California Legal Brief

The Rule of Pagan v. City of San Rafael is that a public entity is entitled to summary judgment on dangerous condition claims when the alleged dangers are open and obvious to users exercising due care, under circumstances where the plaintiff cannot establish liability through expert testimony that relies on unpleaded theories of liability, inadmissible hearsay, speculation without foundation, and legal conclusions about regulatory compliance.

The Rule of People v. Nelson is that a trial court may properly deny mental health diversion when it finds as trier of fact that the defendant's mental health disorders were not a significant factor in the commission of the charged offenses, under circumstances where the court expressly rejects expert testimony linking mental illness to criminal conduct and finds the defendant poses a public safety risk based on extensive criminal history.

The Rule of Fisher v. Fisher is that intentional infliction of emotional distress can be the legal cause of a wrongful death when the tortious conduct is a substantial factor in causing severe emotional distress that leads to the victim's death, under the broader scope of liability standard applicable to intentional torts rather than the narrower "scope of risk" standard used for negligence.

The Rule of Joel Praneet Siam is that when determining whether a defendant's symptoms would respond to treatment under Penal Code section 1001.36(c)(1), a trial court may not override a qualified mental health expert's opinion with its own lay opinion about treatment responsiveness, under circumstances where a licensed psychologist provides an uncontroverted expert opinion that the defendant's mental disorder symptoms would respond to treatment.

The Rule of People v. Gutierrez is that a Governor's state of emergency proclamation is subject to independent legal interpretation by courts, not jury determination, and when a proclamation limits emergency zones to specific "high hazard areas" to be identified by state agencies rather than declaring a statewide emergency, the prosecution must prove the crime occurred within those specifically identified areas, under circumstances where the proclamation's plain language directs agencies to identify particular zones rather than declaring the emergency exists throughout the entire state.

The Rule of Chapman v. Avon Products is that expert testimony about asbestos testing methodology is admissible when the witness demonstrates sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, or training to interpret test results relevant to their field of expertise, under circumstances where the expert relies on established scientific principles even if using older or modified techniques.

The Rule of Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan is that a contractual exclusion limiting evidence use only applies to valuations "under" the specific regulatory provision cited, and does not preclude use of the same evidence in quantum meruit valuations which are separate and distinct from regulatory determinations, under circumstances where the exclusion clause specifically references only determinations made pursuant to a particular regulation subsection.