Source: http://legal-malpractice.net/isitreally.html
Timestamp: 2019-12-13 21:42:31
Document Index: 573505957

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 30', '§351', '§351', '§17463', '§352', '§366', '§366', '§340']

(This article appeared in "California Lawyer")
An attorney's exercise of judgment is not negligence unless the judgment falls below the standard of care. For example, during trial it is generally accepted that the choice of what witnesses to call, what evidence to introduce, and whether or not to cross-examine a witness are exercises of judgment. Nevertheless, if a tactical decision was foolish, ill-considered, or unduly risky, it may be found negligent if the attorney's strategy was not based on informed judgment. Mallen & Smith, 4 Legal Malpractice Â§ 30.39 (West, 5th ed 2000). As the court stated bluntly in Smith v Lewis, "There is nothing strategic or tactical about ignorance." 13 C3d at 359.
Out-of-state travel: Code of Civil Procedure section 351 provides that for every day a defendant is absent from the state, the statute of limitations is tolled. There are a few exceptions to this statute. It does not apply, for example, to defendants engaging in interstate commerce. See Abramson v Brownstein (1990) 897 F2d 389 (holding CCP Â§351 unconstitutional as to out-of-state residents involved in interstate commerce); Mounts v Uyeda (1991) 227 CA3d 111 (CCP Â§351 applicable to nonresidents not engaged in interstate commerce). Nor does the statute apply to licensed California in automobile accident cases. Veh C Â§17463. However, even in an automobile case, the statute may be tolled if the plaintiff proves that reasonable efforts to locate a defendant were unsuccessful. Dovie v Hibler (1967) 254 CA2d 673.
Mental disability of plaintiff: The statute of limitations does not run against a person who is insane. CCP Â§352(a). This exception may include other kinds of mental disabilities. In Feeley v Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1991) 234 CA3d 649, the plaintiff was in a coma for twelve days after being knocked unconscious while on the defendant's premises. His suit, filed one year and one day after the attack, was timely because the statute was tolled while he was unconscious.
Death of a party: If a potential plaintiff dies before the expiration of the statute of limitations and the cause of action survives, an action may be commenced within six months after the date of death, or the limitations period that would otherwise apply, whichever is later. CCP Â§366.1. If a potential defendant dies before the applicable limitations period expires, and the cause of action survives, an action must be commenced within one year after the date of death, and the normal limitations period does not apply, subject to some exceptions. CCP Â§366.2.
Action for damages against felon: Suppose a claimant's spouse is killed by a driver later charged with felony drunk driving. The victim of a felon may bring suit within one year of the conviction. If judgment is stayed, the tolling remains in effect until the stay is lifted. A stay does not include the time during appeal or probation. CCP Â§340.3.