- [09/04] Mother sues Penn, Amazon over daughter's 2013 suicide
- [09/02] 7 die from Legionnaires' disease at Illinois veterans home
- [09/02] NTSB releases factual report on Seattle news chopper crash
- [08/31] Blue Bell resumes selling ice cream after listeria recall
- [08/21] Agency won't open probe into Toyota unintended acceleration
- [08/18] Ford recalling trucks to fix seat belt anchors
- [09/04] Mother sues Penn, Amazon over daughter's 2013 suicide
- [09/02] Wrongly convicted brothers each get $750K payout
- [09/02] Parents of women killed on San Francisco pier file claims
Injury & Tort Law
[09/21] Jones v. Wang
In a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging violations of plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and various torts during doctor-defendant's investigation into whether plaintiff's child has been abused, the district court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where plaintiffs could support a finding that defendant's actions of seizing the infant child from plaintiffs and holding him in a hospital over a weekend were not entitled to qualified immunity.
[09/17] In re September 11 Litigation
In a case concerning the tremendous property damage cause by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, brought by the lessees of 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 World Trade Center against airline and security defendants, the district court's judgment in favor of defendants is: 1) affirmed in part as to the conclusions that plaintiffs are entitled to compensation only for the amount of the value that their leasehold interests lost due to the terrorist attacks, that they cannot recover their claimed consequential damages, and that pursuant to CPLR section 4545, their insurance recoveries correspond to and offset their potential tort award; 2) affirmed in part as to the finding that United Airlines had no duty to supervise the security checkpoints or detect the hijackers who boarded American Airlines Flight 11; 3) vacated in part where the court used an incorrect methodology when calculating the value by which Plaintiffs' leasehold interests declined; and 4) vacated in part where the court wrongly decided that prejudgment interest accrues at the federal funds rate on the diminution in value of Plaintiffs' leasehold estates.
[09/17] S.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.
In a minor's appeal from a judgment in favor of the school district on a cause of action for negligent supervision of a teacher employed by the district, who sexually abused plaintiff on and off campus over several months while she was attending a district school, the trial court's judgment is reversed and remanded for a new trial where the court erred prejudicially in: 1) instructing the jury on negligent supervision; 2) admitting evidence of minor's prior sexual history; 3) instructing the jury on comparative fault because there was no evidence of any wrongful conduct by plaintiff and comparative fault has no application in a case involving the sexual abuse of a minor student by an adult teacher in a position of authority in a public school setting; 4) instructing the jury pursuant to CACI No. 433; and 5) instructing the jury on immunity.
[09/15] Grace v. Mansourian
In a plaintiff's motion to recover costs of proof under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, following a favorable judgment in their personal injury suit, the trial court's denial of the motion is reversed where defendants had no reasonable basis to deny liability or plaintiff's ankle injury and certain treatment for it.
[09/25] Contra Costa County v. WCAB
In an action challenging a Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's (WCAB) decision awarding a worker a permanent disability rating of 79 percent, which was initially set at 59 percent but was successfully rebutted by the worker, the WCAB's decision resetting the disability rating at 79 percent is reversed where worker's attempted rebuttal did not comport with any of the methods approved in Ogilvie v. WCAB (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262, and is therefore foreclosed by Ogilvie.
[07/22] Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
In a writ of review challenging the failure of the WCAB to address its claim that the hearing officer failed to adjudicate a deceadent's widow's petition to determine her entitlement to special death benefits under the public employees' retirement system (PERS), Gov. Code section 21537, 21541, the decision of the WCAB upholding the finding of its hearing officer that there was an industrial cause for the death of decedent and the award of a workers' compensation death benefit to widow, is annulled and the matter is remanded with directions to join the PERS Board as a defendant and calculate the coordinated death benefits within each board's purview.
[06/29] Angelotti Chirporactice, Inc. v. Baker
In a suit claiming Senate Bill 863, which was enacted to combat an acute "lien crisis" in its workers' compensation system, violated the Takings Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed as to dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under the Takings Clause and Due Process Clause challenging California Senate Bill 863; 2) vacated as to the grant of preliminary injunction; and 3) reversed as to denial of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Equal Protection Clause claim.
[05/28] South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.
In a case in which the family of decedent was awarded workers' compensation death benefits after he died from the combination of drugs prescribed following a fall at work, the Court of Appeal's judgment overturning the award is reversed where there was sufficient evidence that the drugs prescribed for the work injury contributed to the death.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.