Plaintiff businesswoman appealed a judgment by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed the businesswomen's action against defendants, corporation and its agent, for damages arising from the wrongful detention of personal property and for damages for abuse of process and tortious interferences with business and contractual relations.
The corporation obtained a writ of claim and delivery commanding the sheriff to place in its possession 220,750 Christmas cards held by the businesswoman. The businesswoman subsequently established her right to the cards and they were returned to her more than two years later. Some of the cards were allegedly damaged. The court held that her claim for damages arising out of the wrongful detention of the cards was barred under the doctrine of res judicata as she had already obtained a judgment for the same cause of action. class action attorney San Diego read the court comments. Her cause of action for abuse of process was barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(3). Similarly, her causes of action for tortious interferences with business and contractual relations were also barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339(1). The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring the businesswoman to pay money as a condition of the granting of her motions for a continuance of the trial. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1024 authorized such a procedure, and the businesswoman showed no error in its application.
The court affirmed the judgment.
In an action for personal injuries sustained in a vehicular accident, appellant common carriers challenged a judgment for respondents, a passenger and others, after a jury trial in the Superior Court of Merced County (California). The common carriers asserted that counsel for respondents were guilty of misconduct in calling the jury's attention to insurance protecting the common carriers.
The common carriers provided bus transportation for a group of insurance representatives on a tour. As the bus was travelling on a narrow road down a canyon, the bus ran off the grade, overturned, and the passenger was injured. In the action to recover for her injuries, the trial court awarded her judgment, and the common carriers appealed, insisting that the passenger's counsel had improperly raised the subject of the common carriers' insurance coverage before the jury. The court disagreed, explaining that a litigant was entitled to a fair and unprejudiced jury and had the right to ask a juror on his examination whether or not he was a stockholder in, or otherwise interested in, an insurance company which was interested in the action. If the acts of the passenger's attorney, taken with the charge of the trial court to disregard them, amounted to error, it appeared that the error was harmless. During the examination of the passenger she was asked who had arranged the exposure of her foot for its photograph. Her reply, stated without objection, was that the physician for the insurance company had done it. The court held that this cured any error.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied.