Johnson v. Open Door Community Health Centers

Plaintiff’s suit for physical injuries suffered when she tripped over a scale as she left a community health facility is governed by the two-year limitations period for ordinary negligence, not the shorter limitations period for claims against a health care provider’s negligent delivery of professional services.  Plaintiff was a patient at the defendant medical center. …

Grotheer v. Escape Adventures, Inc.

Because hot air balloon operators are not common carriers, they can take advantage of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine and thus owe no duty of care as to risks inherent in the sport or activity of hot air ballooning—even if an injury is caused by pilot error in failing to adjust altitude properly…

Major v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Federal law recognizing the legality of tobacco and cigarettes does not preempt state tort law that holds most cigarettes to be a “defective product,” thus exposing the manufacturers to substantial tort liability in California.  Wife sued a tobacco manufacturer for her husband’s death from lung cancer that he contracted after decades as a heavy smoker…

Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co.

Any Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim necessarily involves an invasion of privacy, so such a claim fell within the invasion of privacy exclusion to the insured’s directors & officers insurance policy.  The lead opinion in this splintered decision holds that a Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim necessarily involves an invasion of privacy and so the…

Ramirez v. City of Gardena

Defendant city government is immune from liability for accidents caused by police vehicular pursuits if it has promulgated a suitable written pursuit policy and requires annual training and certification by all officers that they have received, read, and understood the policy, even if not all the officers actually sign the required certifications.  Under Vehicle Code…

Mahan v. Charles w. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc.

An elderly couple stated an elder abuse claim against an insurance agency that schemed to gut their whole life insurance policies and replace them with a less desirable policy, all for the purpose of earning a larger commission.  An elderly couple stated an elder abuse cause of action against the insurance agency which arranged to…

Cal Sierra Development, Inc. v. George Reed, Inc.

A primary actor or a party bearing derivative or vicarious liability for the primary actor’s torts are in privity for res judicata purposes, and so, no matter which one the plaintiff sues first, a judgment against the plaintiff is binding in favor of both.  Plaintiff and Western Aggregate shared mining rights in the Yuba Goldfields…

Rubenstein v. The Gap, Inc.

A retailer did not falsely advertise clothes it sold at its outlet stores by placing its brand-name labels on the clothes, even if they were of lesser quality and never sold in its main line retail stores.  The Gap does not falsely advertise in violation of the FAL, UCL or CLRA by placing its regular…

Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co.

Plaintiff could not save his complaint from summary judgment by raising a new theory of liability for the first time in his summary judgment opposition.  Summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in this case where plaintiff fell when the diving board on which he was standing collapsed causing him to fall into an empty swimming…

Alvarez v. Seaside Transportation Services, LLC

A defendant meets its initial burden on summary judgment by showing that plaintiff suffered a workplace injury while employed by an independent contractor that defendant hired; plaintiff then bears the burden of producing evidence that defendant retained control over the way the contractor performed its work or over workplace safety.  Privette v. Superior Court, 5…

Demara v. The Raymond Corp.

Defendant manufacturer of forklift was not entitled to summary judgment in design defect case, since its design included a large open area around the powered wheels, without any guards, which would crush any part of a human they ran over; and this permits an inference that the design fell below minimum safety assumptions of the…

Lewis v. Superior Court

State medical board, who was investigating a doctor for over-prescription of addictive drugs, did not violate privacy rights of doctor’s patients by obtaining database information on drugs which pharmacies had dispensed to them.  The California Medical Board did not violate patients’ right to privacy under Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 1, by obtaining from a…