Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/19] Bregin v. Liquidebt Sys., Inc
In a suit alleging retaliatory discharge and tortious interference with employment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not identify any illegal acts which he was asked to commit, for which a retaliation claim could be brought; 2) state law did not provide a whistleblower exception to the employment-at-will doctrine; and 3) plaintiff did not make out a claim for tortious interference.

[11/17] Goldstein v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles
In a claim alleging that defendants wrongfully obtained plaintiff's conviction for murder based on their pattern and practice of misusing the testimony of jailhouse informants, grant of plaintiff's Penal Code section 924.2 petition seeking access to grand jury materials is reversed where California courts do not have a broad inherent power to order disclosure of grand jury materials to private litigants.

[11/17] The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), Inc.
In a claim for contractual indemnification related to settlement of a tort claim, the court certified the following questions: 1) whether, under Alabama law, an indemnitee may enforce an indemnification provision and recover damages from an indemnitor resulting from the combined or concurrent fault or negligence of the indemnitee and indemnitor; and 2) whether, under Alabama law, a court may look behind (or beyond) the pleadings (in particular, the complaint) of an underlying tort action in determining the application of an indemnification provision between an indemnitor and indemnitee.

[11/17] US v. Shefton
Dismissal of petition for an ancillary hearing regarding interest in certain property that was subject to a criminal forfeiture order is reversed where a construct trust can serve as a superior legal interest under section 853(n)(6)(A) and thus can serve as grounds for invalidating a criminal forfeiture act.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[11/14] In Re Buster
In a suit alleging negligence by a nursing home, in which plaintiff submitted an expert report signed by a nurse, and then sought leave to cure this deficiency by submitting a different report signed by a physician, petition for mandamus relief is granted where the appeals court erred in holding that a new report from a different expert was not allowed.

[11/13] Mosier v. Callister, Nebeker & McCullough
In a suit brought by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of a nonprofit organization against a law firm and two of its attorneys alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and civil conspiracy, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by imputing the conduct of certain offers to the nonprofit; 2) it correctly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto in holding as a matter of law that the nonprofit's misconduct, as evidenced by the actions of its officers and directors, was greater than defendants' fault in failing to counsel the nonprofit; and 3) there was no error in applying the doctrine against a trustee in bankruptcy.

[11/13] Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hosp.
In a medical malpractice action against hospital and doctor, petition for writ of supersedeas directing the trial court to reduce the amount of its appeal bond is denied where: 1) the lump sum present value of the judgment against defendant-hospital was the "amount of the judgment" for the purpose of calculating the undertaking required to stay the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1; and 2) the trial court properly set the amount of defendant-hospital's appeal bond at 1.5 times the lump sum present value of plaintiff's judgment against it.

[11/13] Teague v. Kent Gen. Hosp.
In a medical-malpractice case, denials of plaintiff's motion for a new trial and for reargument of the exclusion of medical expert testimony are affirmed where: 1) defendant made a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law after plaintiff's expert failed on direct examination to establish the relevant standard of care; and 2) the trial judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by declining to allow additional voir dire of plaintiff's expert via telephone.

[10/31] Iowa Physicians' Clinic Med. Found. v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin
In a suit in which plaintiff-policyholder sought damages in tort for the alleged bad-faith refusal by defendant-insurer to settle a malpractice claim against an insured doctor who was plaintiff's employee, judgment for defendant is affirmed where under state law, a bad-faith claim was available only to an insured, not to an uninsured policyholder.

More...