BARBARA FORTMAN v. Förvaltningsbolaget Insulan Ab et Al., Defendants and Respondents.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeal, Second District, California.

BARBARA FORTMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Förvaltningsbolaget Insulan Ab et Al., Defendants and Respondents.

B237818

Decided: February 07, 2013

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

The opinion filed by this court on January 10, 2013, certified for publication, is hereby modified as follows:

On page 1, the caption is modified to read as follows:  Barbara Fortman, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Förvaltningsbolaget Insulan AB et al., Defendants and Respondents, as shown in the caption of this modification order.

On page 1, in listing counsel for Plaintiff and Appellant, after the name “Lars Christian,” insert “Johnson.”

On page 1, following the listing of counsel Lesser & Associates and Steven M. McGuire, delete “Defendant and Respondent” and insert “Defendants and Respondents.”

On page 3, the first sentence in the first full paragraph commencing “On the day of” is modified to read as follows:

On the day of the scuba-diving accident, Myers was wearing a Catalyst 360 dry suit, manufactured by defendant White's Manufacturing, Ltd. (White's).

On page 4, the second full paragraph is deleted and in its stead, insert the following paragraph:

The company and White's filed a joint motion for summary judgment, contending that Fortman could not establish a contemporaneous awareness of the causal connection between the injury-producing event and the resulting injury.   They maintained that while Fortman may have seen her brother suffer injuries, she could not have perceived that he was being injured by the company's product.

On page 5, the first sentence in the first full paragraph commencing “After judgment was entered,” is modified to read as follows:

After judgment was entered, Fortman filed this timely appeal.

On page 6, the third sentence in the third full paragraph commencing “The company relies” is modified to read as follows:

The respondents rely on medical malpractice cases denying bystander recovery.

These modifications do not affect the judgment.

THE COURT: