 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Pisano10/31/2002
nt tortfeasor responsible in any way for the underlying injuries, another defendant may not pursue a claim for indemnity against that person. (Children's Hospital v. Sedgwick, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1787.) Here, Miller's claim that Pisano is vicariously liable for Ellis's malpractice is contrary to the explicit factual findings of the trial court.
Thus, the undisputed evidence conclusively establishes that Pisano was not a concurrent tortfeasor responsible in any way for the underlying malpractice in providing Fay with legal representation. Pisano was not personally involved in the Fay lawsuit in any way. Because Pisano and Ellis were never in fact legal partners, the law relating to the liability of partners and partnerships is quite simply inapplicable and irrelevant to this case. (Corp. Code, §§ 16301, 16305, 16306.) Similarly, because it is undisputed that " he entity under the name of `Pisano and Ellis' " was not a "formal, legal [unincorporated a]ssociation" as defined by the Corporations Code, the fact that they informally shared office space and misleadingly referred to themselves as "Pisano and Ellis" was insufficient to make Pisano and Ellis each individually jointly and severally liable for their separate acts of professional negligence. (Corp. Code, §§ 24000, 24001, 24003.)
In sum, the undisputed factual evidence in the record conclusively supports the trial court's legal determination that Pisano could not be found vicariously liable for the professional malpractice of Ellis. There was no error.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed. Appellant Miller shall pay respondent Pisano's costs on this appeal.
We concur:
Corrigan, J.
Parrilli, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|