May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates
 Bookstore:       
5/14/2013 - Convicted Killer of Seven Wants Playstation in Jail Cell 4/26/2013 - The Big Print Giveth and the Small Print Taketh Away 3/14/2013 - When Is a Volunteer an Employee Covered by Work Comp? It Depends on the Pixie Dust you Sprinkle. 2/21/2013 - When Is A 10˘ Charge Imposed by the Government Not A Tax? more...
|
Quote of the Day - Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence he is just using his memory.
New Category In The Law: Why Appeal?In the category of "Why did this case get appealed?", we get the State of California whining about taking its lumps after an unfavorable verdict. Let me set the stage: when the State designs roads that are unsafe, it typically gets held liable for the resulting injuries to the motorist. The State lost in this case, and the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. What is most troubling about the State's appeal, however, is that it cited no authority for one of the issues it took up on appeal: the application of joint and several liability (each party is liable in full if the other party is unable to or does not pay). The other troubling aspect of the tersely worded six-page opinion is the court's very quick and unrepentant application of the collateral source rule (a potentially liable party is not entitled to offset its liability with payments made to the victim by another party unrelated to the lawsuit, like an insurance company, or in this case, an employer). Has CalTrans learned its lesson yet? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Text-Only Site | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
