CA Pub. Decisions

Current schedule for rating permanent disabilities, which took effect Jan. 1, 2005, must be applied to an injury occurring prior to that date where physician's conclusion that "permanent disability is within reasonable medical probability emanating from this injury" was unsupported by any of the medical reports submitted prior that date.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where landlord has obtained judgment for, but has not taken, possession of premises, it owes tenant's guests a duty to inspect for defects at reasonable intervals. Where jury was not instructed as to when landlord's duty to inspect arose or what the required nature of inspections was, or that landlord could only be held liable if inspection would have resulted in discovery of defect resulting in plaintiff's injury, landlord was entitled to new trial.

Lliability insurer providing coverage for "advertising injury" and "property damage" is not required to defend its insured in an action charging the insured with sending unsolicited advertisements to fax machines in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and with invasion of privacy caused by those faxed advertisements.

Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to show he might qualify as presumed father of ex wife's son under Family Code Sec. 7630(b) where he was named as father on child's birth certificate, acknowledged his paternity and received child into his home; child stated in declaration that plaintiff always held himself out as his father, supported him emotionally and financially his whole life, and visited or vacationed with him and ex wife frequently; and plaintiff's ex wife said in declaration that she continued marital relationship with him for many years despite their divorce, with plaintiff providing financial support for her and her children.

A modification decision.

A modification decision.

Admission of self incriminating statements that defendant made to police officers during an interrogation while he was in intensive care unit of hospital recovering from surgery and on pain medications did not violate his right to fair trial -- on basis that statements were made involuntarily as a result of officers exploiting his debilitated physical and mental conditions through psychological coercion -- where evidence showed that officers interviewed defendant only after hospital personnel determined he was "alert" and "oriented," which was four days after his surgery; hospital staff prior to interview had removed defendant's respirator and determined his condition had improved sufficiently so that he could be cared for safely in a regular hospital room; interview lasted a maximum of 20 minutes; officers posed their questions in a calm, deliberate manner in a conversational, nonthreatening tone; and there was no evidence that defendant's thinking was impaired by medications.

Insufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for carjacking where victim was not within any physical proximity to the stolen car, the keys she relinquished at gunpoint were not hers but her employer's left in her office of employment, and there was no evidence that she had ever been or would be a driver of or passenger in the car.

Where assets are rolled over from a retirement plan that is fully exempt from claims of creditors under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 704.115 into an IRA, the full exemption -- rather than the limited exemption for IRA's under Sec.704.115 (e) applies.