Ron George, the California Supreme Court Chief Justice, has announced his retirement effective in 2011. While Mr. George may be remembered for administrative changes in the state courts he facilitated, or perhaps for writing the opinion that invalidated the proposition against gay marriage, victims of jet ski or golf accidents will remember him for his Implied Assumption of the Risk Doctrine. In 1992, Mr. George wrote the opinion in Knight v Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296. It was halftime of a Super Bowl Sunday party. the party-goers went into the vacant yard next door to the party to play touch football. Mr. Jewett was playing roughly and two women asked him to calm down. shortly after that, Mr. Jewett knocked Ms. Knight down and stepped on her hand, breaking her small finger. She subsequently had three surgeries and finally the finger was amputated. She sued Mr. Jewett for causing her finger amputation. Mr Jewett responded with a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Ms. Knight assumed the risk in the sporting contest.

If a sport is conducted between true sports persons, there is no need for assumption of the risk of a “cheap shot” or injury such as that suffered by Ms. Knight. Mr. George, however, writing for the majority of Supreme Court Justices, found that Ms. Knight impliedly assumed the risk that she would suffer a serious injury in the touch football game during the halftime of the Super Bowl. This theory has been taken to all sorts of lengths: skiing, snowboarding, golf, jet skiing, softball, and swimming.

The next time you decide to become involved in a recreational activity such as those described above, you should reconsider Mr. George’s Supreme Court Ruling. Indiana has decided that implied assumption of risk is not appropriate for the Hoosier lifestyle and has rejected implied assumption of risk in jet-ski situations.  Some might believe that if somebody takes a cheap shot or negligently participates in recreational activities and hurts another person, they will be liable. Not in California.

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird’s name has been thrown about lately and this has brought to mind her work that helped innocent victims of dangerous products obtain recovery. Rose Bird wrote the opinion that fleshed out the “Consumer Expectation Test” of whether a product is defective or not. Campbell v. General Motors Corp. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 112. The Consumer Expectation Test is one of the three ways in California that a person who has been hurt by a product may prove the product is defective. See Barker v Lull Engineering (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413. Rose Bird was often criticized for her stance on the death penalty, but it was her opinion giving victims of defective products another theory to seek justice under that cost her job.

Manufacturers and defendants would like to forget the Consumer Expectation Test exists. If you have been hurt by a product that has not reasonably acted as it was expected, you can thank Rose Bird for the opportunity to be compensated.

The Collateral Source Rule has been a pillar of California law since 1904; and the Supreme Court has pronounced it valid as long ago as the 1960′s. However, the automobile insurance companies have convinced trial court judges in our Superior Courts since 1988 that the Collateral Source Rule should be suspended and injured victim’s cases have routinely been reduced after a jury verdict.

The Collateral Source Rule provides that a tort-feasor who caused the injuries to another should not benefit from the insurance of the victim. So, if you have paid health insurance premiums, the defendant who caused your harms and losses does not get the benefit of your foresight, sacrifice and thrift. The automobile insurance companies estimate that they have been able to reduce cases one-half billion dollars per year by convincing the judges to reduce the injured victim’s cases in violation of the Collateral Source Rule. This means that the public policy of encouraging people to have health insurance has been thwarted by the automobile insurance companies.

There is a case presently pending before the California Supreme Court, Howell vs. Hamilton Meats, that hopefully will proclaim the validity of the Collateral Source Rule again.  A decision in Howell is expected in the Spring, 2011. In the meantime, the Law Offices of Michael W. Jansen will continue to fight the automobile insurance companies’ in their unashamed violation of the Collateral Source Rule.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!