Boyd v. SBC Advanced Solutions
Filed 7/5/06 Boyd v. SBC Advanced Solutions CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| NICHOLAS BOYD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SBC ADVANCED SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant and Respondent. | B181807 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC263588) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Conrad R. Aragon, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Law Office of Richard T. Ferko and Richard T. Ferko for Plaintiff and Appellant.
AT&T West Legal Department and Gleam O. Davis for Defendant and Respondent.
_________________________
Nicholas Boyd (Boyd) sued SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. (ASI), for damages after one of its technicians, in the process of installing a digital service line (DSL), erased three screenplay projects from Boyd's computer. The jury awarded Boyd $27,000 in net compensatory damages on his negligence cause of action and $33,000 in punitive damages. Boyd appeals on the following theories: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's decision to award such a low amount of compensatory and punitive damages; (2) there was insufficient evidence for the jury to apportion 55 percent of the fault to Boyd; (3) contributory negligence does not apply in negligence actions involving injury to property; and (4) the trial court erred when it refused to reopen the case to admit exhibit 105. ASI cross-appeals, claiming, inter alia, that the award of punitive damages was improper because the special verdict form allowed the imposition of punitive damages only if it was found liable for an intentional tort. Because the cross-appeal has merit but the appeal does not, we reverse the punitive damages award. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
FACTS
The complaint
Boyd alleged the following facts and theories.
Boyd, also known as Nikrouz Ghazibayat, spent years researching and preparing scripts[1] and stories entitled â€
