Evidence — continued from Page 32
introduced irrelevant evidence that bore no relation to their claim. For example, the Campbells introduced evidence that State Farm’s policies generally corrupted
its employees and that State Farm had investigated the personal life of one of its employees. This evidence was not relevant in the Campbell case and had no nexus to
Send A Doctor To Observe Your Client’s Next DME. DME Observation Services
Medical Recorecord Review Expe
Expert Testimonystimony
Defense Doctor Reports CAALA Members receive a $100 discount.
See Our Database Of
www.imeobservers.com
vation Services 818-703-9512
the Campbells’ claim. The Court found that the Campbells used the case as a “platform to expose, and punish, the per- ceived deficiencies of State Farm’s opera- tions throughout the country” and that they introduced substantial “evidence per- taining to claims that had nothing to do with a third-party lawsuit.” The Court indicated that a “defendant’s dissimilar acts, independent from the acts upon which liability was premised,” may not serve as the basis for punitive damages. The Campbells failed to show any con- duct by State Farm that was similar to the conduct that damaged them. As a result, in reducing the punitive-damages award, the Supreme Court only considered State Farm’s conduct towards the Campbells and did not consider State Farm’s con- duct towards any other insureds. In Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., the plain-
The only mediator in Southern California with 20 years of
clinical medical experience and 20 years of
litigation experience.
University of Chicago: MD 1976 Harvard Law School: JD 1990
He Understands the Issues and the Injuries
www.ruddmediation.com lrudd@ruddmediation.com
626.795.3339 Fax: 626.795.3369 34— The Advocate Magazine JUNE 2011 Lawrence J. Rudd, M.D., J.D.
tiffs purchased a used Taurus from a Ford dealership. When asked about the previ- ous ownership, the plaintiffs were told that the Taurus had been traded in for a newer model. When asked to see the car’s repair history, they were shown a comput- er print-out that indicated that there had been no significant repairs. In reality, the Taurus had suffered from repeated and serious transmission problems and the prior owner had requested that Ford repurchase the car as a “lemon.” After the plaintiffs experienced repeated transmis- sion problems, Ford replaced the trans- mission twice and, when plaintiffs again asked to see the car’s repair history, they were finally shown the car’s complete his- tory, detailing the transmission problems experienced by the first owners. Plaintiffs sued Ford for, among other
things, intentional and negligent misrep- resentation, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violation of Business & Professions Code section 17500’s prohibition on false or misleading advertising. At trial, the plaintiffs intro- duced evidence that, in order to avoid the title branding and additional require- ments involved in reselling a “lemon” automobile under California law, Ford managers employed a narrow concept of what constituted a repair attempt for
See Evidence, Page 36
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96