 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Marion v. 396 Investment Co.5/17/2005
ounts, with respect to the individual properties, were not fixed before judgment, and indeed some of them will not be determined before remand. "Since the amount of damage here depended upon the results of the contested trial, [appeal, and ultimately remand,] the lower court abused its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest." (Sagadin v. Ripper, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at p. 1176.) The award of prejudgment interest to 396 is reversed.
(2) Other Awards
Second, Anaheim contends, with respect to all of the other judgments, that the court incorrectly applied a prejudgment interest rate of seven percent. In support of this contention, Anaheim cites a December 11, 2002 minute order in which the court stated: " is entitled to pre-judgment interest at the rate of seven percent (7%)." This order pertains only to 396's judgment. It does not apply to the judgments in favor of the other parties. As to all other parties, Anaheim has failed to show that the court awarded prejudgment interest at the rate of seven percent, and Anaheim's argument is deemed waived. (Del Real v. City of Riverside, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at pp. 766, 768.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment in favor of the Marions is remanded and the court is directed to modify the judgment so as to reduce the damage award by a total amount equal to $6,000, pertaining to property valuation, plus the amount of emotional distress damages awarded to Cyndie Marion. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.
In the interests of justice, Anaheim and the Marions shall each bear their own costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: SILLS, P.J., O'LEARY, J.
INDEX (Introduction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I. FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. OVERVIEW OF LITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
(1) Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
(2) Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
II. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. CAUSATION [liability affirmed] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
(1) In General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
(2) Motion for Non-suit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
(3) Allocation of Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
(4) Jury Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
(a) Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
(b) Substantial factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
(c) Allocation of damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
(d) Reasonableness standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|