Source: https://ceb.com/california-tort-guide-3d-ed-2
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:10:10+00:00

Document:
Contains in-depth discussions about the principles, authorities, causes of action, and defenses that control 12 specific personal injury situations. Includes chapters on pharmaceutical and medical device litigation and consumer manufacturers. Contains sample forms and commentary on drafting complaints and responsive pleadings, discovery requests, and settlement demands and offers for the most common personal injury actions.
There have been several interesting developments in the area of torts over the last year. Some of the most important are summarized below.
The California Supreme Court has granted review in Southern Cal. Gas Leak Cases (review granted Feb. 28, 2018, S246669; opinion at 18 CA5th 581 to remain published and citable until further order) to determine whether a plaintiff who is harmed by a manmade environmental disaster can state a claim for negligence against the gas company that allegedly caused the disaster if the damages sustained are purely economic. The Second Appellate District determined as a matter of law that the gas company did not owe a duty to prevent the business plaintiffs’ economic losses due to a decline in commercial activity as a result of neighborhood residents temporarily relocating after the gas leak. See §1.7 for discussion.
In Regents of Univ. of Cal. v Superior Court (2018) 4 C5th 607, the California Supreme Court held that a university had a legal duty to protect its students from foreseeable violence during curricular activities. See §§1.10, 1.23, 1.29, 10.38.
In Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v Ledesma & Meyer Constr. Co. (2018) 5 C5th 216, the California Supreme Court held that employers may legitimately expect insurance coverage for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision claims even when the employee intentionally molested a middle school student. See §1.12.
A skier’s injury during descent on a rescue toboggan involved an inherent risk of injury included in the sport of skiing itself such that primary assumption of risk applied. See citation of Martine v Heavenly Valley L.P. (2018) 27 CA5th 715 in §1.49.
When a marathoner died from cardiac arrest at the finish line of a race, the alleged negligence in provision of emergency medical services could have exposed participant to increased risk of harm over and above that generally inherent in the activity itself, such that the primary assumption of risk defense did not apply. See citation of Hass v RhodyCo Prods. (2018) 26 CA5th 11 in §1.52.
In Newland v County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 CA5th 676, the required vehicle exception did not apply to the “going and coming” rule that employees driving to or from work are usually outside the scope of employment and the employer is not liable because the vehicle in question was not required on the day of accident. See §4.56.
In Ramirez v City of Gardena (2018) 5 C5th 995, the California Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal in finding that the immunity provided by Veh C §17004.7 is available to a public agency only if it requires that all peace officers of the agency certify in writing that they have received, read, and understand the agency’s vehicle pursuit policy, but 100 percent compliance with that requirement is not a prerequisite to receiving the immunity. The Fourth Appellate District’s previous determination in Morgan v Beaumont Police Dep’t (2016) 246 CA4th 144 that 100 percent compliance is required for immunity has been disapproved. See §4.82.
The California Supreme Court has granted review in Gonzalez v Mathis (review granted May 16, 2018, S247677; opinion at 20 CA5th 257 to remain published and citable until further order) to determine whether a homeowner who hires an independent contractor can be held liable in tort for injury sustained by the contractor’s employee when the homeowner does not retain control over the worksite and the hazard causing the injury was known to the contractor. See §6.10.
In McMillin Albany LLC v Superior Court (2018) 4 C5th 241, the California Supreme Court held that the legislature made the Right to Repair Act (CC §§895–945.5) the virtually exclusive remedy not just for economic loss, but also for property damage arising from construction defects. See §§6.13, 9.58.
In Stewart v Superior Court (2017) 16 CA5th 87, the appellate court held that elders have a right to autonomy in the medical decision-making process. A hospital may be responsible for custodial neglect within the meaning of Welf & I C §15610.57 if the hospital authorizes surgery over the objection of the patient’s designee for health care decisions. See §9.58.
In Lopez v Sony Electronics, Inc. (2018) 5 C5th 627, the California Supreme Court held that CCP §340.8 supersedes CCP §340.4 for prenatal injuries resulting from exposure to toxic or hazardous materials and that the claims were tolled during the child’s minority See §9.75.
The appellate court held that a restaurant has a duty to protect guests eating on a patio from black widow spiders in Coyle v Historic Mission Inn Corp. (2018) 24 CA5th 627. See §10.12.
In Kim v Toyota Motor Corp. (2018) 6 C5th 21, the California Supreme Court held that evidence of industry custom and practice, although not determinative of design defect, may be relevant to risk-benefit analysis of feasibility of alternative design. The Judicial Council released a new jury instruction based on Webb v Special Elec. Co. (2016) 63 C4th 167. See §§11.14, 11.29 for discussion of CACI 1249 and Webb.
In T.H. v Novartis Pharm. Corp. (2017) 4 C5th 145, the California Supreme Court held that brand-name drug manufacturers have a duty to use ordinary care in warning about the safety risks of their drugs, regardless of whether the injured party (in reliance on the brand-name manufacturer’s warning) was dispensed the brand-name or generic version of the drug. A brand-name manufacturer’s sale of the rights to a drug does not, as a matter of law, terminate its liability for injuries foreseeably and proximately caused by deficiencies present in the warning label prior to the sale. See §§13.4, 13.22.
