In a negligence action, trial court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where the evidence did not establish that defendant did not have a duty to plaintiff a as a matter of law, and triable issues of fact remained as to defendant’s duty as a public utility and its exercise of control in determining the placement of the light poles.
Read Laabs v. Southern California Edison Co., No. E044917 in PDF
Read Laabs v. Southern California Edison Co., No. E044917 in HTML
Appellate InformationAPPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kurt J. Lewin (retired judge of the L.A. Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) and Tom Garza, Judges. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWOFiled July 20, 2009
JudgesBefore King, J., Miller, J., Hollenhorst, J. Opinion by King, J.Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Hollenhorst, J.
CounselFor Plaintiff: Lascher & Lascher, Wendy Lascher, Aris Karakalos; Richard Harris Law Firm and Richard HarrisFor Respondent: Brian A. Cardoza.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
