gooブログはじめました!

写真付きで日記や趣味を書くならgooブログ

Procedural Posture

2021-05-11 17:48:16 | Makeup

Business-Lawyer

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.



コメントを投稿