Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:

• The defendant's conduct was outrageous
• Defendant had the intention to cause harm or acted with reckless disregard of the likelihood of causing distress to the plaintiff
• Plaintiff suffered severe emotional as a result of the defendant's conduct.

Outrageous Conduct

Severe Emotional Distress

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

• Defendant acted negligently
• As a result of defendant's negligent conduct, the plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress

Claims of Negligence

• Defendant owed a duty of care to the victim
• Defendant breached the duty in some way
• The victim suffered harm as a result of the defendant's conduct

Emotional Distress Suffered by a Bystander

• Defendant negligently caused a death or injury to a victim
• Bystander was present when the accident took place
• Bystander was aware that the accident was causing an injury or death to the victim
• Bystander suffered serious emotional distress when witnessing the victim's injury or death

• Car accidents
• Pedestrian accidents
• Workplace accidents
• Motorcycle accidents
• Injuries caused by defective products

Conversion is an intentional interference with the property of another person with the intention to deprive the owner of the property. This includes situations when someone uses the property of another and damages or destroys it.

During an act of conversion, taking the property may be lawful, while keeping the property and/or returning the property in a damaged state would be considered unlawful.

Elements of Conversion

According to CACI 2100 the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim.

• Plaintiff owned, possessed or had a right to possess a personal property
• Defendant wrongfully took the property or interfered with the plaintiff's ability to use it;
• The defendant acted without the plaintiff's consent
• Plaintiff suffered damages
• Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff

The plaintiff generally must establish an actual interference with his ownership or right to possess property to prove the conversion. In addition to actual interference the plaintiff must also show that the interference was substantial, which can be proved by showing an intention or purpose to keep the owner from taking possession of the property or to convert the goods and to exercise ownership over them.

The Difference Between a Cause of Action for Conversion and for Trespass

The difference between a cause of action for conversion and for trespass against personal property turns on the degree of the defendant's interference with the plaintiff's rights in the property.

In the case of conversion, it is essential to prove that the defendant actually and substantially has exercised control over the plaintiff's personal property, interfered with the plaintiff's rights in the property. In contrast, any illegal interference or exercise of control over the personal property of another person can give rise to a cause of action for trespass.

After a property has been converted, the injured party can choose to either sue the defendant for the tort, or waive the tort and sue in "assumpsit" either for money had and received or the value of the property converted.

The Broad Meaning of Conversion

Conversion does not necessarily simply mean theft of the property, it is more related to actual interference with the victim's possession or ownership rights rather than just theft.

Examples of conduct which can be included in the claim:

• Destroying another person's personal property
• Failure to deliver funds or property
• Refusing to record the proper ownership after a sale
• Changing property in such a way that it can't be used properly or used at all

Some Types of Personal Property Which Can Be Converted

• Motor vehicles
• Jewelry
• Financial instruments
• Cash money
• Electronics
• Building supplies

Damages the Plaintiff Can Recover After a Successful Lawsuit

• Value of the property at the time of the conversion, with interest from that time.

Evidence of the cost of the property, along with other circumstances such as the condition of the property ant the extent of its use can be considered essential in determining the value of the property at the time of the conversion.

• An amount sufficient to indemnify the victim for the reasonable, natural, and proximate results of the illegal act complained of and which a proper degree of prudence on the plaintiff's part wouldn't be averted.
• Fair compensation for money and time spent in pursuit of the property.

According to California Government Code Section 830(a) a dangerous condition of property is a condition which creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a way in which it is foreseeable that it will be used.

In California, property managers and owners are obliged to establish engineering standards when designing buildings and roadways and buildings. They should also conduct regular inspections for assuring that the property is not dangerous and maintain the property in a safe and secure manner. When the manager or owner fails to fulfill his legal obligations and someone is injured, he is responsible for the caused injuries and financial damages.

Elements the Plaintiff Must Establish to Prove the Dangerous Condition of Property

According to CACI Instructions 1100 and California Government Code Section 835 the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim.

