BOSTICK v. FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.,
Filed
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
HAROLD L. BOSTICK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Appellant. | B171567 ( Super. |
GOLD'S GYM, INC., Cross-complainant and Respondent, v. FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Cross-defendant and Appellant. | B173455 ( Super. |
STORY CONTINUED FROM PART II………
CROSKEY, Acting P. J., Concurring.
I concur in the decision affirming the judgment on the complaint, but for reasons different from those stated in the majority opinion. In my view, Proposition 51 applies to a strict products liability action involving a single indivisible injury, and Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 618 (Wimberly) was wrongly decided. Wimberly held that Proposition 51 did not modify the common law rule that defendants in an action for strict products liability who were in the same chain of distribution of a defective product are jointly and severally liable for all of the plaintiff's economic and noneconomic damages. Wimberly, improperly in my view, relied on the rationale that strict products liability is similar to vicarious liability in that it is not based on â€
