12 Cited authorities

Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co.
21 Cal.4th 71 (Cal. 1999) Cited 169 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that in cases that require resolving "complicated . . . medical causation issues, the standard of proof ordinarily required is a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony that the defendant's conduct contributed to the plaintiff's injury"
Taylor v. Superior Court
24 Cal.3d 890 (Cal. 1979) Cited 242 times
In Taylor, the California Supreme Court examined whether the act of driving while intoxicated constituted malice for the purposes of a CC § 3294 punitive damages award.
Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co.
148 Cal.App.3d 374 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) Cited 161 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that evidence of post-injury conduct should have been admitted into evidence because it tended to prove that the defendant acted willfully
G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court
49 Cal.App.3d 22 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) Cited 132 times
In G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 218], the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to sustain a demurrer in part because of the conclusory allegations relating to punitive damages.
Toole v. Richardson-Merrell Inc.
251 Cal.App.2d 689 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967) Cited 134 times
Upholding $250,000 punitive damage award for drug manufacturer's failure to warn consumers about known hazards of its product
Oddone v. Superior Court
179 Cal.App.4th 813 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 28 times 4 Legal Analyses
Noting that "[t]here appears to be no reported California decision" regarding duty as to secondary exposure, and resolving the case on other grounds
Vossler v. Richards Manufacturing Co.
143 Cal.App.3d 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) Cited 37 times
In Vossler v. Richards Manufacturing Co., supra, 143 Cal.App.3d 952, the court quoted the above passage from Grimshaw, and concluded the issue should be left "to a court in which the problem is raised by proof of other litigation."
Perkins v. Superior Court
117 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) Cited 39 times
Noting that pleading the language of section 3294 "is not objectionable when sufficient facts are alleged to support the allegation"
SKF Farms v. Superior Court
153 Cal.App.3d 902 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) Cited 34 times
Docket Nos. 31427, 31428. March 15, 1984. COUNSEL Sutherland Gerber, Ravinder Samra, Ronis, Ronis Ronis and John George Ronis for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Hart Michaelis, James I. Michaelis, Engstrom, Lipscomb Lack and Douglas S. Knoll for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION BUTLER, J. Petitioners SKF Farms and Jerry Gonzales, Sr., Jerry Gonzales, Jr., and Victor J. Gonzales (collectively called petitioners) seek writs of mandate after the superior court sustained without leave to
City of Sanger v. Superior Court
8 Cal.App.4th 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 7 times
Docket No. A057295. July 28, 1992. Appeal from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 775865, Ira A. Brown, Jr., Judge. COUNSEL Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox Molligan, Stephen T. Cox, Peter Molligan and L.M. (Maria) Abel for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Landels, Ripley Diamond, Stephen C. Lewis, Bruce W. Laidlaw, Sanford Svetcov, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran Arnold, Stephen Jones, Ann J. Reavis, Hardin, Cook, Loper, Engel Bergez, Gennaro A. Filice III and Nicholas D. Kayhan
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,753 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Section 3294 - When damages recoverable for sake of example and by way of punishment; employer liability for acts of employee; death from homicide
Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 Cited 2,843 times 10 Legal Analyses
Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"

Reply To Motion

12 Cited authorities

Holding that in cases that require resolving "complicated . . . medical causation issues, the standard of proof ordinarily required is a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony that the defendant's conduct contributed to the plaintiff's injury"

In Taylor, the California Supreme Court examined whether the act of driving while intoxicated constituted malice for the purposes of a CC § 3294 punitive damages award.

Concluding that evidence of post-injury conduct should have been admitted into evidence because it tended to prove that the defendant acted willfully

In G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 218], the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to sustain a demurrer in part because of the conclusory allegations relating to punitive damages.

Upholding $250,000 punitive damage award for drug manufacturer's failure to warn consumers about known hazards of its product

Noting that "[t]here appears to be no reported California decision" regarding duty as to secondary exposure, and resolving the case on other grounds

In Vossler v. Richards Manufacturing Co., supra, 143 Cal.App.3d 952, the court quoted the above passage from Grimshaw, and concluded the issue should be left "to a court in which the problem is raised by proof of other litigation."

Noting that pleading the language of section 3294 "is not objectionable when sufficient facts are alleged to support the allegation"

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"