California Supreme Court Civil Issues Pending: Torts & Products
[UPDATED THROUGH MAY 3, 2012]
How Does Primary Assumption of the Risk Apply to Amusement Park Rides?
(1) Does the existence of a state regulatory scheme for amusement parks preclude application of the doctrine of “primary assumption of risk” with respect to the park’s operation of a bumper car ride? (2) Does the doctrine apply to bar recovery by a rider of a bumper car ride against the owner of an amusement park or is the doctrine limited to “active sports”? (3) Are owners of amusement parks subject to a special version of the doctrine that imposes upon them a duty to take steps to eliminate or decrease any risks inherent in their rides? Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., S195031 (opinion below H034535, formerly 196 Cal.App.4th 566), review granted 8/31/11.
Can the Tactical Conduct and Decisions Support Liability when Deadly Force Is Used by Law Enforcement? In response to a request under C.R.C., rule 8.548 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court will address this issue: “Whether under California negligence law, liability can arise from tactical conduct and decisions employed by law enforcement preceding the use of deadly force.” Hayes v. County of San Diego, S193997 (request at 9th Cir. No. 09-55644; __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 2315191), certification granted on 8/10/11.
Does Labor Code § 4558 Allow a Loss on Consortium Claim by the Spouse of the Injured Worker? Can the spouse of an injured worker claim damages for loss of consortium in an action at law brought by the injured worker under Labor Code § 4558 for damages allegedly caused by an employer’s knowing removal of or failure to install a safety guard on a power press? LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court, S192759 (opinion below B226240, formerly 193 Cal.App.4th 1413, an appeal from the L.A. Superior Court), review granted 6/22/11. Update 5/3/12: Oral argument is scheduled for 6/5/12.
How Do Changes in Joint and Several Liability Law Affect the Rule That the Release for Consideration of One Joint Tortfeasor Releases Them All? Should the common law rule that a release for consideration of one joint tortfeasor operates as a release of the joint and several liability of all joint tortfeasors be abandoned in light of statutory and case law modifications of the joint and several liability rule? Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital, S192768 (Opinion below B204908, formerly 193 Cal.App.4th 971), review granted 6/8/11. Update 5/3/12: Oral argument is scheduled for 5/29/12.
What is the Potential Liability of a Host Who Collects Admission to an Open Residential Party Where Alcohol Is Served? (1) Is a person who hosts a party at a residence, and who furnishes alcoholic beverages and charges an admission fee to uninvited guests, a “social host” within the meaning of Civil Code § 1714(c), and hence immune from civil liability for furnishing alcoholic beverages? (2) Under the circumstances here, does such a person fall within an exception stated by Business and Professions Code § 25602.1 to the ordinary immunity from civil liability for furnishing alcoholic beverages provided by Business and Professions Code § 25602(b)? Ennabe v. Manosa, S189577 (opinion below B222784, formerly 190 Cal.App.4th 707), petition for review granted 3/23/11.
