Cluster 2275868

(See Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 .) “A special verdict is inconsistent if there is no possibility of reconciling its findings with each other.” (Huy Fong Foods, Inc. v. Underwood Ranches, LP (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1112 , 1125; see, e.g., Trejo v. Johnson & Johnson (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 110 , 123- 124 (Trejo) [jury found the defendant liable for negligent failure to warn, but not liable for strict liability failu…

“In general, the 10 adequacy of the warning is a question of fact for the jury.” Oxford v. Foster Wheeler 11 LLC, 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 717 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). 12 Defendant has failed to show there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to 13 whether the warnings in the IFU were adequate.

(Woodcock v. Fontana Scaffolding & Equipment Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 452, 456 (Woodcock); Fuller v. Department of Transportation (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1034, 1038 (Fuller).) As our colleagues in Division One of this court have explained, “[g]eneral and special verdicts are deemed inconsistent when they are 7 ‘beyond possibility of reconciliation under any possible application of the evidence and instructions.’ [Citations.] ‘If any conclusions could be drawn thereunder which woul…

Proc., § 624.) To the extent there is an ambiguity in the special verdict that is not raised before the jury is discharged, the court must “ ‘interpret the verdict from its language considered in connection with the pleadings, evidence and instructions.’ ” (Woodcock v. Fontana Scaffolding & Equipment Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 452, 456 (Woodcock); accord, Fuller v. Dept. of Transportation (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1034, 1038 (Fuller) [consider pleadings, evidence, instructions, and ar…

Proc., § 624.) To the extent there is an ambiguity in the special verdict that is not raised before the jury is discharged, the court must “ ‘interpret the verdict from its language considered in connection with the pleadings, evidence and instructions.’ ” (Woodcock v. Fontana Scaffolding & Equipment Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 452, 456 (Woodcock); accord, Fuller v. Dept. of Transportation (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1034, 1038 (Fuller) [consider pleadings, evidence, instructions, and ar…

Indeed, under California law, 12 “[i]n general, the adequacy of the warning is a question of fact for the jury.” Oxford v. Foster 13 Wheeler LLC, 177 Cal. App. 4th 700, 717 (2009). 14 As to Defendant’s second argument, Defendant contends that because Plaintiff never 15 deposed Siegel, Plaintiff lacks evidence that Siegel’s behavior would have changed if Siegel had 16 in fact received a different warning.

Indeed, under California law, 16 “[i]n general, the adequacy of the warning is a question of fact for the jury.” Oxford v. Foster 17 Wheeler LLC, 177 Cal. App. 4th 700, 717 (2009). 18 As to Defendant’s second argument, Defendant contends that because Plaintiff never 19 deposed Marcus, Plaintiff lacks evidence that Marcus’s behavior would have changed if Marcus 20 had in fact received a different warning.

(See Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 716 (Oxford) [verdict is inconsistent when it is beyond the possibility of reconciliation under any possible application of evidence and instructions].) Caltrans asserts that appellant forfeited the inconsistent verdict claim by not objecting or seeking clarification before the verdict was entered.

(See Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 716 (Oxford) [verdict is inconsistent when it is beyond the possibility of reconciliation under any possible application of evidence and instructions].) Caltrans asserts that appellant forfeited the inconsistent verdict claim by not objecting or seeking clarification before the verdict was entered.

(Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 707 (Oxford).) “ ‘An inconsistent verdict may arise from an inconsistency between or among answers within a special verdict [citation] or irreconcilable findings. [Citation.] Where there is an inconsistency between or among answers within a special verdict, both or all the questions are equally against the law. [Citation.] The appellate court is not permitted to choose between inconsistent answers.’ ” (Id. at p. 716.)…

Then, on the 12 A. Inconsistency in Special Verdicts ―‗―The inconsistent verdict rule is based upon the fundamental proposition that a factfinder may not make inconsistent determinations of fact based on the same evidence. . . .‖ [Citations.] An inconsistent verdict may arise from an inconsistency between or among answers within a special verdict [citation] or irreconcilable findings. [Citation.] Where there is an inconsistency between or among answers within a special verdi…

(In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases (9th Cir. 1992) 960 F.2d 806 , 811 (Hawaii).) Since then, however, a number of courts including this Court (Oxford v. Foster Wheeler (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 710 (Oxford)), have taken a more expansive view and concluded the fact a product has some commercial market does not preclude the defense.

Whatever the potential virtues of special verdicts when wisely employed, they also present ‘“recognized pitfalls.” (Falls v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 851, 855 [ 239 Cal.Rptr. 862 ].) “ ‘[T]he possibility of a defective or incomplete special verdict, or possibly no verdict at all, is much greater than with a general verdict that is tested by special findings ....’” (Ibid., quoting Cal. Judges Benchbook (CJER 1981) Civil Trials, § 15.10, p. 473.) A judgment based o…

(In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases (9th Cir. 1992) 960 F.2d 806, 811 (Hawaii)) Since then, however, a number of courts including this court (Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 710 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418 ] (Oxford)), have taken a more expansive view and concluded the fact a product has some *628 commercial market does not preclude the defense.

