In a unanimous decision the California Supreme Court reversed a JNOV ordered by the Court of Appeal in Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co. The decision reinstates a wrongful death judgment on behalf of the family of Adelmo Cabral, who was killed when his car veered off the freeway and collided with the back of a Ralph’s tractor-trailer rig that had been parked 16 feet from the freeway while its driver had a snack. The jury held that Ralphs’ was 10% at fault for the crash, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the crash was “unforseeable” and that truck drivers therefore owed no duty to passing freeway motorists in the manner in which they parked their trucks as long as they were out of the travel lanes. The Supreme Court rejected all of the appellate court’s reasoning. The decision is important because it expressly curtails the practice used by trial and appellate courts with increasing frequency to decide negligence cases as a matter of law by finding that the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care on the particular facts of the case. The Court held that the decision that no duty of care is owed — which is more accurately framed as a finding that an exception should be made to the general duty of care imposed on all persons by California law — “is to be made on a more general basis suitable to the formulation of a legal rule.” As a result, the Cabral decision will mean that more negligence cases in California will be decided by juries, based on the specific facts of the case, and not by courts based on a finding that no duty exists.

Read The Decision (.pdf)

Ehrlich Law firm obtains reversal of order dismissing bad-faith and broker-negligence lawsuit. In Koch v. Markel Ins., No. B213610, the Second Appellate District, Division 7, reversed an order sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff’s claims against his insurance broker and his business insurer for negligence, breach of contract, and bad faith.

Read the Decision (.pdf)

Jeffrey Ehrlich argues negligence case in California Supreme Court. On February 8, 2011, Jeffrey Ehrlich argued Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co. in the California Supreme Court.  The case presents the issue of whether truck drivers owe a duty of care to passing motorists when they park alongside California freeways.

For more information, read, High Court Signals It May Rule Against Ralphs In Truck Crash. Daily Journal. Wednesday, February 9, 2011. (.pdf)

Case Update:  February 28, 2011. Ehrlich Law Firm wins landmark negligence ruling in California Supreme Court: Unanimous Decision in Cabral v. Ralphs

On August 11, 2010, Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, principal of The Ehrlich Law Firm filed a depublication request  (L.A. Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co.) on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys Association of California.  (Two other depublication requests were also filed.)   On October 27, 2010, the California Supreme Court granted the request for depublication of the L.A. Checker Cab decision.

Depublication of Court of Appeal decisions by the Supreme Court of California used to be a common practice, but in recent years has become quite uncommon.  In the last few years roughly 12 cases per year have been ordered depublished.

The significance of the depublication of LA Checker Cab is this:  the decision effectively eliminated all insurance coverage in California for any claims of negligent supervision or negligent hiring, because the court held that such claims did not qualify as an “occurrence” that is necessary to trigger coverage.   Depublication of the decision means that the decision cannot be cited as precedent in California courts, and therefore California trial courts are not required to follow it.

Read Depublication Request: L.A. Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co.; 186 Cal. App. 4th 767, No. B213948 (Second District iv. One); Order published: July 13, 2010

On September 9, 2010, U.S. District Judge Steven V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to remand filed by Jeffrey I. Ehrlich for Shernoff, Bidart & Echeverria, LLP.  The insurer, Northwestern Mutual, had removed the case to federal court arguing that the insurance agent named in the lawsuit as a co-defendant was a “sham defendant” whose citizenship could be ignored.  Ehrlich filed a motion arguing that California law allowed actions against insurance agents in situations like those presented in the lawsuit, and therefore Northwestern Mutual’s removal was improper.  The court agreed, and remanded the case to state court.

Order Granting Remand (.pdf)