Chapter One Asbestos | |
| |
1.1.0. What Is Asbestos? | 1 |
1.1.1
Asbestos Geology | 2 |
1.1.2 Physical Properties of Asbestos
Fibers | 2 |
1.2.0. Where Is Asbestos Found? | 3 |
1.2.1. Asbestos Automotive Products | 4 |
1.2.2. Asbestos Cement Pipe | 5 |
1.2.3.
Asbestos Cloth, Cloth Tape, Rope and Textiles | 5 |
1.2.4.
Asbestos Containing "Marinite" Boards | 6 |
1.2.5.
Asbestos Containing Acoustical Plaster and Ceiling Compounds | 6 |
1.2.6.
Asbestos Containing Clapboard, Wallboard and Fire Doors | 6 |
1.2.7.
Asbestos Containing Drywall Joint Compound | 6 |
1.2.8.
Asbestos Containing Electric Switchboards and Battery Boxes | 7 |
1.2.9.
Asbestos Containing Household Appliances | 7 |
1.2.10.
Asbestos Containing Masonry Cement and Plaster | 7 |
1.2.11.
Asbestos Containing Rock used to Surface Roads | 7 |
1.2.12.
Asbestos Containing Talc | 8 |
1.2.13. Asbestos Fiber and Powder in its
Raw State | 8 |
1.2.14. Asbestos Fillers for Plastics
and Plastic Reinforcement | 8 |
1.2.15. Asbestos Fireproofing Sprayed
on to Structural Steel Beams | 8 |
1.2.16. Asbestos Gaskets, Valve and Pump
Packing | 9 |
1.2.17. Asbestos In Color Crayons | 9 |
1.2.18. Asbestos Insulation Wrap on Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Boxes | 9 |
1.2.19. Asbestos Lined Chimney | 9 |
1.2.20. Asbestos Lined Wall Safe | 10 |
1.2.21.
Asbestos Lined Waste Paper Receptacle | 10 |
1.2.22. Asbestos Mats and Felt | 10 |
1.2.23. Asbestos Paper Products | 10 |
1.2.24. Asbestos Refractory Tiles | 10 |
1.2.25.
Asbestos Roof Shingles and Roofing Paper | 10 |
1.2.26. Asbestos
Sheeting for Fireproofing | 11 |
1.2.27. Asbestos Siding | 11 |
1.2.28. Asbestos Thermal Insulation | 11 |
1.2.29. Asbestos Vinyl Floor Tiles and Floor Mastics | 12 |
1.2.30. Asbestos Wicks | 13 |
1.3.0.
How Are People Exposed to Asbestos? | 13 |
1.3.1. Asbestos Mining, Milling, Product
Manufacturing And Raw Asbestos Packaging | 14 |
1.3.2.
Asbestos Product Use - Direct Asbestos Exposure, Bystander Asbestos Exposure, and Take-Home Asbestos Exposure | 15 |
1.3.2.1. Product Use - Direct Asbestos Exposure | 17 |
1.3.2.2. Product Use - Bystander Asbestos Exposure | 17 |
1.3.2.3. Product Use - Take-Home Asbestos Exposure | 18 |
1.4.0. What Are the Injuries Resulting from Asbestos Exposure? | 19 |
1.4.1. Parenchymal Asbestosis (a.k.a., Scarring of the Lungs),Pleural Fibrosis
and Pleural Plaques | 19 |
1.4.2. Fibrosis of the
Lung and/or Pleura Is Separate and Distinct from Cancer Of the Lungs and Pleura | 21 |
1.4.3. Asbestos Is A Known Carcinogen | 21 |
1.4.4. Asbestos Causes Lung Cancer | 23 |
1.4.5. Asbestos Causes Mesothelioma | 25 |
1.4.5.1. Mesothelioma Described | 25 |
1.4.5.2.
