Personal Injury & Product Liability Blog

Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc., (Second District, March 17, 2014) 2014 WL 1012960, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2958, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3414, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-

A woman who was rendered quadriplegic when her seat collapsed when her pickup truck was rear-ended, filed a products liability action against the manufacturer of the seat. The plaintiff contended that the seat was defectively designed, in that it had failed to restrain her in the collision, allowing her body to slide up the seat and strike her head on the vehicle’s back seat.

Following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff the manufacturer appealed, contending that the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiff to try that claim under the consumer expectations test rather than the risk/benefit test. The defendant argued that the consumer expectations test may not be used to evaluate “the performance of the design of a single part of a multi-component vehicle and restraint system in a violent, multi-vehicle car crash, and that the trial court erred in excluding evidence relevant to the risk/benefit test. However, the court of appeal affirmed, rejecting the argument that the complexity of the collision precluded application of the consumer expectations test: Read the rest »

Snibbe v. Superior Court, (Second District, February 27, 2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 184, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 548, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2156, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2450

The sons of a woman who died following hip replacement surgery filed an action for wrongful death against a medical center, the physician who performed the surgery, and the anesthesiologist. The plaintiffs alleged that the decedent was found unresponsive several hours after a physician’s assistant administered hydromorphone, a pain medication which presents a high risk of fatal respiratory depression. The plaintiffs further alleged that administration of hydromorphone for postoperative pain relief was below the standard of care and a substantial factor in the death of the decedent.

The plaintiffs moved to compel production of postoperative orders relating to the physician’s other patients, contending that they would be relevant to the issue of whether the physician and his assistant regularly consulted with an anesthesiologist, (as the physician had testified), or instead, he regularly permitted the assistant to rely on boilerplate drug orders for the administration of opioid pain medication. 

The trial court granted the motion, but limited the scope of discovery to 160 postoperative orders including provisions for the administration of opioids. The physician sought a writ of mandate, contending that production would violate the physician-patient privilege. The court of appeal issued a writ ordering the trial court to issue a new order redacting personal identifying information from the records, but denying the petition in all other respects:

Read the rest »

Ellis v. U.S. Security Associates, (First District, March 20, 2014) 2014 WL 1229038, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3098, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3098, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3588    

A security guard who resigned from her job after being sexually harassed by her supervisor, filed a timely complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). Upon receiving a right-to-sue letter, she filed a complaint asserting claims for sex discrimination and sexual harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940, failure to maintain an environment free from harassment (§ 12940(k)), retaliation in violation of § 12940(h), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. 

The employer moved for judgment on the pleadings, based on the plaintiff’s signed application for employment which provided that she agreed “any claim or lawsuit … must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action,” and waived “any statute of limitations to the contrary.”   The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, apparently concluding that the shortened limitation provision was enforceable.  However, the court of appeal reversed, holding that the six-month limitation provision in the application for employment was unreasonable and against public policy, and therefore unenforceable:

Read the rest »

Johnson v. Prasad, (Third District, February 25, 2014 | 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 196, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2064, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2325

The mother of a four-year-old boy who drowned in the swimming pool of a rented house filed an action for wrongful death against the homeowners. The plaintiff alleged that the child, who had accompanied his father and grandmother to a get-together at the home, had wandered into the pool area when no one was present and had fallen in unseen when his grandmother had returned to the house and failed to close a security gate or the sliding glass door behind her. The plaintiffs further alleged that the homeowners were negligent in failing to install a fence around the perimeter of the pool or a self-closing or self-latching mechanism on the only door leading from the house to the pool.

The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that the defendants had no duty to inspect the premises, in that there was no reason to expect children to be playing in the pool, the pool was not a ‘nuisance’ or an unreasonably dangerous condition  of property.  The court also found that  there was no evidence that it was more likely than not that the conduct of the homeowners was a cause in fact of the drowning, because the security gate and sliding glass door could not have been involved in this accident, since they were left open on purpose.

However, the court of appeal reversed, holding as a matter of law that the homeowners, who knowingly rented a home with a maintained pool, owed a duty of reasonable care to the four-year-old boy to protect him from drowning in the pool:

Read the rest »

Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, (Second District, March 21, 2014) 2014 WL 1116961, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3129, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3597, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-

A mold maker/machine operator who was diagnosed with interstitial pulmonary fibrosis brought an action against several manufacturers of metals, plaster and minerals which he had worked around for many years at a metal foundry. The plaintiff alleged that his disease was caused by on- the-job exposure to, inter alia, fumes from the molten metal and dust from plaster, sand, limestone and marble, which were used in the fabrication process. The plaintiff further alleged that although state and federal regulations identified the products or their constituents as hazardous, the defendant provided no warnings to him.

