Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?

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Note: [Unpublished] Inasmuch as the appliances required by the SAA's implementing regulations only represent the minimum of safety equipment, there is nothing prohibiting the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
 
 
Case Name: Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut 01/29/2003
Summary: TADAO YAMAGUCHI et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CHAIYUT HARNSMUT et al. , Defendants and Appellants. OPINION STEVENS, Acting P. J. - Chaiyut Harnsmut (Harnsmut) and his wife, Urai Chaloeicheep (Chaloeicheep) appeal from a judgment holding them vicariously liable for injuries suffered by a police officer at the hands of their employee. In a slightly crouched position, Yamaguchi gestured to Noy and instructed him verbally to come towards him. Wisan immediately scooped up a second pot of hot oil and threw it in the direction of Noy, Yamaguchi, and Orkes. 4 The jury awarded Yamaguchi $59,760 in economic and $1,000,000 in noneconomic damages, the City $105,763. 55, and Tracy Yamaguchi $35,000.
Note: Firefighter's rule does not vitiate respondeat superior of employer of assaultive employee.
Citation: 106 Cal.App.4th 472, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 706
WCC Citation: WCC 29202003 CA
 
 
Case Name: Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut 01/29/2003
Summary: TADAO YAMAGUCHI et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CHAIYUT HARNSMUT et al. , Defendants and Appellants. OPINION STEVENS, Acting P. J. - Chaiyut Harnsmut (Harnsmut) and his wife, Urai Chaloeicheep (Chaloeicheep) appeal from a judgment holding them vicariously liable for injuries suffered by a police officer at the hands of their employee. In a slightly crouched position, Yamaguchi gestured to Noy and instructed him verbally to come towards him. Wisan immediately scooped up a second pot of hot oil and threw it in the direction of Noy, Yamaguchi, and Orkes. 4 The jury awarded Yamaguchi $59,760 in economic and $1,000,000 in noneconomic damages, the City $105,763. 55, and Tracy Yamaguchi $35,000.
Note: Firefighter's rule does not vitiate respondeat superior of employer of assaultive employee.
Citation: 106 Cal.App.4th 472, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 706
WCC Citation: WCC 29212003 CA
 
 
Case Name: Yang v. Buch 01/18/2008
Summary: E041427, E041764 January 18, 2008 KEVIN JEN-KANG YANG ET AL. , PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, v. ROBERT BUCH, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. Kevin Jen-Kang Yang and Lee Yang, in propria persona, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Meanwhile, it denied three successive motions for sanctions against Buch; in connection with the third motion, it awarded Buch sanctions against the Yangs. We will further hold that the Yangs have not shown that the trial court erred by awarding Buch attorney fees, by denying their motions for sanctions, or by awarding Buch sanctions against them. Buch also asserts that the WCAB ordered Yang to appear at at least one deposition (on December 6, 2005).
Note: The employee's right to recover against a third person is not affected by the fact that the 'person other than the employer' is not a stranger but has entered into a consensual legal relationship with the employer.
Citation: E041427
WCC Citation: WCC 33022008 CA
 
 
Case Name: Yang v. Fields 05/08/2008
Summary: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO JEN-KANG YANG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LARRY H. FIELDS, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Jen-Kang Yang (Yang) appeals from an order awarding defendant and respondent Larry Fields (Fields) $25,789. 50 in attorney fees and costs after a judgment of dismissal was entered in Fields's favor pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425. 16. *fn1 Yang contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees after judgment had been entered, and that the court abused its discretion concerning the scope and amount of fees awarded. Yang also asks that we sanction Fields and his attorney for making allegedly false representations in Fields's motion for attorney fees. Yang subsequently sued Zurich and Fields in San Bernardino County Superior Court. After Yang refused to stipulate to transfer venue to Los Angeles County, Fields filed a motion to transfer venue, which Yang opposed.
Note: [Unpublished] Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, defendant is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred only in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion, and the trial court erred by including in the award fees and costs unrelated to that motion.
Citation: B196322
WCC Citation: WCC 33512008 CA
 
 
Case Name: Yap v. LA Dept. of Water & Power 05/10/2012
Summary: YAP v. LA DEPT. OF WATER & POWER DANILO YAP, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff and appellant Danilo Yap appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP) in this action for discrimination and retaliation. A position that Yap applied for was abruptly cancelled when it appeared that Yap was entitled to the position. The documents showed Yap was fired from TMC, contrary to information that Yap provided on his employment application. In March 2009, Tan questioned Yap about sick leave that Yap had taken and Yap felt singled out.
Note: A claim by a former accountant for the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power for disability discrimination failed as a matter of law because there was no evidence that his employer did not seek to accommodate his mental disability.
Citation: B230969
WCC Citation: WCC 38932012 CA
 
 
Case Name: Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc. 08/26/2014
Summary: .           Eddie Yau filed a complaint against his former employer, Santa Margarita Ford, alleging a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. .           In 1992, Yau was hired as a mechanic by Santa Margarita Ford. Yau alleged he was terminated in February 2009 after complaining to Santa Margarita Ford’s general manager, Mike Mamic, and later to Santa Margarita Ford’s owner, James Graham, that fraudulent warranty repair claims were being submitted to Ford. Yau alleged Santa Margarita Ford’s service director, Robert Selff, to whom Yau reported, was the instigator/mastermind of the warranty fraud. .           In January 2009, Yau met with Mamic and Graham (owner of Santa Margarita Ford) and explained what was happening with fictitious warranty repair orders.
Note:
Citation: G048013 consol. w/ G04834
WCC Citation: Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00448900
 
1705 Results Page 168 of 171