mechanical application doctrine in California

1964The only case cited by appellant to support her position to the contrary is Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44 [ 183 P. 443 ], but that ease was expressly overruled by our Supreme Court in De Burgh v. De Burgh, 39 Cal.2d 858, 871 [ 250 P.2d 598 ], to the extent that it supported “a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination.” In De Burgh , Justice Traynor, author of the majority opinion, studies “the history of the doctrine of recrimination, its objectives, and the wording and legislative background of the applicable statutes.” (See p. 863.) No purpose will be served by repeating, ev

1964The only case cited by appellant to support her position to the contrary is Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44 [ 183 P. 443 ], but that ease was expressly overruled by our Supreme Court in De Burgh v. De Burgh, 39 Cal.2d 858, 871 [ 250 P.2d 598 ], to the extent that it supported “a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination.” In De Burgh , Justice Traynor, author of the majority opinion, studies “the history of the doctrine of recrimination, its objectives, and the wording and legislative background of the applicable statutes.” (See p. 863.) No purpose will be served by repeating, ev

2026(Emanuel, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 885; see Scoggins, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 677 [distinguishing case where defendants brought arsenal of “ ‘lethal weapons’ ”].) Nor did 11 McLean.

2018Specifically, the court concluded “it is absolutely clear that [the toddler] received a greater amount in damages after trial than she would have received had [the defendant] accepted the joint offer even if the entire amount of 17 the offer, $1 million, is attributed to her. … [The toddler’s] $23 million-plus award leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind that her recovery far exceeded the statutory offer.” (Id. at p. 263; see also Deocampo v. Ahn (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 758, 776 [where husband sued for injury and wife sued for loss of consortium, joint settlement offer for $1 million valid where jury

1987Parsons Co. v. Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 211, 220 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 170 ]; Widson v. International Harvester Co. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 45, 59 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 136 ].) The same high court decision, however, rejects the mechanical application of that rule, as follows: “. . . whether an indemnity agreement covers a given case turns primarily *1029 on contractual interpretation, and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the agreement that should control.

1987Parsons Co. v. Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 211, 220 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 170 ]; Widson v. International Harvester Co. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 45, 59 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 136 ].) The same high court decision, however, rejects the mechanical application of that rule, as follows: “. . . whether an indemnity agreement covers a given case turns primarily *1029 on contractual interpretation, and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the agreement that should control.

1987Parsons Co. v. Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 211, 220 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 170 ]; Widson v. International Harvester Co. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 45, 59 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 136 ].) The same high court decision, however, rejects the mechanical application of that rule, as follows: “. . . whether an indemnity agreement covers a given case turns primarily *1029 on contractual interpretation, and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the agreement that should control.

1987Parsons Co. v. Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 211, 220 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 170 ]; Widson v. International Harvester Co. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 45, 59 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 136 ].) The same high court decision, however, rejects the mechanical application of that rule, as follows: “. . . whether an indemnity agreement covers a given case turns primarily *1029 on contractual interpretation, and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the agreement that should control.

1978(See United States v. Paroutian, supra, 299 F.2d 486, 489 .) Addressing itself to this problem the United States Supreme Court in Michigan v. Tucker (1974) 417 U.S. 433, 446-447 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 182, 194 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 ], stated: “Just as the law does not require that a defendant receive a perfect trial, only a fair one, it cannot realistically require that policemen investigating serious crimes make no errors whatsoever.

1978(See United States v. Paroutian, supra, 299 F.2d 486, 489 .) Addressing itself to this problem the United States Supreme Court in Michigan v. Tucker (1974) 417 U.S. 433, 446-447 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 182, 194 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 ], stated: “Just as the law does not require that a defendant receive a perfect trial, only a fair one, it cannot realistically require that policemen investigating serious crimes make no errors whatsoever.

1964The only case cited by appellant to support her position to the contrary is Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44 [ 183 P. 443 ], but that ease was expressly overruled by our Supreme Court in De Burgh v. De Burgh, 39 Cal.2d 858, 871 [ 250 P.2d 598 ], to the extent that it supported “a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination.” In De Burgh , Justice Traynor, author of the majority opinion, studies “the history of the doctrine of recrimination, its objectives, and the wording and legislative background of the applicable statutes.” (See p. 863.) No purpose will be served by repeating, ev

1964The only case cited by appellant to support her position to the contrary is Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44 [ 183 P. 443 ], but that ease was expressly overruled by our Supreme Court in De Burgh v. De Burgh, 39 Cal.2d 858, 871 [ 250 P.2d 598 ], to the extent that it supported “a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination.” In De Burgh , Justice Traynor, author of the majority opinion, studies “the history of the doctrine of recrimination, its objectives, and the wording and legislative background of the applicable statutes.” (See p. 863.) No purpose will be served by repeating, ev

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].

1952To the extent that the following cases support a mechanical application of the doctrine of recrimination, they are disapproved : Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123, 129-130 [ 58 P. 456 ]; Mattson v. Mattson, 181 Cal. 44, 47 [ 183 P. 443 ] ; Helpling v. Helpling, 50 Cal.App. 676, 680-681 [ 195 P. 715 ] ; Brazell v. Brazell, 54 Cal.App.2d 458, 459 [ 129 P.2d 117 ] ; Gough v. Gough, 101 Cal.App.2d 262, 268-269 [ 225 P.2d 668 ].