Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of the County of Riverside in this action asserting negligent distress, holding that a provision of the Government Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code 821.6, does not immunize public employees from claims based on certain injuries inflicted in the course of law enforcement investigations.Plaintiff's husband was shot and killed. When deputies with the Riverside County Sheriff office dragged his body in an attempt to revive him, the movement exposed his naked body. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that the officers and County failed to exercise reasonable care when they left her husband's body exposed for several hours in view of both Plaintiff and the general public. The trial court granted judgment for the County, concluding that Defendants were immune under section 821.6 for "all conduct related to the investigation and filing of charges." The court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in upholding the application of section 321.6 to confer absolute immunity on the County for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of the alleged mishandling of Plaintiff's husband's body because the claims did not concern alleged harms from the institution or prosecution of judicial or administrative proceedings. View "Leon v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal determining that Cal. Gov. Code 818, a provision within the Government Claims Act, shields public entities from liability for enhanced damages under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 340.1(b)(1), holding that the court of appeal did not err.At issue was whether enhanced damages could be awarded under section 340.1(b)(1) against a public entity named as a defendant in a lawsuit for childhood sexual assault or whether such awards were prohibited under section 818, which specifies that a public entity may not be held liable in tort for "damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant." The court of appeal concluded that the treble damages provision in section 340.1 does not have a compensatory function and that its primary purpose is to punish past childhood sexual abuse coverups and deter future abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 818 prohibits an award of enhanced damages under section 340.1(b)(1) against a public entity. View "L.A. Unified School District v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Relying on its holding in Cameron v. State of California, 7.Cal.3d 318 (1972), the Supreme Court held that design immunity does not categorically preclude failure to warn claims that involve a discretionarily-approved element of a roadway and declined to overrule its prior precedent.At issue was whether design immunity is limited to claims alleging that a public entity created a dangerous roadway condition through a defective design or whether the statutory defense of design immunity also extends to claims alleging that a public entity failed to warn of a design element that resulted in a dangerous roadway condition. The Supreme Court held (1) the effect of Cameron is that, while Cal. Gov. Code 830.6 shields public entities from liability for injuries stemming from the design of a roadway's physical features, they nonetheless have a duty to warn of known dangers the roadway presents to the public; and (2) this Court declines the invitation of City of Rancho Palo Verdes to overrule Cameron. View "Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal reversing the judgment of the trial court ruling that the exception to landowners' negation of their statutory duty of care to keep their property safe for others who may enter or use it for recreational purposes does not apply when the landowners' live-at-home child invites someone onto the property without the owners' knowledge or permission, holding that the court of appeals erred.The trial court ruled that the exception did not apply in this case because the landowners had not issued the invitation. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the exception to the landowners' statutory negation of duty when a landowner expressly invites someone onto the property applied unless the child had been prohibited to make the invitation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a plaintiff may rely on the exception and impose liability if there is a showing that a landowner extended an express invitation to come onto the property; and (2) the plaintiff in this case did not meet her burden. View "Hoffmann v. Young" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that liability under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code 51, was not available in this case, where Plaintiff alleged that he was sexually assaulted by fellow students and a school district staff member at his high school.Plaintiff, through his guardian, sued the West Contra Costa Unified School District asserting various claims arising out of his high school experiences, including allegations that the District had violated the Act. The District demurred to the Act cause of action on the ground that the District was not a "business establishment" within the meaning of the Act. The trial court sustained the demurrer. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an original petition for writ of mandate, which the court of appeal denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Act, as currently written, cannot reasonably be interpreted to encompass public school districts in situations such as the one this case presented. View "Brennon B. