Procedural Posture

Appellant sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Orange County (California) finding that she had committed fraud on her husband in connection with their marriage and imposing a constructive trust on appellant's interest in joint property. Appellant sought review of that decision and the denial of her motion to tax certain costs.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. offers counsel for Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing California

Overview

Appellant sought divorce from respondent. Respondent filed a separate civil lawsuit alleging fraud. Respondent's complaint alleged that appellant had never loved him but had represented to him that she did in order to induce him to marry her and transfer property. The jury found that appellant had indeed made a false representation as to a past or existing material fact, and awarded damages suffered by respondent in reliance on the truth of that representation. The jury next found that appellant owed a duty of trust and confidence to respondent to hold the property for the plaintiff and his children. They determined she breached that duty by failing to convey the property upon request. The court entered judgment in accordance with the jury findings and denied appellant's motion to tax certain costs. The court concluded that the trial court erred in not dismissing respondent's complaint, most of which was substantively for breach of promise and precluded by the California anti-heart-balm statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 43.5. Any arguable claims left to be determined was beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court in light of the ongoing family law action.

Outcome

The court reversed the trial court's judgment with directions to enter judgment in favor of appellant wife reversed the order denying expert witness fees, and ordered respondent husband to pay the attorney fees of appellant.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against defendants, a city and a worker under contract with the city, after suffering injuries when his motorcycle collided with a dump truck owned and operated by the worker. A jury of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) returned a verdict for plaintiff after finding, inter alia, that the worker negligently caused the accident and that he was a city employee. Defendants appealed.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. provides Attorney Incorporation Services

Overview

The court held that the trial court erred by misinstructing the jury about the factors relevant to determining whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor. The trial court's instruction precisely tracked the language of CACI No. 3704. However, CACI No. 3704 did not correctly state the law because it instructed a jury that the right of control, by itself, was dispositive. Moreover, the trial court erred by allowing the jury to find that the work in which the worker was engaged involved a peculiar risk of harm and by instructing the jury that the city was the motor carrier as a matter of law. Substantial evidence did not support the jury's finding that defects in the dump truck's brakes were a proximate cause of the accident. Although the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the worker's motor carrier permit had been suspended, the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the trial court did not err in admitting percipient witness opinion testimony. The "opinion" that plaintiff's counsel elicited from an eyewitness to the accident was an impression or sensation that was not susceptible of exact reproduction or description in words.

Outcome

The court affirmed the jury's liability finding as to the worker, but reversed it as to the city and remanded the matter for a limited retrial on vicarious liability. The court also affirmed the jury's findings that plaintiff was not contributorily negligent and that plaintiff's damages were $ 15,735,404.