 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sawyer v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company11/20/2002
satisfy the insured's prima facie burden of establishing reasonableness. (Pruyn, at p. 529.) The presumption is one affecting the burden of proof. (Ibid.)
Here, the trial court found that the stipulated judgment was unreasonable as a matter of law "in light of the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the lack of lighting was caused by the State's plans and specifications and the fact that Government Code section 830.6 had been raised as an affirmative defense by the State in the underlying cases." Based on the record, the trial court concluded that the stipulated judgment was not "within the ballpark" of the State's liability. We agree.
Before the State entered into the stipulated judgment with appellants, MCM had obtained summary judgment on the grounds that it had no liability to appellants because it had followed the plans provided by the State and the State made all decisions concerning lighting on the freeway. This judgment in favor of MCM was affirmed on appeal and thus became the "law of the case" and was binding on appellants in any subsequent trial court proceedings in the same action. (Clemente v. State of California (1985) 40 Cal.3d 202, 211; People v. Shuey (1975) 13 Cal.3d 835, 841.) In its answers to appellants' complaints, the State asserted numerous defenses, including design immunity under Government Code section 830.6. In order to establish this defense, the State was required to show (1) a causal connection between the plans and the accident, (2) discretionary approval of the plans before construction, and (3) substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the design. (Sutton v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation Dist. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1158.)
The trial court found that the first prong was established by the Court of Appeal's decision affirming summary judgment in favor of MCM on the ground that the lack of lighting in the area of the accident resulted from plans provided by the State to MCM. The court found the second prong was established by the declaration of MCM's construction manager, Vernon Paine, authenticating the plans that showed on their face that the State's engineer had approved them before the work began. The court also found the third prong was established by the approval of the plans by a competent professional as well as their consistency with the State's traffic manual applicable to all freeways in California. (Grenier v. City of Irwindale (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 931, 941 ["Approval of the plan by competent professionals can, in and of itself, constitute substantial evidence of reasonableness"].)
Appellants complain that the trial court exceeded its authority in making the determination that the design immunity defense was established where the only evidence presented below consisted of the plans themselves. But in reaching its decision, the trial court did not conduct a "trial within a trial" as appellants contend. Rather, the trial court simply evaluated the stipulated judgment under the Tech-Bilt analysis, which requires an inquiry into the settling tortfeasor's proportionate liability. The State's proportionate liability could not be determined without first determining whether the State had a valid defense to liability.
Appellants also assert that every personal injury case has some settlement value and that by finding that the stipulated judgment was unreasonable as a matter of law, the trial court necessarily determined that their case had no value. But this is not what the trial court found nor is it the effect of its ruling. The trial court merely determined that a judgment in the full amount of appellants' damages was unreasonable in light of the State's design immunity defense.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|