prevailing American rule in California

2010That case involved a plaintiff who claimed that the defendant hospital had failed to diagnose his heart condition and that as a result he suffered a heart attack that sharply curtailed his life expectancy. ( Id. at pp. 143-145.) The plaintiff, however, did not assert that the heart attack had any effect on his earnings while he remained alive. ( Id. at p. 145, fn. 1.) The jury found liability and awarded an amount for lost earnings based on the reduction in the plaintiff's life expectancy. ( Id. at p. 145.) We upheld this award of damages for "lost years" ( id. at pp. 153-154), quoting the Uni

2010That case involved a plaintiff who claimed that the defendant hospital had failed to diagnose his heart condition and that as a result he suffered a heart attack that sharply curtailed his life expectancy. ( Id. at pp. 143-145.) The plaintiff, however, did not assert that the heart attack had any effect on his earnings while he remained alive. ( Id. at p. 145, fn. 1.) The jury found liability and awarded an amount for lost earnings based on the reduction in the plaintiff's life expectancy. ( Id. at p. 145.) We upheld this award of damages for "lost years" ( id. at pp. 153-154), quoting the Uni

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 [ 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 ] [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instructions on lesser offenses supporte

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 [ 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 ] [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instructions on lesser offenses supporte

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 [ 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 ] [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instructions on lesser offenses supporte

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 [ 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 ] [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instructions on lesser offenses supporte

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1998(See Annot. (1986) 50 A.L.R.4th 1081 , 1096-1113, and cases cited.) Geiger noted that five states, by statute or case law, had recognized, in some form, a right to instructions on lesser uncharged offenses demonstrated by the evidence even though the lesser offenses did not strictly satisfy the elements or accusatory pleading tests for necessary inclusion in the charged offense. ( Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 522-524 , 199 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 674 P.2d 1303 , citing State v. Gopher (1981) 194 Mont. 227 , 633 P.2d 1195, 1197-1198 [lesser included offense doctrine permits defendant to request instruc

1991As we explained, to ignore the distance between the act of taking and the application of “force or fear” would deny meaning to the separate requirement of robbery that the property be “tak[en]” from the victim’s person or “immediate presence.” (Id., at p. 628.) Adopting the prevailing American rule, we held that “ ‘ “[a] thing is in the [immediate] presence of a person, in respect to robbery, which is so within his reach, inspection, observation, or control, that he could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain his possession of it. [Citations.]” ’ ” ( Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.3d

1991As we explained, to ignore the distance between the act of taking and the application of "force or fear" would deny meaning to the separate requirement of robbery that the property be "tak[en]" from the victim's person or "immediate presence." ( Id., at p. 628.) (13) Adopting the prevailing American rule, we held that "`"[a] thing is in the [immediate] presence of a person, in respect to robbery, which is so within his reach, inspection, observation, or control, that he could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain his possession of it. [Citations.]"'" ( Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.

1991As we explained, to ignore the distance between the act of taking and the application of "force or fear" would deny meaning to the separate requirement of robbery that the property be "tak[en]" from the victim's person or "immediate presence." ( Id., at p. 628.) (13) Adopting the prevailing American rule, we held that "`"[a] thing is in the [immediate] presence of a person, in respect to robbery, which is so within his reach, inspection, observation, or control, that he could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain his possession of it. [Citations.]"'" ( Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.

1991As we explained, to ignore the distance between the act of taking and the application of "force or fear" would deny meaning to the separate requirement of robbery that the property be "tak[en]" from the victim's person or "immediate presence." ( Id., at p. 628.) (13) Adopting the prevailing American rule, we held that "`"[a] thing is in the [immediate] presence of a person, in respect to robbery, which is so within his reach, inspection, observation, or control, that he could, if not overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain his possession of it. [Citations.]"'" ( Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.

1986(Shell v. Schmidt (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 279, 290 [ 272 P.2d 82 ].) It is not necessary that an express beneficiary be specifically identified in the contract; he or she may enforce it if he or she is a member of a class for whose benefit the contract was created.

1986(Shell v. Schmidt (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 279, 290 [ 272 P.2d 82 ].) It is not necessary that an express beneficiary be specifically identified in the contract; he or she may enforce it if he or she is a member of a class for whose benefit the contract was created.

1985Co. (1962) 211 Cal.App.2d 280, 288 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 260 ].) Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s recovery of such future lost wages will not inevitably subject defendant to a “double payment” in the event plaintiff’s heirs bring a wrongful death action at some point in the future.

1985Co. (1962) 211 Cal.App.2d 280, 288 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 260 ].) Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s recovery of such future lost wages will not inevitably subject defendant to a “double payment” in the event plaintiff’s heirs bring a wrongful death action at some point in the future.