California Trial Lawyers Journal, Volume 19California Trial Lawyers Association., 1981 - Law |
From inside the book
Results 1-3 of 19
Page 66
... responsible for evaluating and improving the quality of care in the hospital are immune from discovery . Schultz v . Superior Court , 66 Cal . App . 3d 440 , 136 Cal . Rptr . 67 , ( 1977 ) ; Matchett v . Superior Court , 40 Cal . App ...
... responsible for evaluating and improving the quality of care in the hospital are immune from discovery . Schultz v . Superior Court , 66 Cal . App . 3d 440 , 136 Cal . Rptr . 67 , ( 1977 ) ; Matchett v . Superior Court , 40 Cal . App ...
Page 110
... its work on a particular improvement , then no indemnity action will lie against any builder or developer or subcontractor although that party may be responsible for their obligations . In turn , Liptak must be interpreted to 110.
... its work on a particular improvement , then no indemnity action will lie against any builder or developer or subcontractor although that party may be responsible for their obligations . In turn , Liptak must be interpreted to 110.
Page 54
... responsible to pay compensation benefits and that meets that obligation . Nothing in the statute or in its underlying purposes requires extending the exemption to a person who is only secondarily liable to pay benefits and who is not ...
... responsible to pay compensation benefits and that meets that obligation . Nothing in the statute or in its underlying purposes requires extending the exemption to a person who is only secondarily liable to pay benefits and who is not ...
Contents
Arne Werchick Esq San Francisco | 9 |
Is the Danger Excessive | 33 |
The Trial of a Medical Malpractice Case | 63 |
5 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
accident attorney award Barker barred benefit plan breast cancer Cal.Rptr California Supreme Court cause Civil Procedure claims Code of Civil compensation consumer cost counsel CTLA curling iron defendant defendant's deposition design defect determine developer doctor employee ERISA established evaluation Evidence Code expert witness filed foreseeable future damages Hahn hazards hospital hypothetical question indemnity action independent contractor injured worker instructions involved issue judgment jurors jury Labor Code Section legislative Liptak litigation lump manufacturer medical expert medical malpractice medical records motion negligence opinion pain party patient periodic payments physician plaintiff premises presented prior Products Liability reasonable res ipsa result risk Rptr rule safety engineering San Francisco special employer special employment standard statute of limitations statute of repose strict liability subcontractor substantially completed Superior Court supra testify testimony tion tort trial court Trial Lawyers trier of fact utilized verdict victim voir dire Warning