Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

June 1, 2006 Issue  By: Ray Coates

 

Damages- Application of Proposition 51 to Intentional Torts

 

Thomas v. Duggins Construction Co.

(May 25, 2006)

 

Court of Appeal, Fourth District

 

In 1986, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 51 (codified under Cal. Civil Code sections 1431 to 1431.5). The purpose of the measure was to balance the interests of injured parties who sustained serious damages caused by several tortfeasors, one or more of which could be insolvent, against the interests of minimally culpable, “deep pocket” defendants being held liable for the entirety of plaintiff’s damages.

 

Under Prop. 51, in any action for personal injury, property damage or wrongful death, the liability for non-economic damages shall be several only, and not joint. Each defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to that defendant’s percentage of fault. The issue presented in this case is whether an intentional tortfeasor is entitled to an apportionment of non-economic damages under Prop. 51.

 

Plaintiffs Thomas and Taylor were employees of an electrical contractor, Bentley. Bentley purchased a used scissor lift from Defendant Duggins. Duggins employees Roben, Dhalliwal and Calhoun were involved in the sale of the scissor lift. Two days after purchase, Plaintiffs were seriously injured when the platform of the lift failed, causing the lift to tip over.

 

Plaintiffs filed suit against Duggins for products liability and negligence. Thereafter, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to name Roben, Dhalliwal and Calhoun as Defendants and to add causes of action for fraud, deceit, and willful misconduct. At trial, a jury returned a special verdict in favor of Plaintiffs. The jury specifically found that the lift was defective; that Roben and Dhalliwal were acting in the course and scope of their duties for Duggins when the sold the lift to Bentley; and that Dhalliwal intentionally made false representations or failed to disclose important facts about the lift to Bentley.

 

The jury allocated fault for Plaintiffs’ injuries as follows: 40 percent each to Duggins and Bentley and 10 percent each to Roben and Dhalliwal. Post-trial, the court ruled that Prop. 51 was inapplicable to the Plaintiffs’ fraud cause of action. After the court entered judgment, Duggins moved unsuccessfully for a new trial. Duggins then appealed. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed.

 

Prior to adoption of Prop. 51, California law was well established that a tortfeasor who intentionally injured another was not entitled to contribution from any other tortfeasors. The question for the Court of Appeal was whether the passage of Prop 51 changed the existing law regarding an intentional tortfeasor’s potential liability for the entirety of plaintiff’s damages. The Court held that the same policy considerations apply today. An intentional actor should not be able to rely on someone else’s negligence to shift responsibility for his or her own conduct.

 

In this case, the jury found that Duggins’ employee Dhalliwal committed an intentional tort. Because Dhalliwal was acting in the course and scope of his duties for Duggins, Duggins was vicariously liable for the intentional misconduct. As such, Duggins vicarious liability was not subject to reduction under Prop. 51. Thus, Duggins was potentially responsible for the entirety of Plaintiffs’ non-economic damages. The judgment was therefore affirmed.

 

COMMENT

 

This case holds that Proposition 51 does not apply in favor of an intentional tortfeasor. Therefore, an intentional tortfeasor may be held entirely responsible for a plaintiff’s non-economic damages.

____

To order a printed version of this analysis, or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission. Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.