Appellants, a bus company and its operator

Appellants, a bus company and its operator (company and operator), challenged the order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which awarded damages to respondents, a widow and her children (widow), in a wrongful death action that was filed following a collision between a vehicle driven by the widow's husband and a bus driven by the operator.

The widow filed a wrongful death action claim against the company and operator after a vehicle driven by the widow's husband collided with a bus driven by the operator. A jury awarded damages to the widow. The business law attorney company and operator alleged that the superior court erred in admitting opinion evidence as to the point of impact; that it erred in failing to instruct the jury that the company and operator's compromise of certain claims was not an admission of liability; and that it erred in refusing to admit into evidence a claimed admission made by the widow's counsel in an affidavit. The california employment law attorney will assist you in all Employment law cases and issues.

The court affirmed, holding that the admission of a traffic officer's testimony as to the point of impact, whether rightfully or wrongfully admitted, played a minor part in the ultimate determination of the case. The court also held that any prejudice that resulted from a line of questions concerning the company's settlement of claims with bus passengers was cured. Also, there was no error in the superior court's refusal to admit testimony contained in an affidavit as an admission by the company and operator's counsel because the testimony was merely an incidental statement and not an admission.

The court affirmed the superior court's order which awarded damages to the widow, in a wrongful death action against the company and its operator, because the admission of opinion testimony did not prejudice them, and any prejudice that resulted from evidence of the company and operator's settlement of claims with bus passengers was cured.

Plaintiff licensor sought review of an order from the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (California), which, after ruling in favor of defendant licensees in an action alleging misappropriation of trademarks and patents, found that the allegations of misappropriation were brought in bad faith and awarded attorney fees to the licensees under Civ. Code, § 3426.4.

The licensor sought to terminate a licensing agreement, claiming a material breach by the licensees. Shortly thereafter, the licensees gave another corporation a security interest in assets that included the licensed technology and filed bankruptcy, resulting in the foreclosure of the security interest. The licensor alleged that its technology was fraudulently transferred to the other corporation. The court held that attorney fees could not be awarded under Civ. Code, § 3426.4, because the licensor's complaint did not state a claim for misappropriation, as defined in Civ. Code, § 3426.1, subd. (b), of a trade secret. An award of attorney fees was not authorized under Civ. Code, § 3426.4, when a claim of misappropriation of a patent or a trademark was made in bad faith. Although the licensor's prayer for relief sought damages for misappropriation of trade secrets, the factual allegations of the complaint were controlling over the prayer for relief. The licensees were not entitled to attorney fees under the terms of the licensing agreement or other contracts. The reciprocity provisions of Civ. Code, § 1717, did not apply because the licensees were not parties to the other contracts.The court reversed the attorney fee order.