Case Law Library
| Case Name: | Woodline Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Dept. of Indus. Rel. | 04/04/1994 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | Co. , Inc. , which is owned by Yan Kats and his family, employs 131 people to manufacture oak furniture and upholstered chairs, to assemble furniture manufactured by others, and to handle ancillary clerical work. Although Woodline made some efforts to obtain replacement insurance, it is undisputed that it remained uninsured for over six months, from May 3 through November 5. fn. Kats said he had applied to State Fund for insurance but admitted he did not, at that moment, have coverage. Woodline filed a petition for a writ of mandate, asking the trial court to set aside the penalty. As permitted by section 995. 240 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Woodline filed an application for relief from the bonding requirement. | ||
| Note: | Penalty at time of citation for inadequate compensation stands. | ||
| Citation: | 23 Cal.App.4th 1653 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 24381994 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Woods v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. | 04/15/2008 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | WOODS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Woods appeals from a judgment entered following the grant of a directed verdict in favor of defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. FELA imposes upon a railroad a continuing and nondelegable duty to use reasonable care to provide railroad employees a safe place to work. (Lund v. San Joaquin Valley Railroad (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1, 5; Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 451, 455. )Under the SAA, "a railroad carrier may use or allow to be used on any of its railroad lines [¶] (1) a vehicle only if it is equipped with [¶] . | ||
| Note: | [Unpublished] Inasmuch as the appliances required by the SAA's implementing regulations only represent the minimum of safety equipment, there is nothing prohibiting the installation of additional safety appliances. | ||
| Citation: | B186044 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 33432008 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Workmen's Auto Insurance Co v. Guy Carpenter & Co., Inc. | 05/04/2011 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION ASHMANN-GERST, J. Workmen's Auto Insurance Company (company) sued Guy Carpenter & Company, Inc. (Carpenter) for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. After the trial court eliminated the fiduciary duty claim during pretrial proceedings, a jury decided in favor of Carpenter. Carpenter demurred to the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, and the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. In 2001, Carpenter negotiated with PMA and secured a finite quota share reinsurance agreement for certain risks covered by the company. *fn4 In the ensuing years, Carpenter breached its fiduciary duties to the company and caused over $35 million in damages. | ||
| Note: | An insurance broker cannot be sued for breach of fiduciary duty, according to a published decision from the 2nd District Court of Appeal. | ||
| Citation: | B211660, c/w B213853 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 37582011 CA | ||
| Case Name: | Wright v. Beverly Fabrics | 01/17/2002 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary: | PAULA WRIGHT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BEVERLY FABRICS, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORIES In late 1991, Beverly Fabrics, a retail store selling fabric, craft and gift items, hired Wright. Had Wright not been an employee of Beverly Fabrics, she would not have been allowed to provide any assistance. The court also denied Beverly Fabrics' request for jury instructions directed at whether Wright was acting in the course of her employment. Alternatively, Beverly Fabrics maintains the court failed to properly instruct the jury on whether Wright was acting in the course of her employment. | ||
| Note: | Work comp exclusive remedy for injuries sustained while performing tasks within employment contract but outside normal work hours even if not compensated. | ||
| Citation: | 95 Cal.App.4th 346 | ||
| WCC Citation: | WCC 28332002 CA | ||
