Fear Not Law Articles: BOSTICK v. FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., PART IV

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,

FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B171567

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. SC066205)

GOLD'S GYM, INC.,

Cross-complainant and Respondent,

FLEX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.,

Cross-defendant and Appellant.

B173455

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. SC066205)

STORY CONTINUED FROM PART IIIâ€¦â€¦â€¦

b. Effect of Proposition 51

Proposition 51 makes each defendant's liability for noneconomic damages several and in proportion to the defendant's fault, rather than joint and several. (Civ. Code, § 1431.2, subd. (a).) The express purpose of Proposition 51 is to limit each defendant's liability to a proportion of the plaintiff's damages that more closely approximates the defendant's degree of fault. (Civ. Code, § 1431.1, subd. (c) [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 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.