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court granting a writ of mandate directing the trial court to issue a new order denying Ford Motor Company's motion to exclude all of Plaintiff's proffered deposition testimony, holding that the court of appeal erroneously construed Wahlgren as establishing a categorical bar to admitted deposition testimony under Cal. Evid. Code 1291(a)(2).Plaintiff, a putative member of a federal multidistrict class action suit against Ford arising from the diesel engine used in some of Ford's vehicles, opted out of a federal suit in order to pursue his own lawsuit. Plaintiff filed ten designations of deposition testimony listing the depositions of nine out-of-state Ford employees or former employees had given deposition testimony in the federal action or in subsequent related California opt-out litigation that Plaintiff proposed to introduce at trial. Ford moved to exclude the proffered testimony, which the trial court granted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court’s analysis was incompatible with (1) the established principle that the party proposing to introduce evidence under section 1291(a)(2)’s former testimony exception to the hearsay rule bears the burden of establishing the requirements for admission; and (2) the Legislature’s official comment reflecting its understanding when it enacted the provision at issue as part of the Evidence Code in 1965. View "Berroteran v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal affirming the judgment of the trial court sustaining Well Fargo Bank, N.A.'s demurrer to Plaintiff's negligence claim, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.At issue on appeal was whether a lender owes the borrower a tort duty sounding in general negligence principles to process and respond carefully to a borrower's loan modification application such that, upon a breach of this duty, the lender may be liable for the borrower's pecuniary losses unaccompanied by property damage or personal injury. The Supreme Court held that there was no such duty, holding that neither Plaintiff's assertion of a "special relationship" between himself and Wells Fargo nor his invocation of the factors articulated in Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 (1958), provided a compelling basis to recognize such a duty. View "Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Cal. Civ. Code 3333.2 applies to a physician assistant who has a legally enforceable agency relationship with a supervising physician and provides services within the scope of that agency relationship, even if the physician violates his obligation to provide adequate supervision.Under a provision of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), damages for noneconomic losses shall not exceed $250,000 in any action for injury against a healthcare provider based on "professional negligence." At issue before the Supreme Court was whether section 3333.2 applies to actions against physician assistants who are nominally supervised by a doctor but receive minimal or no supervision when performing medical services. The Supreme Court held that a physician assistant practices within the scope of her license for purposes of MICRA’s cap on noneconomic damages when the physician assistant acts as the agent of a licensed physician, performs the type of services authorized by that agency relationship, and does not engage in an area of practice prohibited by the Physician Assistant's Practice Act. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, former 3502, subd. (d). View "Lopez v. Ledesma" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Curtis Olson failed to show the requisite "minimal merit" on a critical element of his breach of contract claim and thus could not defeat Jane Doe's anti-SLAPP motion.Doe and Olson each owned units in the same condominium building. Doe brought a civil harassment restraining order against Olson, and as a result of court-ordered mediation, the parties agreed if they encountered each other in a public or common place "not to disparage one another." Doe later filed a civil lawsuit against Olson seeking damages. Olson cross-complained for breach of contract and specific performance, and Doe moved to strike Olson's cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal's judgment insofar as it reversed the trial court's order granting Doe's special motion to strike the breach of contract clause of action with respect to statements in Doe's civil complaint, holding that Doe had no obligation under the contract to refrain from making disparaging statements in litigation, and therefore, Olson could not defeat Doe's anti-SLAPP motion. View "Olson v. Doe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a company that hired the contractor that hired the injured plaintiff in this case, owned the premises, and operated the electrical equipment, was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries.Plaintiff, an electrical parts specialist, sustained burns to a substantial portion of his body after he triggered an arc flash from a circuit he did not realize was live with flowing electricity. A jury concluded that the contractor for whom Plaintiff had been working and who had removed the protective cover on that live circuit while work was underway acted negligently and was liable for Plaintiff's injuries. At issue was whether Defendant, the entity that hired the independent contractor, owed a tort duty to Plaintiff, who was working for Defendant at the time of Plaintiff's injuries. The Supreme Court held that Defendant owed no tort duty to Plaintiff because Defendant neither failed to sufficiently disclose the hazard nor affirmatively contributed to the injury. View "Sandoval v. Qualcomm Inc." on Justia Law