Mesothelioma And Asbestos Exposure | 26 |
1.4.5.3. Mesothelioma is Incurable and
Fatal | 29 |
1.4.6. Other Asbestos-Related
Cancers | 29 |
1.4.7. Asbestos Caused Cardiovascular
Conditions | 31 |
1.4.7.1 Cor Pulmonale | 31 |
1.4.7.2 Pericarditis | 31 |
1.4.8. Asbestos Skin Disease | 31 |
| |
Chapter Two Asbestos Products Liability | |
| |
2.1.0. General Principals | 33 |
2.2.0. Why Are So Many Defendants Sued in a Typical California Asbestos
Case? | 35 |
2.2.1. California Tort Law Before 1975 | 35 |
2.2.2. California Tort Law 1975-1986 | 36 |
2.2.3. California Tort Law After 1986 | 36 |
2.3.0.
California Strict Products Liability Law | 37 |
2.3.1.
The Purpose of Strict Products Liability Law | 37 |
2.3.1.1
Cost-Shifting | 37 |
2.3.1.2. Lower Burden of Proof for the Plaintiff
Rooted in the Law of Warranty | 38 |
2.3.1.3. Strict Products Liability - Reaches
All Defendants In The Chain of Distribution | 39 |
2.3.1.4.
Strict Products Liability - Reaches All Purchasers, Non Purchasing End-Users, Consumers and Bystanders. | 39 |
2.3.1.5. Strict Products Liability - Three Major Categories of Product Defects:
(1) Manufacturing Defects, (2) Design Defects and (3) Warning Defects - CACI 1200 & BAJI 9.00 | 39 |
2.3.2. The First Element of Proof in All Strict Products Liability
Cases: Product Manufacture, Supply, Distribution or Sale | 40 |
2.3.2.1.
Product Manufacture, Supply, Distribution or Sale: The Law | 41 |
2.3.2.2.
Product Manufacture, Supply, Distribution or Sale: Typical Evidence | 42 |
2.3.2.3. Product Manufacture, Supply, Distribution or Sale: Successor in Interest Liability | 47 |
2.3.2.3.1. The General Rule of No Liability For Purchasers
of Corporate Assets | 48 |
2.3.2.3.2. Exception
(1) Express or Implied Agreement to Assume Liabilities | 48 |
2.3.2.3.3.
Exception (2) Consolidation or Merger of Two Corporations | 50 |
2.3.2.3.4.
Exception (3) The Purchasing Corporation Is a Mere Continuation of the Selling Corporation | 53 |
2.3.2.3.5. Exception (4) Fraudulent Transfers | 53 |
2.3.2.3.6. Exception (5) The "Product Line" Exception: Ray v. Alad Corp.
(1977) 19 Cal.3d 22 | 54 |
2.3.3 Strict
Products Liability, Manufacturing Defects - CACI 1201, 1202 & BAJI 9.00.3 | 61 |
2.3.4 Strict Products Liability, Design Defects - CACI 1203, 1204 &
BAJI 9.00.5 | 64 |
2.3.4.1. The Consumer Expectations Test - CACI
1203 & BAJI 9.00.5 | 65 |
2.3.4.2 The Risk-Benefit Test - CACI 1204
& BAJI 9.00.5 | 66 |
2.3.4.3 All Asbestos Cases Proceed Under
the Consumer Expectations Test - CACI 1203 - And Not the Risk-Benefit Test - CACI 1204 | 69 |
(1) Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 461 | 69 |
(2) Morton v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1529 | 71 |
(3) Jenkins v. T&N PLC (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1224; | 74 |
(4) Arena v. Owens Corning Corp. (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 1178 | 76 |
(5) Jones v. John Crane, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 990 | 79 |
(6) Garza v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 651 | 81 |
(7) Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1220 | 84 |
2.3.5 Strict Products Liability, Warnings
Defect - CACI 1205 & BAJI 9.00.7 | 91 |
2.3.5.1. Strict Products Liability, Warnings
Defect, Essential Elements - CACI 1205 & BAJI 9.00.7 | 91 |
2.3.5.2.