PAUL PEYRAT, co-author of the Third Edition, is Managing Editor at California Worker’s Compensation Reporter. He is the author of California Worker’s Damages Practice (2d ed Cal CEB) and is the author of Chapter 12 (Time Limitations) in California Worker’s Compensation Practice (4th ed Cal CEB). Mr. Peyrat speaks, lectures, and acts as an expert witness on worker’s damages. He maintains a Sonoma, California, practice as a consultant to other lawyers, focusing on tort law and damages. Mr. Peyrat received his B.A. and J.D. from the University of Minnesota.
ROBERT ABIRI, update author of chapters 3, 4, and 8, is a partner with the firm of Abiri & Szeto LLP, with offices in Orange County and New York. Licensed to practice in California, New York, and Washington, DC, Mr. Abiri handles matters covering many major civil litigation areas, including business litigation, real estate disputes, personal injury, and wrongful death matters. Since entering law practice a decade ago, he has represented both plaintiffs and defendants, acquiring a unique grasp of the issues from both viewpoints, as well as representing both public entities and private sector/individuals. In addition to his case and trial work, Mr. Abiri has collaborated on amici curiae briefs, including one that supported a published opinion in the California Supreme Court. He has been named a Southern California “rising star” by Super Lawyers magazine for the past 4 consecutive years and is active in both legal and community-based organizations. In addition, Mr. Abiri has served as an update author for California Tort Damages (2d ed Cal CEB). He earned his undergraduate degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, and his J.D. degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.
SUSIE INJIJIAN, update author of chapters 2, 5, and 12, founded her solo law practice, Injijian Law Office, APC, in Berkeley in 2005. For over 25 years she has been representing plaintiffs in a variety of injury cases and appeals, most notably airplane accident, cruise ship accident, and medical malpractice cases. Ms. Injijian has been honored as a California Super Lawyer and a California Lawyer of the Year. She has been recognized for her work in expanding the legal rights of passengers in numerous landmark aviation accident cases, including a victory in the United States Supreme Court. She earned her undergraduate degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and her J.D. degree from the University of San Francisco, School of Law.
CYNTHIA B. MCGUINN, update coauthor of chapters 1 and 6, is a principal with Rouda, Feder, Tietjen, & McGuinn, a San Francisco personal injury law firm. With more than 35 years’ experience as a trial attorney, her practice focuses on catastrophic personal injury matters, representing consumers and clients in diverse occupational fields and age groups. She was honored as the 2003 Trial Lawyer of the Year by the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association and has been a Top Woman Trial Lawyer in Super Lawyer magazine since 2005. Ms. McGuinn has obtained a number of eight-figure jury verdicts, including the highest personal injury award in the history of Sonoma County in 2015. She is a member of numerous invitation-only professional associations and is a frequent lecturer to universities and legal organizations on trial practice. She earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Akron, Ohio, and her J.D. degree from Golden Gate University, San Francisco.
DANIEL B. PLEASANT, update coauthor of chapters 1 and 6, is on the staff of Rouda, Feder, Tietjen, & McGuinn, a San Francisco personal injury law firm. Working with coauthor Cynthia B. McGuinn and other firm members, he specializes in preparing cases for trial as well as in drafting pretrial motions, mediation briefs, and appellate briefs. He has worked on numerous cases that resolved for at least $1 million, including cases that were litigated through trial. Mr. Pleasant is a member of the American Association for Justice and the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association and serves on the Executive Committee for the Bar Association of San Francisco’s Paralegal Section. Before his law firm work, Mr. Pleasant served as a Legal Officer with the United States Marine Corps. He earned his undergraduate degree (with highest honors) from Guilford College in North Carolina.
KENNETH SEEGER, update author of chapters 10, 11, and 13, is a partner in the San Francisco firm Seeger Salvas LLP. His practice focuses on litigating product liability, insurance bad faith, and commercial disputes. He has been appointed by federal and state judges to leadership positions in coordinated litigation proceedings involving recalled DePuy hips, Medtronic defibrillators, and Zicam nasal products as well as other cases. Mr. Seeger also has acted as national settlement counsel for a pharmaceutical manufacturer, helping to negotiate and implement a national class action settlement in hundreds of cases involving the drug PPA. He earned his undergraduate degree from the State University of New York, New York, and his J.D. degree from Temple University School of Law.
Robert Abiri, partner with the firm of Abiri & Szeto LLP, in Irvine, California, authors forms that appear in chapter 8.
Christopher R. Aitken, partner of the law firm Aitken*Aitken*Cohn, in Santa Ana, California, authored forms that appear in chapter 4.
Richard A. Cohn, partner of the law firm Aitken*Aitken*Cohn, in Santa Ana, California, authored forms that appear in chapter 9.
Anne J. Kepner, partner of the law firm Needham, Kepner & Fish LLP, in San Jose, California, authored forms that appear in chapter 5.
Micha Star Liberty, owner of Liberty Law in Oakland, California, authored forms that appear in chapters 3 and 10.
Rae Lovko, partner of the firm of Lovko & King, in Berkeley, California, authored forms that appear in chapter 11.
Cynthia B. McGuinn, a principal with Rouda, Feder, Tietjen, and McGuinn, in San Francisco, California, coauthored forms that appear in chapter 6.
Daniel B. Pleasant, on the staff of Rouda, Feder, Tietjen, and McGuinn, in San Francisco, California, coauthored the forms that appear in chapter 6.

References: §1
 §1
 §1
 §1
 §4
 §17004
 §4
 §6
 §15610
 §9
 §340
 §340
 §9
 §10