January 2018 Update
We updated all of the citations in the book and reviewed developments for relevant changes. Among the changes we found were the following:
Damages for future loss of earnings must be reasonably certain. See §1.6 for discussion of Atkins v City of Los Angeles (2017) 8 CA5th 696. Damages are available for future medical expenses plaintiff is reasonably certain to need. See Markow v Rosner (2016) 3 CA5th 1027, cited in §1.6.
For a recent case discussing valuation of medical services when plaintiff’s bill is assigned to a third party, see §1.20 for discussion of Moore v Mercer (2016) 4 CA5th 424.
A couple of recent cases analyzed when evidence of future damages is sufficient to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. See §1.21 for discussion of Markow v Rosner (2016) 3 CA5th 1027 and David v Hernandez (2017) 13 CA5th 692.
The court in Atkins v City of Los Angeles (2017) 8 CA5th 696 analyzed when expert testimony on future economic damages is sufficient. See §1.43 for discussion.
For a recent case on impaired earning capacity, see Licudine v Cedars-Sinai Med. Center (2016) 3 CA5th 881, cited in §1.44.
The Judicial Council adopted a new jury instruction on prejudgment interest for past economic loss. See §§1.94, 3.19, 14.34 discussing CACI 3935. On prejudgment interest, see discussion of Flethez v San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Ass’n (2017) 2 C5th 630, in §1.97.
Wrongful Life and Birth
See §5.11 for discussion of special damages for medical monitoring in Doe v Xytex Corp. (ND Cal 2017) 2017 US Dist Lexis 43623.
Recovery of emotional distress damages for trespass or nuisance are discussed in Hensley v San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. (2017) 7 CA5th 1337. See §6.7.
Vehicles and Other Personal Property
Damages recoverable for vehicle damage depend on the language of the insurance policy covering the vehicle. See §13.6 for discussion of Baldwin v AAA N. Cal., Nevada & Utah Ins. Exch. (2016) 1 CA5th 545.
For a recent case analyzing when fraud might arise from statements and conduct designed to mislead, see §14.8 for discussion of Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v Blue Cross (2016) 245 CA4th 821.
Three recent California cases discuss the constitutional ratio of punitive to compensatory damages and have been added to the text. See §14.11A for discussion of Nickerson v Stonebridge Life Ins. (2016) 63 C4th 363; Pulte Home Corp. v American Safety Indem. Co. (2017) 14 CA5th 1086; and Bigler-Engler v Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 CA5th 276. Note that the Nickerson case disapproved Amerigraphics, Inc. v Mercury Cas. Ins. Co. (2010) 182 CA4th 1538, to the extent it is inconsistent with Nickerson.
Restrictions on Recovery
In CRST, Inc. v Superior Court (2017) 11 CA5th 1255, the court held that an employer that is vicariously liable may be liable for punitive damages if the employer was aware of an employee’s unfitness and employed him or her anyway. See §15.17.
Reimbursement Claims and Liens
An attorney or personal representative of a Medi-Cal recipient must notify DHS within 30 calendar days of filing an action on a recipient’s behalf. See §16.11.
The legislature made some changes in the rules regarding calculating reimbursement of attorney fees and litigation costs in cases involving Medi-Cal recipients. See §16.12.