Abbott v. Taz Express
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSBY, J.
This appeal is brought by a personal injury plaintiff who contends a jury award for economic damages ($17,300) is inadequate as a matter of law because her vocational rehabilitation expert testified it would cost more than $115,000 to retrain her for less strenuous employment. In a takeoff on “baseball arbitration,” plaintiff claims the jury was obliged to either accept or reject this expert testimony on a take-it-or-leave-it basis because there was no competing expert to offer different numbers.
Plaintiff suggests the following rule of law: “[Wjhen an expert witness testifies…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
- Randles v. LowryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Burke v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Conservatorship of McKeownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- San Diego County Department of Social Services v. McKeownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Choate v. County of OrangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Orozco v. WPV San Jose, LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2019
- Orozco v. WPV San Jose, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019