Kinsman v. Unocal
This case returns to us on a remand from the Supreme Court. In the first appeal, we reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs Ray and Jo Kinsman because we concluded instructions read to the jury did not reflect the limitations on premises liability required by Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and related cases. The Supreme Court granted review, and in Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, the court announced a new rule for determining a premises owners liability for injuries to an independent contractors employee caused by a dangerous condition on the property.[1] Although the Supreme Court also concluded a new trial was required due to instructional error (id. at pp. 682-683), the court remanded the case to us to decide a sufficiency of evidence issue we did not reach in our first opinion. (Id. at pp. 683, fn. 8 and 684.)
Court conclude substantial evidence supports the jurys verdict of negligence and the trial court properly denied Unocals motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Accordingly, Court remand the matter for a new trial to be conducted in accordance with the principles set forth in the Supreme Courts opinion. (See Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 678-683.)
Comments on Kinsman v. Unocal