Strict Products Liability, Warnings Defect, Distinguished from Negligent Failure to Warn | 93 |
2.3.5.3. Manufacturers are Held to the Standard of a Scientific Expert in the
Field | 94 |
2.3.5.4. State of the Art Evidence is Admissible | 94 |
2.3.5.5. Sufficiency and Adequacy of Warnings and Instructions | 94 |
2.3.5.6. Warnings Defects in Asbestos Cases: Knew or Should Have Known | 97 |
2.3.5.7. Asbestos Cases Involving Actual Knowledge Of Asbestos Exposure
and the Health Hazards to Human Beings | 97 |
2.3.5.8. Asbestos Cases Involving Constructive
Knowledge Of Asbestos Exposure and the Health Hazards to Human Beings | 98 |
2.3.6. The Component Parts Doctrine | 99 |
2.3.6.1.
Tellez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausfeld/Scott Fetzger Co. (2004) 129 Cal.App.4th 577 | 100 |
2.3.6.2. Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th
564 | 100 |
2.3.6.3. O'Neil v. Crane Co. (2009) 177 Cal.
App. 4th 1019 | 100 |
2.3.6.4. Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc.
(2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 262 | 101 |
2.3.6.5. The Author's Analysis and Conclusion | 101 |
2.4.0. Negligent Manufacturers, Suppliers, Distributors and Sellers of Products | 103 |
2.4.1. General Principles | 103 |
2.4.2. Negligent Failure to Test - CACI 1221 & BAJI 9.21 | 104 |
2.4.3. Negligent Failure to Warn - CACI 1222 & BAJI 9.20 | 107 |
2.5.0. Vicarious Liability for Defective Products | 109 |
2.5.1. Market Share Product Liability for Asbestos Products under the holding
of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1980) 26 Cal.3d 588 | 109 |
2.5.1.1.
Mullen v. Armstrong (1988) 200 Cal. App. 3d 250 | 110 |
2.5.1.2.
Wheeler v. Raybestos-Manh'n (1992) 8 Cal. App. 4th 1152 | 110 |
2.5.1.3. Richie v. Bridgestone (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 335 | 114 |
2.5.1.4. Ferris v. Gatke Corp. (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th
1211 | 114 |
2.5.1.5. The Fiber Supplier Cases
- Arena and Garza | 116 |
2.5.2.
Civil Conspiracy and Concert of Action as a Legal Basis of Imposing Joint and Several Liability | 117 |
2.5.2.1. California Civil Conspiracy and Concert of Action
Law Before Chavers v. Gatke Corp. (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 606 & Ferris v. Gatke Corp. (2003)
107 Cal. App. 4th 1211 | 117 |
2.5.2.2. Chavers v. Gatke Corp.
(2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 606 | 120 |
2.5.2.3. Ferris v. Gatke Corp.
(2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 1211 | 122 |
2.5.2.4.
The Author's Analysis of Chavers and Ferris | 123 |
| |
Chapter Three Causation | |
| |
3.1.0. The law of Asbestos
Causation Summarized: the Holding of Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 953, at 982-983 | 126 |
3.1.1. Footnote 12 - Standard for Establishing Asbestos Exposure | 128 |
3.1.2. Footnote 13 - Standard for Causation in an Asbestosis Case | 129 |
3.2.0. Asbestos Exposure to the Defendant's Defective Asbestos-Containing Products | 129 |
3.2.1. Dumin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass (1994) 28 Cal App 4th
650 | 131 |
3.2.2. Riverview Fire Protection
District v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (1994) 22 Cal App 4th 1120 | 134 |
3.2.3. Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (1995) 31 Cal App 4th 1409 | 135 |
3.2.4. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., (1997) 16 Cal. 4th
953 | 138 |
3.2.5. McGonnell v. Kaiser Gyp. Co., Inc.,
(2002) 98 Cal App 4th 1098 | 140 |
3.2.6. Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC
(2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 96 | 143 |
3.2.7. Weber vs. John Crane, Inc. (2006)
143 Cal App 4th 1433 | 148 |
3.3.0. A Substantial
Factor Contributing to the Risk of Developing Cancer | 152 |
3.3.1.
Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 953 | 152 |
3.3.2. Howard v. Owens Corning (1999) 72 Cal App 4th 621 | 154 |
3.3.3. Jones v. John Crane, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal App 4th 990 | 155 |
3.4.0. Trial Courts Should Prefer BAJI 3.76, 3.77 and
3.78 Over CACI 4.30, 4.31 and 4.35 | 158 |
3.4.1. CACI 4.35 Deviates From the
Plain Language of Rutherford | 159 |
3.4.2.
CACI 4.35 Impermissibly Defines and Emphasizes The term "Substantial Factor" | 160 |
3.4.3. CACI 4.35 Invites Misuse of the term "Substantial
Factor" And Therefore Undermines Comparative Fault Principals | 161 |
3.4.4. CACI 4.31 Is A Poor Substitute for BAJI 3.77 | 162 |
3.4.5. Using CACI 4.30 In Place of BAJI 3.76 Invites Error | 163 |
3.4.6. BAJI 3.76 Avoids Undue Emphasis of the Term "Substantial Factor" and
Furthers California's Comparative Fault Principals | 166 |
3.5.0.
Trial Courts Should Give a Rutherford Instruction in Non-Malignant Asbestos Disease Cases | 167 |
3.6.0. Justice Baxter's Majority Opinion in Rutherford
and Justice Mosk's Dissenting Opinion in Rutherford - Which Opinion Better Fits The Facts and the Science? | 168 |
3.6.1. The
Rutherford Trial Facts | 169 |
3.6.2. The Rutherford Trial Court Gave a Burden-Shifting Instruction | 170 |
3.6.3. The Majority Opinion's Criticism
of Burden-Shifting | 170 |
3.6.4.
The Rutherford Majority Declined to Apply Summers v Tice (1948) 33 Cal 2d 80, to Asbestos Litigation | 171 |
3.6.5. The Rutherford Majority Found that Less
than All Potentially Responsible Parties Were Typically Joined as Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits | 173 |
3.6.6. The Rutherford Majority Found that Different
Varieties Of Asbestos Fiber Types Differed in Quality and Toxicity | 174 |
3.6.7.
The Rutherford Majority viewed a Burden-Shifting Instruction Appropriate Only If Cancer was Caused by a Single Asbestos
Fiber Or Group of Fibers | 176 |
3.6.8. The Rutherford
Majority Employed the Words "Reasonable Medical Probability"And "Substantial Factor" as a Compromise
Approach | 179 |
3.6.9. Justice Mosk's
Dissenting Opinion in Rutherford dissent urged Affirming Solano County's Burden-Shifting Rule | 180 |
3.7.0. Instructions on Aggravation of Preexisting Condition
and Unusually Susceptible Plaintiff - CACI 3927, 3928 & BAJI 14.65 | 182 |
| |
Chapter Four Damages | |
| |
4.1.0. Introduction | 186 |
4.1.1. The Burden of Proof - Compensatory Damages and
Punitive Damages | 187 |
4.1.2. The General Principal of Compensation
in California Tort Law | 187 |
4.1.3. Introductory
Jury Instructions Concerning Economic and Noneconomic Damages - CACI 3900, 3902, 3903, 3905 and BAJI 14.02, 14.10 | 188 |
4.1.4. Economic and Noneconomic Damages Distinguished | 190 |
4.2.0. Economic Damages: Medical Expenses Past and Future | 191 |
4.2.1. Medical Expenses Jury Instructions - CACI 3903A and BAJI 14.10 | 191 |
4.2.2. The Measure of Damages -- the Reasonable Value of Services | 192 |
4.2.3. Hanif, Nishihama and Greer
-- A Limit on Recovery but Not a Limit on Evidence of Value of Services | 193 |
4.2.4. The Collateral Source Rule -- McKinney v. Cal.
Portland Cement (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 1214 | 199 |
4.2.5.
