 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anandan v. Singapore Airlines Ltd.4/5/2005
y findings have been omitted, must bring the errors or omissions to the trial court's attention, in order to preserve the issue for appeal. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) Thus, even if the court were required, without any request, to consider what conditions might be just under the circumstances, it was incumbent upon appellants to bring to the trial court's attention its failure to do so. Appellants were given three opportunities to request conditions -- in their opposition to the motions, at the hearing of January 7, 2004, during the time that elapsed between that hearing and the hearing of February 26, 2004, and at the hearing of that date -- and yet they remained silent each time. Appellants have not preserved the issue for appellate review.
In any event, error is not ground for reversal unless it has caused a miscarriage of justice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13; Code Civ. Proc., § 475.) A miscarriage of justice occurs only when it appears that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the alleged errors. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) It is the appellant's burden to establish a miscarriage of justice. (Cucinella v. Weston Biscuit Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 71, 83.)
In its tentative ruling, adopted as the findings of the court, the trial court found that all respondents had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts and to waive the statute of limitations; and the court made this one of the reasons for granting the motions. The written order of April 16, 2004, incorporates the court's findings by reference to "the reasons stated on the record."
Thus, these conditions have been made a part of the court's order by reference and implication. And there is ample proof of respondent's promises in their moving papers and their briefs on appeal. Singapore law is modeled on English common law. Equitable estoppel originates in English common law. (Clark v. Baker (1860) 14 Cal. 612, 623; Neufeld v. Balboa Ins. Co. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 759, 764, fn. 4 ["estoppel's `origins can be traced back to at least the Twelfth Century in medieval England'"]). Appellants have made no attempt to show or even argue that the Singapore courts would not have the equitable power to enforce the court's implied conditions and the respondents' express promises. They have not, therefore met their burden of spelling out in their brief exactly how the alleged error caused a miscarriage of justice, and they would have no right to reversal even if error had been established. (See Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106.)
DISPOSITION
The order dismissing the action due to forum non conveniens is affirmed. Respondents shall have their costs on appeal.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P.J., GRIMES, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|