Twenty-five California Supreme Court Cases in Which the Civil Justice Association of California's Appellate Program Made Important Contributions to Businesses, Taxpayers, Professionals, and the California Economy.

The Appellate Program of the Civil Justice Association of California has been led throughout the organization's entire existence by General Counsel Fred J. Hiestand. Mr. Hiestand authors nearly all of the Association amicus curiae briefs, participates in oral arguments before the courts, and manages the review process by which the CJAC Appellate Committee selects cases for Association amicus participation.

Unfair Competition

In a victory for CJAC in its longstanding fight to reform California's unfair competition law (UCL), the Supreme Court held that disgorgement of money obtained through an unfair business practice is available in a representative action only to the extent that it constitutes restitution. The case arose when a disgruntled bidder, Korea Supply, lost out to Lockheed for a contract from the government of Korea. Korea Supply sought disgorgement of Lockheed's profits from the contract because it claimed Lockheed engaged in unfair business practices to obtain it. The appellate court ruled that plaintiffs could recover the disgorgement of profits Lockheed obtained when it entered into the contract with the Korean government regardless of whether those profits represent money taken directly from persons who were victims of the unfair practice in this case the Korean taxpayers. But the high court, agreeing with Lockheed and CJAC, reversed and placed a new curb on the omnivorous reach of the UCL. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134

Employment

The Supreme Court agreed with CJAC that workers' compensation bars liability of a hirer of an independent contractor for injury to an employee of the contractor even though the hirer retains control over safety conditions at the worksite. This case arose when a crane operator for an independent contractor hired by CalTrans was killed in an on-the-job accident. During a road- widening the crane tipped over because the operator negligently swung its boom to the same side of the crane where the outriggers were retracted. His widow received workers' compensation death benefits but sued for additional damages, alleging negligence by CalTrans. The Court held that for a hirer to be liable to an employee of a contractor, it must be shown that the hirer's exercise of retained control affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries, not merely that the hirer retained control over safety conditions on the job. Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198

Non-Economic Damages

In this case, daughters sued physicians for emotional distress they experienced when they saw their mother heroically saved by emergency surgery in response to her subclavian artery being cut by improper insertion of a chemotherapy catheter by other medical personnel. The Civil Justice Association of California brief argued that there should be no liability for the emotional distress people experience upon witnessing emergency medical treatment given a "close relative". The Supreme Court agreed with CJAC's conclusion that there should be no liability, but did so on the ground that a bystander suing for negligently inflicted emotional distress must be aware of the connection between the injury-producing event and the injury, which plaintiffs were not. Bird v. Saenz (2002) 28 Cal.4th 910 Government Liability

Taxpayers and CJAC won when the Supreme Court ruled that the minor children of a woman who was shot by her former husband in a Los Angeles courthouse during a divorce hearing may not recover damages for negligence and violation of their civil rights because the county failed to provide adequate security against third party violence. Agreeing with CJAC, the Court stated that the legislative and executive branches of government . . . are the branches primarily responsible for weighing the need for and effectiveness of particular security measures, the cost of such measures, the availability of funds in light of other calls on the budget as a whole, and the public's views regarding whether particular measures are acceptable or are considered too intrusive. Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112

Workers Compensation

The Supreme Court sided with CJAC in this case, holding that the hirer [of an independent contractor] should not have to pay for injuries caused by the contractor's negligent performance because the workers' compensation system already covers those injuries. Alberto Camargo was killed when his tractor rolled over as he was driving over a mound of manure at Tjaarda Dairy. He was a full-time employee of Golden Cal Trucking, which the dairy hired to scrape manure out of its corrals and haul away in exchange for the right to buy the manure at a discount and then sell for a profit as fertilizer. His widow claimed that the dairy was negligent because it failed to determine whether her husband was qualified to operate the tractor safely. Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235

Premises Liability

In this case, widely decried by the personal injury bar, the Supreme Court adopted an argument CJAC had been advancing for several years that liability for negligence can be defeated by summary judgment on grounds of legal cause. The plaintiff, a female delivery company employee who was attacked while delivering a package to an apartment complex, argued that the owner of the complex was negligent in failing to provide adequate safety measures to prevent guests like her from criminal assault by third parties. But a sharply divided (4 to 3) Court held in the majority opinion that when there is evidence that the assault could have occurred even in the absence of the landlord's negligence, proof of causation cannot be based on mere speculation, conjecture, and inferences to reach a conclusion unsupported by any real evidence, or on an expert's opinion based on inferences, speculation, and conjecture. Since the plaintiff did not know the identity of her assailants and they were never apprehended, it was impossible to prove whether they were residents of the premises and that additional security measures would have prevented their attack. Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763

Construction Law

The Civil Justice Association of California sided with home builders in persuading the Supreme Court to hold that, although builders and developers owe a duty of care to the homeowners in mass-produced housing developments, homeowners do not have a private cause of action in negligence for construction defects which do not result in personal injury or physical property damage. The court said that recovery for "resultant" damages to property were not the same as the purely economic damages sought by the homeowners. The Court's decision refocused construction-defect lawsuits on traditional contract and warranty claims, by which home buyers are entitled to obtain attorneys' fees and builders can offer longer and more comprehensive warranties since they will have the legal assurance that if they do not breach their contract and fulfill the warranty, they cannot be sued after the warranties expire under more expansive and less certain legal theories. Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627

Government Liability

The Supreme Court agreed with the CJAC brief which argued that developers who promise to install a traffic light in order to win city permission to build condominiums aren't responsible for an accident that occurred when the condos went up but because of permit delays the signal did not. The Court held that since there was no evidence that the intersection became more dangerous after the project was built than it was before, no liability for negligence could be shown following the injury of a motorcyclist at the intersection. "In this instance, where the record shows that nothing changed but the passage of time, a failure to alleviate a risk cannot be regarded as tantamount to increasing that risk," the Court stated in a majority opinion by Justice Ming Chin. Paz v. State of California (2000) 22 Cal.4th 550

Punitive Damages

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the trial court properly ordered a new trial after the jury returned a nearly $90 million punitive verdict against Hughes Aircraft for employment discrimination. Siding with CJAC's position, all justices found that a trial court judge is authorized to grant a new trial on the grounds of "excessive damages" or "insufficiency of the evidence," and that they should not disturb the trial court's holding. Particularly interesting was Justice Janice Brown's concurring opinion in which she discussed what standards courts should consider in determining whether punitive awards are "excessive" and suggested punitive damages be capped at some multiple of compensatory damages. Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 405

Punitive Damages

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the trial court properly ordered a new trial after the jury returned a nearly $90 million punitive verdict against Hughes Aircraft for employment discrimination. Siding with CJAC's position, all justices found that a trial court judge is authorized to grant a new trial on the grounds of excessive damages or insufficiency of the evidence, and that they should not disturb the trial court's holding. Particularly interesting was Justice Janice Brown's concurring opinion in which she discussed what standards courts should consider in determining whether punitive awards are "excessive" and suggested punitive damages be capped at some multiple of compensatory damages. Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 405

Premises Liability

The Supreme Court sided with CJAC and held that the duty a garage owner in a commercial building owes a tenant assaulted by a third party is determined by a balancing of "foreseeability" of the criminal acts against the "burdensome, vagueness, and efficacy" [sic] of the proposed security measures. The Court rejected the view that an underground parking structure is so inherently dangerous that, even in the absence of prior similar incidents, providing security guards was within the scope of a landowner's duty of care. The Court was unwilling to establish such a broad general principle in the absence of any solid evidence. Furthermore, the Court stated that to characterize a garage as inherently dangerous would be opening the door to limitless litigation regarding whether other kinds of properties could be characterized as inherently dangerous. Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (2000) 21 Cal.4th 1181 1999

Punitive Damages

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the trial court properly ordered a new trial after the jury returned a nearly $90 million punitive verdict against Hughes Aircraft for employment discrimination. Siding with CJAC's position, all justices found that a trial court judge is authorized to grant a new trial on the grounds of excessive damages' or insufficiency of the evidence, and that they should not disturb the trial court's holding. Particularly interesting was Justice Janice Brown's concurring opinion in which she discussed what standards courts should consider in determining whether punitive awards are "excessive" and suggested punitive damages be capped at some multiple of compensatory damages. Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 405

Premises Liability

The Supreme Court sided with CJAC and held that the duty a garage owner in a commercial building owes a tenant assaulted by a third party is determined by a balancing of "foreseeability" of the criminal acts against the "burdensome, vagueness, and efficacy" [sic] of the proposed security measures. The Court rejected the view that an underground parking structure is so inherently dangerous that, even in the absence of prior similar incidents, providing security guards was within the scope of a landowner's duty of care. The Court was unwilling to establish such a broad general principle in the absence of any solid evidence. Furthermore, the Court stated that to characterize a garage as inherently dangerous would be opening the door to limitless litigation regarding whether other kinds of properties could be characterized as inherently dangerous. Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (2000) 21 Cal.4th 1181 1999

Construction Law

The Supreme Court, in agreement with CJAC, unanimously reversed the finding of damages for emotional distress awarded homeowners on a breach of contract action for the defective condition of a home where no physical injury was present. The opinion provided an instructive discussion of the "bright line" between contract and tort law and the need not to impute an independent duty in tort from one based on a contract. The Court said it was unwise to expand the recoverable damages for breach of contract because it would affect the predictability of commercial stability in contractual dealings, cause every potential breach of contract to turn into a tort (with accompanying punitive damage recovery), and would drastically change the remedies provided by statute for breach of contract. The Court said the recovery of such damages should be a matter for the Legislature, because of the potential for such broad economic consequences. Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543

Evidence

In this "spoliation" case, the Supreme Court held 4-3 that no tort cause of action lies against a person (in this case a hospital) who was not a party to the lawsuit, but who intentionally destroys or suppresses evidence that is relevant to the case. The Court stated that the doubtful benefit of a tort remedy for spoliation was outweighed by the prospect of spiraling litigation giving rise to verdicts based upon speculation. The Court pointed out that there were sanctions available within the proceedings, as well as disciplinary and penal sanctions to remedy any problem with spoliation. The Court found these remedies to be preferable to "derivative litigation". Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 464

Employment

In this wrongful termination employment case CJAC filed an amicus brief supporting an employer's right to terminate an employee when the employer had a good faith belief that the employee sexually harassed a coworker. The Supreme Court held, in a 5-2 opinion, that the question critical to defendants' liability is not whether plaintiff in fact sexually harassed other employees, but whether at the time the decision to terminate his employment was made, the defendants acting in good faith and following an investigation that was appropriate under the circumstances had reasonable grounds for believing plaintiff had done so. Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International (1998) 17 Cal.4th 93

Evidence

The Civil Justice Association of California brief argued that spoliation of evidence in this case, missing fetal monitoring strips should only be allowed as a tort where the plaintiff had detrimentally relied upon a defendant's assurances (by word or conduct) that defendant will preserve the evidence in question, and that "new" torts like spoliation should be adopted only with considerable circumspection. In a 6 to 1 opinion the Supreme Court concluded that when the alleged intentional spoliation [of evidence] is committed by a party to the underlying cause of action to which the evidence is relevant and when the spoliation is or reasonably should have been discovered before the conclusion of the underlying litigation, it is preferable to rely on existing nontort remedies rather than creating a tort remedy. In other words, intentional spoliation of evidence in the course of litigation is not a tort in California. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1

Business Owner Liability

The Supreme Court, in a closely divided (4-3) opinion, held that a shopkeeper does not have a duty to comply with unlawful demand of an armed robber that property be surrendered to avoid injury to a patron. After it was filed, this case was cited in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal as an illustration of what is wrong with tort law. The case arose when a customer at Kentucky Fired Chicken was robbed of his wallet and, during the course of the robbery, had a gun held to his back and was threatened to be killed by the robber unless the store clerk "quit stalling" and handed over the money in the cash register. The customer then sued Kentucky Fried Chicken, alleging negligence based upon improper security and training of employees. Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Ca.4th 814

Junk Science

Following unsuccessful attempts to use "junk science" to prove injuries and then fear of injuries, plaintiffs sued electric utilities for alleged harm to property values from high voltage power lines. The Supreme Court, siding with CJAC's brief, held that plaintiffs could not base a claim for this alleged harm on electromagnetism either. Covalt v. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893

Landlord Liability

In addition to writing the amicus brief, CJAC's general counsel argued before the Supreme Court that it should reverse its earlier Becker v. IRM Corp. holding that a residential landlord may be held strictly liable for an injury to its tenant caused by a defect in a leased dwelling. The Court agreed, going further and ruling that neither landlords nor hotel proprietors are strictly liable on a product liability theory for injuries to their respective tenants and guests caused by a defect in the premises. Petersen v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185

Punitive Damages

In this case a couple in therapy at a hospital sued the hospital for infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages because of the break-up of an extramarital affair the wife had with a hospital employee. The employee was not involved in the therapy. When the hospital sought to rid the punitive damage claim from the suit because it did not satisfy the pleading hurdle for punitive damages against health care providers, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The Supreme Court held that the statutory pleading hurdle requires the plaintiff to both state and substantiate a legitimate, triable punitive damages claim, though it does not authorize the trial court to reject a well-pled and factually supported punitive damages claim simply because the court believes the evidence is not strong enough for probable success before a jury. College Hospital v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704

Product Liability

This case involved a lawsuit over what languages should be used to state a warning on an aspirin bottle. A baby suffered Rye's Syndrome after being given aspirin by his non-English reading mother. The mother did not ask for assistance in reading the label or on the administration of the aspirin to her child. Mother and baby sued the manufacturer on the theory that the duty to warn, to be meaningful, must be in languages other than English. The Supreme Court sided with CJAC in holding that there is no duty to print a warning label in a language other than English because requiring labels to be printed in hundreds of languages is unreasonable, resulting in "information overload". Ramirez v. Plough, Inc. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 539

Premises Liability

This case involved a lawsuit against a school district following a slip and fall by a school janitor on a piece of baloney. The lower court found for the plaintiff using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, meaning the "thing speaks for itself." But, CJAC argued on appeal that a correct application of the doctrine places the burden on the defendant only of producing evidence to show he was not negligent, not of disproving that he failed to exercise reasonable care. The Supreme Court held that because there was no evidence that the lunch meat came to be on the floor through an employee's negligence, the district is entitled to summary judgment unless the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits a jury to infer that fact, which it does not. Brown v. Poway Unified School District (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820

Apportioning Liability

This case involved CJAC-sponsored Proposition 51, which sets the liability of multiple defendants for noneconomic damages according to each defendant's percentage of fault. The plaintiff in this case argued that employers should be excluded from the fault percentage calculation because under the workers' compensation system they are not liable in tort for work related injuries of employees. The appellate court concluded that immune defendants should not have their fault counted, and CJAC countered that the lower court's decision defeated the purpose of Proposition 51, participating in oral argument at request of the court. The Supreme Court agreed with CJAC and held that the law did not create an exception from the formula. DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593

Recreation Liability

This case arose when many states were debating the viability of the defense of "implied assumption of the risk." The plaintiff sued because he was injured while attempting to water ski backwards while blindfolded. Plaintiff sought to eliminate the implied assumption of the risk defense. In opposition, CJAC argued, both in its brief and at oral argument, in favor of strengthening the defense. The Supreme Court held that the legal duty applicable to a coparticipant in an active sport simply is a duty to avoid either intentionally injuring another participant or engaging in conduct so reckless as to bring it totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport. A coparticipant in an active sport ordinarily bears no liability for an injury resulting from conduct in the course of the sport that is merely careless or negligent. Ford v. Gouin (1992) 3 Cal.4th 339

Punitive Damages

This case involved the growth of punitive damage awards. A jury in a medical malpractice case awarded a substantial punitive damage award and the defendant appealed, arguing the plaintiff had not introduced any evidence of his financial condition. The Civil Justice Association filed an amicus brief and argued before the Supreme Court that financial information should only be introduced in a bifurcated trial. The majority opinion quoted the Civil Justice Association brief in its opinion, agreeing with CJAC, and remanded the case for a new trial where the statute on bifurcation would apply. Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105

Emotional Distress

This landmark case involved the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The narrow legal question raised was whether a mother who did not witness an accident in which an automobile struck and injured her child may recover damages from the negligent driver for the emotional distress she suffered when she arrived at the accident scene. The Supreme Court agreed with CJAC when it overturned a lower court decision that she could. Instead, the Court ruled that a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person if, but only if, said plaintiff: (1) is closely related to the injury victim; (2) is present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim; and (3) as a result suffers severe emotional distress. Severe emotional distress, the Court said, is a reaction beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness and which is not an abnormal response to the circumstances. Thing v. LaChusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644

Apportioning Liability

Plaintiffs in this case challenged the constitutionality of CJAC-sponsored Proposition 51, which allocates non-economic damages among multiple defendants according to their share of the fault. After Proposition 51 was passed by 62% of the vote of the people in 1996, a 10% responsible defendant no longer faced the prospect of paying 99% of the total damage because other defendants were judgment proof or had settled. Personal injury lawyers attacked Proposition 51 as unconstitutional, and CJAC filed a brief arguing that it met constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the proposition. Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188.

Medical Injury Liability

This case involved the sliding contingency fee scale for plaintiffs' attorneys in California's landmark medical liability reform law. Plaintiffs sued to have the attorneys fees exceed the amount allowed by statute and challenged the constitutionality of the statute. The California Supreme Court agreed with CJAC that the statute limiting attorneys fees in medical malpractice cases neither violated the guarantee to equal protection nor due process. Roa v. Lodi Medical Group, Inc. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 920

In this Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) case plaintiff was awarded substantial damages in a medical malpractice action. Plaintiff argued the court should not have reduced his non-economic damage component to $250,000 as MICRA required. He also attacked other MICRA reform provisions. The Supreme Court upheld MICRA, siding with CJAC in affirming the statutorily limited award of damages. Fein v. Permanente Medical Group (1985) 38 Cal.3d 137

Medical Injury Liability

This early challenge of the constitutionality of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), targeted its requirement that future damages be paid in periodic payments. The Supreme Court agreed with CJAC's arguments that the provision was constitutional, and the Court agreed. American Bank & Trust Co. Community Hospital (1983) 36 Cal.3d 359