The Fisker Karma, a $100,000 hybrid, has been recalled twice for a possible fire hazard posed by its lithium-ion battery. When Fisker recalled the car the second time, back in June, it played down the risk. Fisker reported to the press:
To date, Fisker has not received any verified complaints, warranty claims or any
PG&E says that its first priority is safety. PG&E says its next priority is compensating the victims of the San Bruno fire.
But are those really PG&E’s priorities?
PG&E has just launched a multimedia advertising campaign designed to make itself look good. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the campaign will cost $10 million.
It
Though PG&E previously admitted liability for the explosion and stated that it was "committed" to fully compensating its victims, PG&E has asked the court to throw certain of plaintiffs’ claims out of court. In particular, PG&E has asked the court to throw out all the plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages, and to throw out certain
The Houck sisters were killed when the steering in the PT Cruiser they were driving failed. The car crossed the center median and hit a big rig traveling in the opposite direction.
Two years ago, we wrote about the jury’s $15 million verdict against Enterprise Rent-A-Car in connection with the girls’ deaths. As it turns
At today’s court hearing, Judge Dylina tentatively selected the cases to be included in the trial that is scheduled to begin against PG&E on July 23:
The judge will
In the five years leading up to the fire, the CPUC found that PG&E committed more than 400 safety violations. Each time, instead of fining PG&E, it let it off with a warning.
It was the CPUC’s job to keep the public safe from PG&E. The CPUC failed to do that job. The
PG&E made a show of finally “admitting liability” for the explosion. What brought that about? A sudden pang of conscience?
Not quite.
PG&E’s latest move is classic litigation strategy. It’s designed to help PG&E escape full responsibility for what it did rather than own up to its responsibility. The move paves the way for PG&E to
The California Supreme Court dealt the injured a serious blow in August when it handed down Howell v. Hamilton Meats and Provisions, Inc. It is certainly one of the most pro-insurance company cases ever.
Gary Simms and I collaborated on a couple of articles explaining how Howell will change the legal landscape in the years
Last Thursday, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Howell v. Hamilton Meats. The ruling favors those who cause injury to others (such as people who get into accidents while texting) over their victims. The Court decided that it is those who cause injuries, and not their victims, who will benefit from the health insurance that the victim has paid for.
I attended the oral argument before the Supreme Court back in May. I wrote about that here. Today, Gary Simms, who argued the case for Rebecca How
ell, provided me his perspective on the Court’s decision.
Q: Were you surprised by the 6-to-1 decision against the plaintiff?
A: Unfortunately, I wasn’t surprised by the result. The Court is deeply conservative (six Republican appointees) and predictably anti-plaintiff in most personal-injury cases, so I knew from the outset of being retained for the Supreme Court briefing that I would face a very uphill battle. I was working at the margins; in other words; three justices would never vote for my position, and I knew it. I expected to get Justice Pro Tem Klein’s vote, though, and she very clearly signaled it at oral argument. I hoped to get three other votes, but I knew it would be difficult.
Q: Were you surprised by the new Chief Justice’s vote with the majority after she had taken the opposite view in her Court of Appeal opinion in King v. Willmett very shortly before she was appointed to the Supreme Court?
A: Yes, but after the oral argument, I sensed that she would flip-flop, so I was only mildly surprised. I can only speculate why she reversed her position. But I think the most likely reason was that she knew her vote would not change the outcome, so she chose to join the majority to make it unanimous. (Because Justice Klein was sitting pro tem by designation, her dissent does not matter in that regard; all the permanent Justices joined in the majority opinion.) This allowed the Chief Justice to establish herself as being a collegial and open minded consensus-builder. That’s a very important quality for a Chief Justice. And perhaps Continue Reading Howell v. Hamilton Meats: Candid Interview With Appellate Attorney Gary Simms
Actos has become one of the most popular treatments for type 2 diabetes melli
tus. Now the FDA is warning of a link between Actos and bladder cancer. A recent study showed that the risk increases by 40% after 12 months on the drug. That risk is significant enough that the use of the drug has been suspended
