Appellate
Most personal injury firms do not have appellate lawyers. When their clients face an appeal (or a writ), they call an appellate lawyer. They pass this cost on to the client and rely on outside counsel for expertise. Not us.
Our firm has handled more significant appeals than any personal injury firm in the State. Partner Roland Wrinkle is one of the most respected plaintiff-side appellate lawyers in California. He has represented clients on appeal for decades. Mr. Wrinkle has worked on hundreds of appeals and writs, and appeared dozens of times for argument in both the Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court. He was awarded the prestigious Appellate Lawyer of the Year award by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. He routinely advises other personal injury and consumer attorneys on difficult and complex appellate issues. In the personal injury world, there simply is no law firm that can match our record of appellate experience and success.
The firm has been counsel of record on some of the most important consumer cases in State history. The following is a sample of some these important appellate cases:
- Wilson v. Southern California Edison Company (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123 – Court of Appeal rules that a homeowner’s nuisance claim against a public utility company is not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission, clearing the way for civil tort damages against utility companies.
- Diaz v. Sugar Transport Company (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148 – Supreme Court rules that admission of vicarious liability subsumes negligent hiring claim;
- City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (Janeway) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747 – Supreme Court holds that exculpatory releases are invalid as to gross negligence claims;
- John B. v. Superior Court (Bridget B.) (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177 – Supreme Court establishes the standard for negligent infliction of a sexually transmitted disease which allows a wife to sue her husband for infecting her with HIV;
- Jazmin v. El Centro Foods, Inc. (2003) 2d Civil No. B162233 – establishing the vicarious liability of a franchisor for the negligence of its franchisee;
- Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63 – Supreme Court holds “changed conditions” exception to design immunity defense must be decided by jury on disputed facts;
- Kates v. Workmen’s Auto Insur. Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 494 – establishing notice requirements, under the Insurance Code, for a valid cancellation of an automobile liability policy for failure to pay premium;
- Inouye v. County of Los Angeles (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 278 – County vicariously liable for shooting by off-duty Safety Police Officer involved in traffic dispute;
- Fortman v. Hemco (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 241 – establishing strict products liability against “participant,” i.e., mold maker, in overall enterprise; affirmance of $26,000,000 compensatory injury award against charge of excessiveness;
- Metromedia, Inc. v. April Enterprises (1989) No. 88-625 – United States Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of punitive damages
- Droz v. Pacific National Insurance Company (1983) 138 Cal.App.3d 181 – right of employee to bring bad faith tort action against employer’s worker’s compensation insurer;
- Taylor v. Volkswagen of America (1980) 2d Civil No. C75801 – expanding the law of defective automobile design while affirming one of the ten largest jury verdicts in the country in 1979
- Curlender v. Bio-Science Laboratories (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 811 – first appellate decision in United States to recognize tort cause of action for “wrongful life”;