Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 10, 2009No. E044098Published

1Dissent

I respectfully dissent. In my opinion (1) Ralphs Grocery Company (Ralphs), through its truckdriver, Hen Horn, owed a duty to Adelelmo Cabral (Decedent); (2) substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that Horn's actions were the proximate cause of the accident; and (3) the trial court properly admitted Robert Anderson's expert testimony. I would affirm the judgment.

A. Duty of Care

Ralphs contends the trial court erred by denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Horn owned no duty of care to Decedent. I disagree.

In determining whether to grant a motion for…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Richards v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Lipson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
  4. PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. ZuckermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API