MIZEL v. City of Santa Monica
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ALDRICH, J.
I. Introduction
Respondent and plaintiff Gerald Mizel (Mizel) slipped and fell on a unidirectional access ramp. He suffered severe and permanent injuries. He sued appellants and defendants the City of Santa Monica (the City) and Shutters bn the Beach (Shutters). During trial, the trial court refused to permit defendants’ undisclosed expert to testify for impeachment purposes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034, subd. (m).)
The matter proceeded, the jury deliberated, and thereafter rendered a verdict on special verdicts, that appeared to be inconsistent. The trial court explained to the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Howard Contracting, Inc. v. G.A. MacDonald Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Kennemur v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Thomas v. City of RichmondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Crowe v. SacksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1953
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2009
- Tesoro Del Valle Master Homeowners Ass'n v. GriffinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Pina v. Cnty. of L. A., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Montoya v. BarraganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Martinez v. Orozco CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.