Future Medical Care: Injured Persons Currently Diagnosed with Cancer -- Garcia v. Duro Dyne Corporation (2007) 156
Cal.App.4th 92 | 200 |
4.2.6. Future Medical
Care: Medical Monitoring - CACI 3903B and BAJI 14.10.1 | 202 |
4.2.7.
Future Medical Care: Medical Monitoring for the Early Detection, Prevention and Treatment of Persons of Persons at Risk to
Develop Cancer in the Future - CACI 3903B and BAJI 14.10.1 | 204 |
4.2.8.
Future Medical Care: Medical Monitoring for the Early Detection, Prevention and Treatment of Persons at Risk to Develop Cancer
in the Future - Gutierrez v. Cassiar Mining Corp. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 148 | 206 |
4.2.9. Future Medical Care: Medical Monitoring for the Early Detection, Prevention
and Treatment of Persons at Risk to Develop Cancer in the Future - Guidelines Published by the United States Department of
Health Services, Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine | 208 |
4.3.0. Economic Damages: Past and
Future Lost Earnings - CACI 3903C and BAJI 14.11 | 212 |
4.3.1.
The Measure of Damages - the Reasonable Value of the Capacity to Earn Money | 213 |
4.3.2. Lost Earning Capacity - CACI 3903D and BAJI 14.14 | 214 |
4.3.3. Lost Earning Capacity & Future Personal Consumption
of the Injured Party - Overly v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 164 | 216 |
4.3.4. Loss of Earning Capacity & the Collateral Source
Rule - McKinney v. Cal. Portland Cement (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 1214 | 218 |
4.3.5. Loss of Ability to Provide Household Services -
CACI 3903E and BAJI 14.14 [Last Par.] | 223 |
4.3.6. Loss of Ability to Provide Household
Services -- Overly v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 164 | 223 |
4.3.7. Loss of Ability to Provide Household Services --
McKinney v. Cal. Portland Cement (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 1214 | 224 |
4.4.0. Economic Damages & Life Expectancy - CACI 3932 and BAJI 14.69 | 226 |
4.5.0. Economic Damages & Present Cash Value - CACI 3904 and BAJI 14.70 | 228 |
4.6.0. Noneconomic Damages - Personal Injury | 230 |
4.6.1. Physical Pain, Mental Suffering and Emotional Distress
- CACI 3905A and BAJI 14.13 | 230 |
4.6.2. Loss of Consortium - CACI 3920
and BAJI 14.40 | 236 |
4.6.2.1. Jury Instructions - CACI 3920
and BAJI 14.40 | 236 |
4.6.2.2. Asbestos Cases Upholding Loss
of Consortium Findings | 239 |
4.6.3. Fear of Cancer - Potter v.
Firestone (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 965 | 241 |
4.6.3.1.
Fear of Cancer arising from a Physical Injury (a.k.a., "Parasitic Damages") | 244 |
4.6.3.2. No Physical Injury - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Of Emotional Distress - Fear of Cancer | 249 |
4.6.3.3. No Physical Injury - Emotional Distress - Fear of Cancer - Malicious,
Oppressive or Fraudulent Conduct | 255 |
4.6.3.4. San Francisco Superior Court Asbestos
General Order No. 27 (1985) | 256 |
4.6.3.5. Los Angeles Superior Court General
Order No. 37.29 (1989) | 261 |
4.6.3.6. Author's Analysis and Conclusion | 261 |
4.7.0. Wrongful Death Damages | 262 |
4.7.1. Wrongful death Actions Distinguished from Survival Actions | 262 |
4.7.2. Wrongful Death Damage Jury Instructions - CACI 3921 And BAJI 14.50 & 14.51 | 263 |
4.7.3. Are damages for Loss of Care, Comfort and Companionship
Economic Damages or Noneconomic Damages in a Wrongful Death Case? | 267 |
4.7.4.
Who Is The Proper Party Plaintiff in a Wrongful Death Case? | 268 |
4.7.5.
California Asbestos Products Liability and Wrongful Death Claims | 269 |
4.8.0.
