Products Liability and Injury Lawyer Blog

Ontiveros v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 164 Cal.App.4th 494, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 471, 103 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1300, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8379, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,045

An aircraft operations supervisor who left her employment after taking a short-term disability leave filed an action against her former employer, alleging sex/gender discrimination and harassment and retaliation for opposing forbidden practices. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had failed to prevent her from being subjected to ongoing severe sexual harassment and retaliation following her promotion, and that the employer had aided and abetted in the harassment.

The employer moved to compel arbitration based upon an arbitration agreement the plaintiff had signed upon being hired, which provided that any disputes relating to the applicability, enforceability or formation of the agreement would be decided by the arbitrator.

The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the court of appeal affirmed, holding that the provision was unconscionable:

Continue reading " ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS: ENFORCEABILITY DETERMINATIONS " »

Winfred D. v. Michelin North America, Inc., (2nd District, August 7, 2008) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2008 WL 3115802

A man who sustained a severe brain injury when the right rear tire on his cargo van delaminated and caused the vehicle to roll over, filed suit against the tire manufacturer. At trial, over objection, the trial court permitted defense counsel to introduce evidence that while the plaintiff was married to his first wife, he had an affair with and later married his business partner’s wife, that he falsely told his second wife before marrying her that he had divorced his first wife, and that after divorcing his second wife he had an affair with a third woman with whom he had two children. The trial court reasoned that the evidence was relevant to credibility and to the cause of the accident.

Following the jury verdict in favor of the defendants the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the disputed evidence should have been excluded under Evidence Code Section 352. The court of appeal agreed, reversed the judgment and ordered the case remanded for a new trial, holding that the disputed evidence was so inflammatory that it appeared reasonably probable that had it been excluded, the plaintiff could have obtained a verdict in his favor:

Continue reading " IN LIMINE MOTIONS: CHARACTER EVIDENCE EXCLUSION " »