl. He experienced trouble breathing and sought medical attention. Velasquez returned to the hospital twice in the next two months. In 2005, Velasquez’s supervisor took him to a clinic where a “company doctor” told him he could not continue working for the company in his condition. In 2006 Velasquez was diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare lung disease which is usually progressive and fatal. He filed suit. After finding the issue relevant to Velasquez’s ability to receive a lung transplant, the judge advised prospective jurors that Velasquez is an undocumented immigrant. The court entered judgment on the jury’s special verdict, including findings that the supplier’s acts were not a substantial factor in causing Velasquez’s harm. The court of appeal reversed, based on the error in disclosing Velasquez’s status to jurors. View "Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Bard, manufacturer and seller of polypropylene mesh kits, for personal injuries, and plaintiff's husband sought damages for loss of consortium. A jury found Bard was negligent and awarded $5.5 million in damages. The jury also found that plaintiff's surgeon, a nonparty, was 40 percent at fault and the trial court reduced the award accordingly. The court concluded that the jury was properly instructed on the theory of negligent design, negligent training, and negligent misrepresentation; substantial evidence supported the negligence verdict; and Bard was not denied a fair trial. The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that it was necessary to instruct the jury on medical professional negligence to support the apportionment and, because the jury was not so instructed, the trial court erred in reducing the damages. Plaintiffs acquiesced in the giving of incomplete jury instructions on the surgeon's fault when it was in their best interest for the jury to be properly instructed on that issue. Consequently, plaintiffs are estopped from asserting this instructional error on appeal. The court affirmed the judgment.View "Scott v. C.R. Bard, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against City Brewing after his college-age son was shot to death by police after drinking two 23.5 cans of Four Loko. Plaintiff alleged that City Brewing, the company that brewed, bottled, and labeled Four Loko, was negligent and strictly liable for his son's death. The trial court granted City Brewing's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court concluded that City Brewing did not "furnish" the beverage to the son and, therefore, the civil immunity in California's dram shop statutes did not extend to City Brewing; judgment on the pleadings cannot be upheld based on the statutory immunity that bars product liability claims for certain inherently unsafe common consumer products, Civ. Code 1714.45, subd. (a); the allegations about the interactive effect of Four Loko's ingredients preclude the court from finding, as a matter of law, that Four Loko's combination of alcohol and stimulants constitutes a "common consumer product" within the meaning of section 1714.45, subdivision (a)(2); and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.View "Fiorini v. City Brewing Co." on Justia Law