Representative Cases

Significant consumer case regarding whether a major online retailer could be held strictly liable for a defective laptop battery that exploded and caused severe burns to the buyer. The court focused on the retailer’s interaction with the consumer from a defective product sold on its website by a third-party seller. Issues of whether the retailer was liable due to it being placed between the seller and the buyer in the chain of distribution of the product at issue.

A jury found the manufacturer of a watercraft one-third liable for an accident where two watercraft passengers were not wearing wetsuit bottoms or other protective clothing. There was a question of whether the manufacturer’s warning to wear protective clothing was inadequate, thus making the watercraft subject to conclusion it was defective in design.

Case regarding the circumstances under which those who undertake to provide manufacturers of medical products with human toxicology research and fail to exercise reasonable care in performing that undertaking may face potential tort liability pursuant to the "negligent undertaking" theory articulated in Restatement Second of Torts section 324A (section 324A).

Plaintiff had collected a number of rare and valuable pieces of furniture and personal belongings. Because of the large quantity of her personal belongings, she decided to rent storage space at a facility operated by defendant. She fell behind in rent and the storage facility placed an auction notice in the local newspaper. A couple came to the storage facility and the woman falsely claimed to be Plaintiff. The impostor tendered payment of the outstanding rent then due and without asking the woman to produce any identification, the employees removed the company's lock from Plaintiff's unit. The impostor and her companion then loaded Plaintiff's belongings into a U-Haul truck and left the scene. Plaintiff later tendered a cashier's check for the outstanding rent, and the facility notified her that someone had already paid and taken her belongings. Plaintiff sued the facility for emotional distress due to the loss of her belongings which held significant sentimental value.

Case of first impression regarding whether the sale of a manufacturer’s milk in California, which met federal standards, violated the regulation of milk sale under California standards, which were more stringent.

Real party in interest was severely injured when she attempted to climb over the coupling device of two trolleys operated by petitioners. She sued the trolley operator, alleging she had been negligent in failing to activate a buzzer and public announcement warning of the impending departure of her trolley. In a deposition, the operator disclosed she was being treated for anxiety by a psychiatrist, that she was taking three prescription medications, and that she had informed her supervisors about her treatment and medication. In response to the information obtained at deposition, the injured party served the company a request to produce the operator's personnel file and noticed depositions of two Trolley employees with knowledge of the contents of the file. Document subpoenas were also served on the operator's pharmacy, her health maintenance organization, the workers' compensation carrier and lawyers who had participated in her prior workers' compensation claims. The operator claimed that disclosure of her records was prevented by patient privilege under Evidence Code section 1024.