legal news


Register | Forgot Password

BOSTICK v. FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., PART I

BOSTICK v. FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., PART I
02:22:2007

BOSTICK v


BOSTICK v. FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.,


Filed 1/29/07


CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION THREE










HAROLD L. BOSTICK,


            Plaintiff and Appellant,


            v.


FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.,


            Defendant and Appellant.


            B171567


            (Los Angeles County


            Super. Ct. No. SC066205)



GOLD'S GYM, INC.,


            Cross-complainant and Respondent,


            v.


FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.,


            Cross-defendant and Appellant.


            B173455


            (Los Angeles County


            Super. Ct. No. SC066205)



            APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert  H. O'Brien, Judge.  Judgment on the complaint affirmed, and judgment on the cross-complaint reversed.


            Smith, Chapman & Campbell, Steven C. Smith, William D. Chapman and Robert  J. Hadlock for Plaintiff and Appellant.


            Horvitz & Levy, David S. Ettinger, S. Thomas Todd; Callahan, McCune & Willis and John J. Tasker for Defendant, Cross-defendant and Appellant.


            No appearance for Cross-complainant and Respondent.


INTRODUCTION


            Harold L. Bostick suffered severe, disabling injuries while working out at Gold's Gym, Inc. (Gold's Gym) on weight‑ lifting equipment manufactured by Flex Equipment Company, Inc. (Flex).  Bostick sued both Flex and Gold's Gym.  Gold's Gym cross‑ complained against Flex for equitable indemnity.  The cross-complaint was severed for separate trial.  Prior to the conclusion of the trial on the complaint, Bostick entered into a settlement with Gold's Gym for $7.3  million.  The jury returned a verdict awarding Bostick nearly $3.3  million in economic damages and $13  million in noneconomic damages, and later awarded $1 in punitive damages.  The jury apportioned 90  percent of the fault to Flex, 10  percent to Bostick, and 0  percent fault to â€





Description A defendant in a strict products liability action is jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for noneconomic damages where the action involves a single product and all defendants are in the chain of distribution. Where jury trying plaintiff's complaint apportioned fault between plaintiff and defendant and found that "other entities" were not at fault, said verdict did not have collateral estoppel effect against defendant in cross-action for equitable indemnity by alleged cotortfeasor who entered into good faith settlement with plaintiff.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale