 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
C.J.L. Construction Inc. v. Universal Plumbing8/27/1993
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE
No. B072527
1993.CA.42608 ; 18 Cal. App. 4th 376; 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 360
Decided: August 27, 1993.
C.J.L. CONSTRUCTION, INC., CROSS-COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT,
v.
UNIVERSAL PLUMBING, CROSS-DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. NEC59069, Richard Montes, Judge.
Thomas & Price and Christian E. Sanne for Cross-complainant and Appellant.
Newman, Aaronson & Vanaman and Joel S. Aaronson for Cross-defendant and Respondent.
Opinion by Turner, P. J., with Grignon and Godoy Perez, JJ., Concurring.
Turner
I. INTRODUCTION
This case presents the question whether a third party defendant which, pursuant to Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal. 2d 57, 72 [17 Cal. Rptr. 369, 366 P.2d 641], seeks to reduce any judgment against it by the amount of workers' compensation benefits paid to an injured employee, may compel the employer's participation as a cross-defendant in the employee's lawsuit. The right to a Witt v. Jackson offset arises when the employee's injuries were caused by the concurrent negligence of the employer or its agent and the third party. (Ibid.) Given the facts alleged in the amended cross-complaint, we conclude as a matter of law the answer is no. Therefore, in the published portion of this opinion, we affirm the judgment of dismissal and the underlying orders granting the employer's motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend as to the fourth cause of action. In the unpublished portion of the opinion we reverse the order imposing sanctions on the third party defendant and cross-complainant.
II. PLEADINGS
Philip Navarette (plaintiff) filed an action against Universal Plumbing (UP), C.J.L. Construction, Inc. (CJL), and Louisville Ladder. Plaintiff alleged he was injured while using a ladder which had been defectively
designed or manufactured by Louisville Ladder. The complaint alleged in a conclusory fashion that: all defendants were liable for negligence and breach of implied and express warranties; UP and CJL were liable under a premises liability theory; and UP was liable under a peculiar risk theory. In its answer to plaintiff's complaint, CJL alleged its codefendants negligently caused or contributed to plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the seventh affirmative defense alleged: "That the injuries or damages, if any, sustained by plaintiff were proximately contributed to or caused by other defendants, whether served or not served, and/or by other persons or companies not parties to this action, and it is necessary that the proportionate degree of negligence or fault of each of said other persons or companies, whether made parties to this action or not, be determined and prorationed, and that any judgment that might be rendered against this answering defendant be reduced not only by that degree of contributory negligence and/or assumption of risk and/or product alteration found to exist as to plaintiff, but also as to the total of that degree of negligence and/or fault found to exist as to said other persons or companies." On May 3, 1991, CJL filed a first amended cross-complaint against UP. The only cause of action pertinent to this appeal was entitled: "Fourth Cause of Action For Witt v. Jackson Offset." The first am
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|