In Martinez v. Robledo, the Court addressed the question: What is the measure of damages for the wrongful injury of a pet? The Court held that a pet owner is not limited to the market value of the pet (which may be none) and may recover the reasonable and necessary costs incurred for the treatment
Court Holds That $250,000 Statutory Cap On Non-Economic Damages Is Constitutional
In Stinnett v. Tam, the California Court of Appeals held that that Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act’s $250,000 cap on non-economic damages was constitutional. Holly Stinnett sued, among others, Tony Tam, M.D. and Modesto Surgical Associates, for the wrongful death of her husband due to
Owners Can Recover The Costs To Care For A Pet Wrongfully Injured By Another
Recently, in Kimes v. Grosser, the California Court of Appeal held that a pet owner can recover the costs of care of the pet attributable to the injury cause by another if the costs are found to be reasonable and necessary. In Kimes, the plaintiff alleged that his neighbor, the defendant, shot his
Are Independent Witness Statements Discoverable By Parties In Litigation?
In 1996, the Third District Court of Appeal in Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court held that statements given by witnesses to an attorney working on a case were not discoverable by the other parties in litigation. The Appellate Court held that the work-product privilege barred