Legal Opinion

Abbott v. Taz Express

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 9, 1998No. G018400PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Randles v. LowryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  3. Burke v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  4. Conservatorship of McKeownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  5. 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

  1. Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. Choate v. County of OrangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  3. Orozco v. WPV San Jose, LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  4. Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2019
  5. Orozco v. WPV San Jose, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API