The Department argues the appellants in each case cited by Orozco had “presevered [their] appellate rights either during the trial or through . . . posttrial motions.” (See Kurtin v. Elieff (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 455, 463 [issue raised in new trial motion]; Singh v. Southland Stone U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338, 350-351 [same]; Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 707 [request in trial court for judgment to be entered in its favor]; City of San …

The Department argues the appellants in each case cited by Orozco had “presevered [their] appellate rights either during the trial or through . . . posttrial motions.” (See Kurtin v. Elieff (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 455, 463 [issue raised in new trial motion]; Singh v. Southland Stone U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338, 350-351 [same]; Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 707 [request in trial court for judgment to be entered in its favor]; City of San …

(Hill v. San Jose Family Housing Partners, LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 764, 774 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 454 ]; Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 707 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418 ].) *488 A. Statutory Scheme for Covenants Running with the Land Section 1460 provides: “Certain covenants, contained in grants of estates in real property, are appurtenant to such estates, and pass with them, so as to bind the assigns of the covenantor and to vest in the assigns of the coven…

The law is clear that the proper remedy for inconsistent verdicts is “not to grant judgment as a matter of law in favor of one of the parties, but rather, to order a new trial.” (Stillwell v. The Salvation Army (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 360, 376 ; Shaw, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 1344 ; e.g., Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 704 [“Because the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts, we will reverse and remand for a new trial.”].) We have power to modify the…

The law is clear that the proper remedy for inconsistent verdicts is “not to grant judgment as a matter of law in favor of one of the parties, but rather, to order a new trial.” (Stillwell v. The Salvation Army (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 360, 376 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 111 ]; Shaw, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 1344; e.g., Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 704 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418 ] [“Because the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts, we will reverse and remand for …

Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418, 432-33 (2009) (discussing Hernandez v. Badger Constr.

(Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338, 357-358 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 455 ]; Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 713 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418 ]; Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 287, 304 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 ].)

See, e.g., Downing v. Overhead Door Corp., 707 P.2d 1027, 1033 (Colo.App.1985) (pre-accident remedial measures are "admissible to demonstrate a defendant’s preexisting knowledge of the danger inherent in the product, the feasibility of giving a warning, and the existence of a duty to warn users of the defect”); Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418, 433 (2009) (generally noting: "Whether the absence of a warning makes a product defective invol…

(Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 707 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418 ].) b.

(See, e.g., Donaldson v. National Marine, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 503, 507 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 584 , 107 P.3d 254 ]; Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 714, fn. 5 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418 ].)

Governing law on inconsistent verdicts “Inconsistent verdicts are ‘“against the law,”’ and the proper remedy is a new trial.” (Shaw v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1344 (Shaw) [new trial required where general verdicts were inconsistent]; accord, Kurtin v. Elieff (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 455, 481 .) “Where the jury’s findings are so inconsistent that they are incapable of being reconciled and it is impossible to tell how a material issue is determined, the d…

Governing law on inconsistent verdicts “Inconsistent verdicts are ‘“against the law,”’ and the proper remedy is a new trial.” (Shaw v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1344 (Shaw) [new trial required where general verdicts were inconsistent]; accord, Kurtin v. Elieff (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 455, 481 .) “Where the jury’s findings are so inconsistent that they are incapable of being reconciled and it is impossible to tell how a material issue is determined, the d…

Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 452 , 456-457, 72 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 445 P.2d 881 ; see Oxford , supra , at pp. 718-720, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418 [evidence, instructions and argument]; Zagami Inc. v. James A. Crone, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1083 , 1092, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 235 ( Zagami ) [pleading, evidence, and instructions].) The fair import of the special verdict is that the unsafe condition did not create a reasonably foreseeable risk that a driver would attempt to recklessly pass a bus when …

Ruling out that and any other potential basis for negligence, the court concluded that "a finding of negligent failure to warn is logically and legally inconsistent with the jury's finding on plaintiffs' strict products liability failure to warn." ( Id. at p. 720, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418 ; see *134 id. at p. 721, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418 ["the jury necessarily found that defendant did not fail to provide adequate warnings when it found against plaintiffs on the products liability failu…

The Jury’s Verdict Is Not Inconsistent “A special verdict is inconsistent if there is no possibility of reconciling its findings with each other.” (Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338, 357 .) “‘If any conclusions could be drawn . . . which would explain the apparent conflict, the jury will be deemed to have drawn them.’” (Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 716 ; see Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2007) …

See Oxford v. Foster Wheeler, LLC, 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 717 , 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 418 (2009); Schwoerer, 14 Cal.App.4th at 111 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 227 .

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 619, no objection was required to preserve the issue for review.” (Accord, Trejo v. Johnson & Johnson (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 110, 123, fn. 4 (Trejo); see also Little v. Amber Hotel Co. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 280, 300 [“if the special verdicts are . . . inconsistent, failure to seek clarification from the jury does not create a forfeiture, and the proper remedy is ordinarily a retrial on the issues underlying the defective verdict”].…