Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case concerns the death of Skyler A. Womack, a dependent adult with disabilities who resided at a 24-hour skilled nursing facility operated by Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. After Skyler’s death, his parents filed suit against the facility, alleging that neglect—including understaffing, failure to maintain the facility, and inadequate provision of basic needs—led to his injuries and death. The claims included survivor actions and a wrongful death claim. Notably, Skyler had signed an arbitration agreement upon admission, which stated that any medical malpractice disputes would be subject to arbitration and purported to bind his heirs.In the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Silverscreen moved to compel arbitration of all claims based on the arbitration agreement and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Ruiz v. Podolsky. The trial court compelled arbitration of the survivor claims but denied arbitration for the parents’ wrongful death claim, reasoning that the claim was based on neglect under the Elder Abuse Act, not professional negligence. The California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the wrongful death claim was subject to arbitration because it was based on professional negligence as defined by the agreement and relevant statutes.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Court held that the exception recognized in Ruiz v. Podolsky applies only to wrongful death claims that are based on medical malpractice as defined by the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), specifically disputes about whether medical services were improperly rendered. The Court clarified that not all wrongful death claims against health care providers fall within this exception—claims based on custodial neglect, as opposed to professional negligence in medical care, are not subject to arbitration under section 1295 and Ruiz. The Court remanded the case to allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint to clarify the basis of their wrongful death claim. View "Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

On January 20, 2018, Francisco Gutierrez was driving his truck on a California highway when an ambulance driven by Uriel Tostado, an EMT employed by ProTransport-1, LLC, rear-ended his vehicle. At the time, Tostado was transporting a patient between medical centers. Gutierrez filed a lawsuit on January 7, 2020, claiming the collision caused him neck and back injuries. He framed his complaint as a general negligence action. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA)’s one-year statute of limitations for medical professional negligence. Gutierrez opposed, asserting his claim was timely under the two-year statute of limitations for general negligence.The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that MICRA’s statute of limitations applied because Tostado was rendering professional medical services at the time of the accident. Gutierrez appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, reasoning that MICRA applied as long as the plaintiff was injured due to negligence in the rendering of professional services.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and held that MICRA’s statute of limitations does not apply to Gutierrez’s claim. The court concluded that the applicable statute of limitations depends on the nature of the right being sued upon. Since Gutierrez’s claim was based on a breach of a duty owed to the public generally, rather than a professional obligation owed to a patient, the two-year statute of limitations for general negligence claims applied. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Gutierrez v. Tostado" on Justia Law

Ty Whitehead suffered a serious head injury during a bicycle training ride for a charity fundraiser due to a large pothole on Skyline Boulevard in Oakland. Whitehead alleged that the City of Oakland breached its statutory duty to maintain a safe roadway. Prior to the ride, Whitehead signed a release and waiver of liability, which included a provision discharging the City from any liability for negligence.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that the release was valid and enforceable, thus barring Whitehead’s claim. The court reasoned that the release did not affect the public interest, relying on the multifactor test from Tunkl v. Regents of University of California. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, also relying on the Tunkl framework.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and concluded that the release was against public policy under Civil Code section 1668, which prohibits contracts that exempt a party from responsibility for their own fraud, willful injury, or violation of law. The court held that an agreement to exculpate a party for future violations of a statutory duty designed to protect public safety is unenforceable. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the City to argue the doctrine of primary assumption of risk on remand. View "Whitehead v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

New England Country Foods, LLC (NECF) alleged that VanLaw Food Products, Inc. (VanLaw) intentionally undercut its business by promising to replicate NECF’s popular barbeque sauce and sell it directly to Trader Joe’s. NECF sued VanLaw in federal court, claiming tortious interference and other claims. The district court dismissed the case based on a clause in their manufacturing contract that limited damages. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court whether a contract clause that substantially limits damages for intentional wrongdoing is invalid under Civil Code section 1668.The district court dismissed NECF’s complaint, reasoning that the contract allowed only for direct damages and injunctive relief, while NECF sought lost profits, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages. The court rejected NECF’s argument that section 1668 prevents limiting damages for future intentional conduct, stating it only prevents contracts that completely exempt parties from liability. NECF amended its complaint, but the district court dismissed it with prejudice, citing that parties may limit liability for breach of contract and that the contract did not bar all money damages but limited them to specific types NECF did not suffer. NECF appealed, and the Ninth Circuit sought guidance from the California Supreme Court.The California Supreme Court held that limitations on damages for willful injury to the person or property of another are invalid under section 1668. The court reasoned that the statute’s language and purpose, along with the policy against willful tortious conduct, support this interpretation. The court clarified that section 1668 does not preclude parties from limiting liability for pure breaches of contract absent a violation of an independent duty. The court’s decision ensures that parties cannot contractually limit their liability for intentional torts. View "New England Country Foods v. Vanlaw Food Products" on Justia Law