Punitive Damages | 270 |
4.8.1. Punitive Damages Instructions -
First Phase | 270 |
4.8.2. Punitive Damages Instructions -
Second Phase | 278 |
| |
Chapter Five Defenses | |
| |
5.1.0. Introduction | 282 |
5.2.0. Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Defendant | 282 |
5.2.1.
Lack of General Jurisdiction Over the Defendant | 282 |
5.2.2.
Lack of Specific Jurisdiction Over the Defendant | 282 |
5.3.0. The Defense of Forum Non Conveniens | 287 |
5.3.1. The General Principles | 287 |
5.3.2.
The Relationship of The Case and The Parties To the State of California | 289 |
5.3.3. Concerns of Judicial Administration | 289 |
5.3.4. The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses | 290 |
5.4.0. The Defense of Statute of Limitations | 290 |
5.4.1.
The Asbestos Statute of Limitations | 291 |
5.4.2. Blakey v. Superior Court
(1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 101 | 291 |
5.4.3. Puckett v. Johns-Manville Corp.
(1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1010 | 292 |
5.4.4. Nelson v. Flintkote Co.
(1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 727 | 292 |
5.4.5. Duty v. Abex Corp. (1989)
214 Cal.App.3d 742 | 293 |
5.4.6. Uram v. Abex Corp. (1990)
217 Cal.App.3d 1425 | 294 |
5.4.7. Williamson v. Plant Insulation
Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1406 | 294 |
5.4.8. Darden v.
General Motors Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 349 & Barr v. ACandS, Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1038 | 295 |
5.4.9. Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000)
22 Cal.4th 1127 | 296 |
5.4.10. Author's Note - Zwicker v. Altamont
Emergency Room Physicians Medical Group (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 26; Uram v. Abex Corp. (1990) 217 Cal.App.2d 1425;
and Loss of Consortium Claims | 299 |
5.5.0. California's "Borrowing Statute"
Used as a Complete Defense | 301 |
5.5.1. Giest v. Sequoia Ventures,
Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 300 | 301 |
5.5.2. Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler
Corp. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 370 | 305 |
5.6.0. Choice of Law
Used as a defense: McCann v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 68 | 310 |
5.7.0. The Workers Compensation Act's Exclusive Remedy Provisions,As a Defense | 315 |
5.7.1. California Labor Code Sections 3600 & 3601 | 315 |
5.7.2. Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court
(Rudkin)(1980) 27 Cal. 3d 465 | 316 |
5.7.3. McDonald
v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 297 | 322 |
5.7.4.
Ashdown v. Ameron Internat. Corp. (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 868 | 325 |
5.8.0. Product Misuse or Modification - CACI 1245 | 332 |
5.9.0. The Sophisticated User Defense | 334 |
5.9.1.
CACI 1244 - Affirmative Defense - Sophisticated User | 334 |
5.9.2.
Stewart v. Union Carbide Corporation (Nov. 16, 2010, Second App. Dist., Div. 5) 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1944 | 335 |
5.10.0 The Government Contractor Defense | 338 |
5.10.1. Design Defect Cases - CACI 1246 | 338 |
5.10.2.
Failure to Warn Cases - CACI 1247 | 339 |
5.10.3 Author's
Notes - Problems with CACI 1246And CACI 1247 | 341 |
5.11.0.
The Federal Preemption Doctrine | 345 |
5.12.0. The Fault of
Others - Civil Code, Sec. 1431.2 (a.k.a., Proposition 51) CACI 406 and BAJI 14.90 | 345 |
5.13.0. Post-Judgment Settlement Credits - The Greathouse Ratio | 348 |
5.13.1. Greathouse v. Amcord, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th
831 | 350 |
5.13.2. Wilson v. John Crane, Inc.
(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 847 | 354 |
5.13.4. Hacket v. John Crane, Inc.
(2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1233 | 356 |
5.13.5. Jones v. John Crane, Inc.
(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 990 | 360 |
| |
Table of Authorities | 365 |