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that the claims were barred under Maxton v. Western States Metals (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 81, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 630, which addressed similar claims and held that because the metal products at issue were raw material and were not inherently dangerous, under the component parts doctrine the defendants could not be liable.  Following amendments to the complaint, the trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend.

Read the rest »

Scott v. Ford Motor Company, (First District, March 26, 2014 | Certified for Partial Publication) 2014 WL 1244358 — Cal.Rptr.3d —-                 

A former owner and operator of multiple service stations filed an action against Ford Motor Company, alleging that exposure to asbestos while servicing brakes and clutches supplied by Ford had caused him to develop mesothelioma. The plaintiff asserted various products liability theories, including failure to warn, design defect, and negligence, as well as fraud.   

When the plaintiff attempted to introduce Ford’s annual report to support his claim for punitive damages, Ford argued that the trial court should apply Michigan law, which unlike California, does not permit punitive damages unless specifically authorized by statute. Using a government interest analysis, the trial court agreed with Ford, and concluded that  Michigan’s interest as embodied in its prohibition of punitive damages would be more impaired if its law were not applied under the circumstances than would California’s interest in allowing a claim for punitive damages. The court ruled the annual report inadmissible and precluded the claim for punitive damages.

Read the rest »

Bock v. Hansen, (First District, April 2, 2014) 2014 WL 1315314, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-

Two homeowners who suffered property damage when a 41-foot long, 7,300 pound tree limb crashed onto their house, filed an action against their insurance carrier and the adjuster who was assigned to the claim. The plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, and alleged that the adjuster falsely told them that their policy did not cover the cost of cleanup; that he either knew the representations were false when he made them, or he made them with reckless disregard of their truth; and that they relied on his false statements and performed the cleanup on their own, to their detriment.

The defendants demurred to the complaint, arguing that a negligent misrepresentation claim cannot lie against an insurance adjuster based on conduct that occurred while adjusting a claim because, as a matter of law, the adjuster does not owe the plaintiffs a legal duty. The adjuster further argued that any liability for an adjuster’s actions lies with the insurer so long as the agency was disclosed to the insured and the conduct took place within the course and scope of such agency.

The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, but the court of appeal reversed, holding that negligent misrepresentation can be asserted against an insurance adjuster, and that such a claim was adequately pleaded by the plaintiffs:

Read the rest »

Ennabe v. Manosa, (Supreme Court, February 24, 2014) 58 Cal.4th 697, 319 P.3d 201, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 440, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1870, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2176

The parents of a 19-year-old man who was killed when he was struck by a drunk minor driving away from a private party, filed a wrongful death action against a woman who had hosted the party. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had hosted the party at a vacant rental residence owned by her parents, that she had publicized the party via telephone, word of mouth and text messaging, and that she had charged “unfamiliar partygoers” among the 40 to 60 people in attendance $3 to $5, for which they were allowed access to beer and other alcoholic beverages available on the premises.  The plaintiffs also alleged that the minor, who had paid the admission fee, was obviously intoxicated when he arrived on the premises, and yet was permitted to pay the fee and drink.

Read the rest »

Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc., (Second District, January 27, 2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451,167 Cal.Rptr.3d 257, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1015, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1061

The parents of a child who was born with a number of severe birth defects filed an action on his behalf against the father’s employer, a semiconductor manufacturer, alleging that his injuries were caused by the father’s exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace. Asserting causes of action for negligence, strict liability/ultrahazardous activity, willful misconduct, misrepresentation, premises liability, and strict products liability, the plaintiff alleged that his father’s work with tools containing mercury and ethylene glycol, as well as tools emitting ionizing radiation, exposed him to teratogenic, genotoxic, and reproductively toxic chemicals and processes.

The employer moved for summary adjudication, arguing that it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff for preconception injuries.  The trial court granted summary adjudication but the court of appeal reversed as to the strict products liability cause of action. The court held that although the defendant owed no owe a duty to the plaintiff, the absence of a duty was not fatal to strict products liability claim:

Read the rest »

Vasquez v. Franklin Management Real Estate Fund, Inc., (Second District, December 3, 2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 819, 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 242, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 84, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 60

A maintenance technician filed an action against his former employer for wrongful termination, contending that the employer’s failure to reimburse him for employment related expenses had left him no choice but to resign. Asserting, inter alia, a cause of action for constructive wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, the plaintiff alleged that his employer required him to drive at least 30 miles per day but refused to reimburse him for mileage as required by Labor Code section 2802. The plaintiff also alleged that being forced to purchase gas and maintain his vehicle, combined with his already low wage, resulted in intolerable working conditions.       

 The trial court sustained the employer’s demurrer without leave to amend, finding that “failing to pay mileage expenses of $15/day is not conduct that is so intolerable or aggravated that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt no choice but to resign.” However, the court of appeal disagreed, holding that the facts as alleged could permit a trier of fact to find that the plaintiff had been compelled to resign:

Read the rest »