Jayde Downey was on the phone with her daughter, Malyah Jane Vance, giving driving directions when Vance was severely injured in a car crash. Downey heard the collision and its immediate aftermath but could not see what caused it. She claims the crash was partly due to the condition of the roadway and sued the City of Riverside and the owners of adjacent private property for negligent infliction of emotional distress.The Riverside County Superior Court sustained the defendants' demurrers without leave to amend, agreeing that Downey could not claim emotional distress damages because she was not aware of the defendants' role in causing the crash at the time it occurred. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Downey needed to show contemporaneous awareness of the causal connection between the defendants' negligence and her daughter's injuries.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and concluded that the Court of Appeal erred. The court held that for purposes of emotional distress recovery, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to be aware of an event that is injuring the victim, not necessarily the defendant’s role in causing the injury. The court emphasized that the requirement is awareness of the injury-producing event, not the specific negligent conduct of the defendant. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Downey v. City of Riverside" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of the "learned intermediary doctrine" in a product liability case involving a medical device. The plaintiff, Michelle Himes, sued the defendant, Somatics, LLC, alleging that the company failed to provide adequate warning about the risks associated with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), a treatment she underwent for severe depression. Himes claimed that she was only warned about the possibility of short-term memory loss, and not about the potential for permanent brain damage, severe permanent retrograde and anterograde amnesia, and acute and/or chronic organic brain syndrome, which she alleges she suffered as a result of the treatment.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Somatics, finding that Himes failed to present evidence showing that a more detailed warning would have changed her physician's decision to administer ECT. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's finding but noted a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the physician would have communicated a stronger warning to Himes.The Supreme Court of California was asked to clarify the causation standard under the learned intermediary doctrine. The court held that a plaintiff is not required to show that a stronger warning would have altered the physician’s decision to prescribe the product to establish causation. Instead, a plaintiff may establish causation by showing that the physician would have communicated the stronger warning to the patient and an objectively prudent person in the patient’s position would have thereafter declined the treatment. The court emphasized that the causation analysis must take into consideration whether the physician would still recommend the prescription drug or medical device for the patient, even in the face of a more adequate warning. View "Himes v. Somatics, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal finding evidence of Plaintiff's subsequent molestation was admissible into evidence in a trial claiming emotional distress damages from the conduct of a teacher at the Mountain View School District, holding that remand was required for the trial court to undertake proper proceedings under Cal. Evid. Code 1106 and 783.Plaintiff sued the District seeking to recover for sexual abuse committed when she was eight years old by her fourth-grade teacher. The District sought to introduce evidence that Plaintiff was subsequently molested a few years later by another person and that this subsequent molestation caused at least some of Plaintiff's emotional distress injuries and related damages. The appellate court found the evidence regarding the subsequent molestation admissible. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) section 1106 subdivision (e) may permit admission of evidence that would otherwise be excluded under subdivision (a), but such admissibility is subject to the procedures set out in section 783 and scrutiny under section 352; and (2) section 352, as applied under the circumstances, required special informed review and scrutiny defined to protect Plaintiff's privacy rights, which appear not to have been applied in this case. View "Doe v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that under California's Motor Carriers of Property Permit Act, Cal. Veh. Code 34600 et seq., a commercial automobile insurance policy does not continue in full force and effect until the insurer cancels a corresponding certificate of insurance on file with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).Insured was driving a truck covered by his policy with Insurer when he collided with a car, killing its driver. The driver's parents sued Insured for wrongful death, and Insured tendered his defense to Insurer. Insurer settled the claim for its policy limits and then sued Insured's former insurer (Defendant) for declaratory relief, equitable contribution, and equitable subrogation. The trial court held that Defendant's policy remained in effect on the date of the collision because one of Defendant's cancellation notices was rejected by the DMV as incomplete. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question of law to the Supreme Court, which answered that the Act does not require a commercial auto insurance policy to remain in effective indefinitely until the insurer cancels the certificate of insurance on file with the DMV. View "Allied Premier Insurance v. United Financial Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that because Plaintiff's state-law claims were based on allegations that his father's health maintenance organization (HMO) plan and healthcare services administrator that managed his father's benefits (collectively, Defendants) breached state-law duties that incorporated and duplicated standards established under Medicare Part C, Part C's preemption provision preempted them.Plaintiff brought this action alleging a state statutory claim under the Elder Abuse Act and common law claims of negligence and wrongful death for the alleged maltreatment of his father, a Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollee who died after being discharged from a skilled nursing facility. Plaintiff alleged that the MA HMO and healthcare services administrator breached a duty to ensure his father received skilled nursing benefits to which he was entitled under his MA plan. Defendants demurred, arguing that the claims were preempted by Part C's preemption provision. The trial court sustained the demurrers, and the court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff's state-law claims were based on allegations that Defendants breached state-law duties that incorporate and duplicate standards established under Part C, the claims were expressly preempted. View "Quishenberry v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the exclusivity provisions of the California Workers' Compensation Act (WCA), Cal. Lab. Code 3200 et seq., do not bar an employee's spouse's negligence claim against the employer when the spouse is injured by transmission of the COVID-19 virus but that an employer does not owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees' household members.The Supreme Court answered two questions of California law certified from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding the scope of an employer's liability when an employee's spouse is injured by transmission of the COVID-19 virus as follows: (1) the exclusivity provisions of the WCA do not bar a non-employee's recovery for injuries that are not legally dependent upon an injury suffered by the employee; and (2) employers do not owe a tort-based duty to non-employees to prevent the spread of COVID-19. View "Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc." on Justia Law