Procedural Posture

Plaintiff waitress brought an action against defendant bottling company to recover for personal injuries resulting from a defective, exploding bottle of carbonated beverage. The company appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Merced County (California) based on a jury verdict in favor of the waitress. The company asserted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable and that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment. The litigants appellant and respondent through their counsel California class action lawyers engaged in a strongly contested trial. 

Overview

The evidence revealed that a bottle of carbonated beverage broke in the waitress's hand. Immediately before the accident, the waitress had picked up a case of the beverages and set it upon a nearby cabinet near a refrigerator. She then proceeded to take the bottles from the case with her right hand, one at a time, and put them into the refrigerator. At trial, the waitress testified that the bottle exploded in her hand after she had placing the fourth bottle about 18 inches from the case. The court upheld the trial court's judgment. All of the requirements necessary to allow the waitress to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, to supply an inference of negligence, were present. Although it was not clear whether the explosion was caused by an excessive charge or a defect in the glass, there was a sufficient showing that neither cause would ordinarily have been present if due care had been used. The company had exclusive control over both the charging and inspection of the bottles. The court noted that it was a question of fact for the jury as to whether the company produced evidence to rebut the inference of negligence that arose under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff company sought review of an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied plaintiff's motion to disqualify defendant corporation's counsel on the grounds of conflict of interest.

Overview

Plaintiff company hired defendant corporation to provide financial advice and services with respect to its acquisition of a bank. At the close of the transaction, plaintiff filed suit against defendant for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Defendant retained counsel. A member of that firm had previously given advice about the credit risks involved in repurchase agreements to the bank. Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify defendant's counsel based on a conflict of interest, which the trial court denied. Upon review, the court affirmed, finding that plaintiff failed to establish a substantial relationship between counsel's representation of the bank on the question of credit risk protection in repurchase agreement transactions and counsel's representation of defendant on the question of its liability to plaintiff for its advice. The court examined the similarities between the two factual situations, the legal questions posed, and the nature and extent of the attorney's involvement with the cases in forming its conclusion that there was no conflict of interest.

Outcome

The court affirmed finding that there was no conflict of interest as plaintiff company had failed to establish a substantial relationship between counsel's representation of a bank on credit risk protection matters and counsel's representation of defendant corporation on the question of its liability to plaintiff for its financial advice.