California Court of Appeal

In an action raising claims related to a defective healthcare machine developed by plaintiff with parts manufactured by defendants, verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed in part and reversed in part. As to co-defendant Tyco, judgment in favor of plaintiffs is reversed as to a future damages award which was unsupported and was stricken. However, the judgment is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) there was no privity between defendant-Tyco and plaintiff supporting an implied warranty cause of action and/or the court improperly instructed on the privity requirement; and 2) insufficient evidence supported the judgment on several elements of the warranty cause of action, including causation and damages. For co-defendant T&B, judgment in favor of plaintiff is reversed where: 1) plaintiff filed the action against that defendant beyond the applicable limitations period; and 2) plaintiff failed to comply with statutory notice requirements.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/15/2008
• Published 12/15/2008

Judges

• HALLER, Acting P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Rutan & Tucker, Richard K. Howell, Steven J. Goon, Costa Mesa, Treg A. Julander and Ako S. Williams, for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Peter L. Garchie, Ernest Slome, Raul L. Martinez and Jeffry A. Miller, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant Tyco Electronics Corporation., Niddrie, Fish & Buchanan and Michael H. Fish, San Diego;  Thompson & Alessio, Kris P. Thompson, Jeffrey K. Miyamoto, San Diego, and Christina G. Bernstein, for Defendant and Appellant Thomas & Betts Corporation., DLA Piper US, Michael S. Tracy, Matthew B. Dart, and Stanley J. Panikowski, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent.