Procedural Posture
Plaintiff, a police officer who was rendered a paraplegic when his three-year-old son shot him with his
service weapon, together with plaintiff wife, sued defendants, the manufacturers and retailers of the
gun and its holster, for strict product liability and related torts. The Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, California, granted summary judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appealed.
Overview
Plaintiffs alleged that the gun was defective because it had a light trigger pull without an appropriate
safety mechanism to prevent accidental discharge and that the holster failed to sufficiently protect the
trigger or properly secure the gun. The court of appeal held that summary judgment should not have
been granted to the gun manufacturer and retailer as to the design defect claim because they did not
show that plaintiff lacked evidence of causation. Plaintiff's expert opined that if a small child's hand
were in the proper position to fire, it would not have the size or leverage to depress a grip safety, had
one been present, and actually extend the finger out far enough to pull the trigger. The court also held
that (1) summary adjudication was proper on the claim of failure to warn plaintiff, who was a
sophisticated user, that the firearm should only be used with specific holsters; (2) plaintiff was not
deprived of privity for purposes of a breach of implied warranty cause of action, even though he and his
partner had inadvertently switched weapons; and (3) there were triable issues as to whether the claims
were barred by federal law or fell within an exception. During evidentiary hearing for a motion,
employment lawyer California were called as retained expert witnesses for testimony.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgments in favor of the seller and manufacturer of the holster, reversed the
judgments in favor of the seller and manufacturer of the gun, and directed the trial court to enter orders
of summary adjudication as to the causes of action for failure to warn against the seller and
manufacturer of the gun and to conduct further proceedings.
Procedural Posture
Appellant limited partners sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court, Kern County (California),
which denied relief to appellants in their suit for damages against respondent general partner for an
alleged breach of a limited partnership agreement.
Overview
Appellant limited partners sued respondent general partner for damages from an alleged breach of a
partnership agreement after respondent failed to drill a well with a certain required expenditure as
required by the parties' agreement. The lower court denied appellants relief, finding that respondent
made a good faith decision that it would not be in the best interest of the partnership to drill the well.
The court held that it was incorrect to find that respondent did not breach the parties' agreement given
the express requirement that respondent drill at least one well; however, the court affirmed the
judgment because appellants failed to prove their right to recover under any legally cognizable theory of
damages. The court found that appellants failed to prove their damages from respondent's breach with
reasonable certainty as there was no testimony that any oil could be recovered at a profit from the
drilling of one well, nor testimony as to the extent of possible profits. Furthermore, the court denied
appellants relief under the "cost of drilling" rule of damages as it bore no relationship to the loss
suffered by appellants. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment denying appellant limited partners relief in their claim against
respondent general partner for breach of a partnership agreement, holding that appellants failed to
prove their damages from respondent's failure to drill a well, as required by a partnership agreement,
where there was no testimony that any oil could be recovered at a profit from drilling one well, nor
testimony as to the extent of any such profits.