January 2020 Update
We updated all of the citations in the book and reviewed developments for relevant changes. Among the changes we found were the following:
An injured plaintiff who chooses to receive medical services outside of his insurance plan will be treated as “uninsured” and may recover the full amount billed. See §1.20 for discussion of Pebley v Santa Clara Organics, LLC (2018) 22 CA5th 1266.
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (Govt C §§12900–12996) was amended to provide that, notwithstanding CCP §998, a prevailing defendant must not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds that the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so. Govt C §12965(b). See §1.106A.
See §4.13 for discussion of recovery of the reasonable cost or value of personal services to and from the decedent in Williams v The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of Cal. (2018) 26 CA5th 672.
Postmajority psychological injury claims against government entities arising from sexual assault as a minor must comply with government tort claim presentment requirements to be viable. The extension of statute of limitations under CCP §340.1 does not extend the time for presenting a government tort claim to a public entity and does not delay accrual or cause the action to re-accrue for purposes of presentment. See Rubenstein v Doe No. 1 (2017) 3 C5th 903, discussed in §6.20.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims arising from unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act are outside the workers’ compensation bargain, and immunity under Lab C §§3600 and 3602 is no defense. See Light v Department of Parks and Recreation (2017) 14 CA5th 75, discussed in §6.23.
Defamation damages did not extend to an internet publisher entitled to immunity under 47 USC §230(c)(1), and the publisher was not required to remove the defamatory post. See §8.6 for discussion of Hassell v Bird (2018) 5 C5th 522.
Invasion of Privacy
Not every assertion of a privacy interest under Cal Const, art I, §1 must be overcome by a compelling interest. When lesser interests are at stake, the interest in disclosure is balanced against the privacy interest, the seriousness of the invasion, and the availability of alternatives or protective measures. See Williams v Superior Court (2017) 3 C5th 531, discussed in §9.2.
Vehicles and Other Personal Property
Business cannot recover economic loss under negligence theory without accompanying property damage, personal injury, or special relationship. See Southern California Gas Leak Cases (2017) 18 CA5th 581, discussed in §13.15. In CRST, Inc. v Superior Court (2017) 11 CA5th 1255, the court held that an employer that is vicariously liable may be liable for punitive damages if the employer was aware of an employee’s unfitness and employed him or her anyway. See §15.17.