• Defendant owned or controlled the property
• The property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident
• The dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that took place
• A public employee within the scope of his employment wrongfully or negligently or wrongly committed an act or omission that created a dangerous condition
• Defendant had notice of the dangerous condition in sufficient time before the injury to have protected against it
• Plaintiff was harmed as a result of the dangerous condition of the property

Examples of Dangerous Conditions of Public Property

• Lack of street warnings or signs to reduce speed
• Extreme drop at the edge of a highway
• Stop sign hidden by tree branches
• Poorly maintained road that has crumbled away
• Broken traffic signal at an intersection
• Failure to erect a median barrier on a freeway

Determining Property Ownership

In some cases, it is easy to determine who is the owner of the property. For example, if a person is injured in a dangerous curve in a roadway it is easy to know that it involves a public entity. The victim must determine whether the roadway is the responsibility of the Country, the State or the City.

Other cases can involve a piece of business or a land that seems to be private, but is actually operated by a government entity. Sometimes there are no signs letting us know who is the owner of the property. In response to a letter to the entity requesting ownership information a public entity typically confirms the ownership or directs to the potential owner.

The Process of Suing a Government Entity

• A claim against the proper government entity must be filed against within six months of the accident
• The government entity must respond to the claim in 45 days. In case the responsible entity denies the claim, a lawsuit must be filed within six months of the written denial of the claim.

It is important to know that government entities have a multitude of defenses and immunities for fighting the claims.

According to CACI 3113 recklessness is something more than just the failure to use reasonable care. Recklessness is more than simple negligence, as it involves more than inadvertence, unskillfulness, incompetence, or a failure to take precautions. Recklessness is defined as a conscious choice of a course of action with knowledge of the high danger to other people involved in it. (Delaney v. Baker 1999)

Elements of Reckless Conduct

To establish the claim the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements:

• Defendant had intention to commit to a conduct knowing that it can create a potentially high risk of injury or harm
• Defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk
• The risk, created by the defendant's conduct was significantly greater than ordinary negligence
• Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that another person was present and expose to a high risk of injury or harm

Thus, to be found liable for reckless conduct the defendant must have knowledge of a high degree of probability that dangerous consequences will result from his actions. Moreover, the defendant should act with deliberate or conscious disregard of those probable consequences.

Difference Between Acting Recklessly and Acting Negligently

Acting Recklessly

A person who is acting recklessly does so with the knowledge that his actions involve a risk of causing harm to another people. Thus, a person is conscious of what his conduct, knows that his conduct can cause a harm or injury, but he still engages in the act.

Acting Negligently

A person who is acting negligently can be unaware that his conduct involves a risk of causing harm, even if he should have known about that. In California law, a person is acting negligently in case he is acting in a way that a reasonably careful person would not act in the same situation, or fails to act in a way that a reasonably careful person would act in the similar situation.

Examples of Reckless Conduct

Here are some examples of recklessness:

• Evading a police car
• Allowing a minor to handle a gun
• Driving a vehicle at a high rate of speed
• Purposely failing to yield to other vehicles
• Intentionally running red traffic signal or a stop sign
• Driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08%
• Driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• Texting while driving a car

Damages That the Plaintiff Can Recover

In case the defendant is found guilty in performing reckless conduct and causing harm or injuries to the plaintiff, then the trier-of-fact may award damages to the plaintiff. Damages must be rationale and be causally related to the accident.

Damages Can Include:

• Past and future medical expenses
• Pain and suffering
• Emotional trauma
• Past and future income loss
• Loss of earning capacity
• Permanent disability or permanent disfigurement
• Diminished quality of life

The plaintiff may also be entitled to punitive or exemplary damages, in case he proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was acting with malice.

No Automatic Liability

Under the theory of Respondent Superior there is no vicarious liability for the actions of a subordinate just because a person is a supervisor. Just knowledge about a violation is not enough to impose supervisory liability, thus for pursuing a supervisory liability claim, a plaintiff must be able to show the following:

• Supervisors' involvement in the wrongful conduct
• Actual knowledge, a personal direction, or knowing acquiescence in the violation
• Contemporary knowledge of the violation and proof of a pattern of approval, through knowing inaction or consent

Elements the Plaintiff Must Establish

According to CACI 3005 in case the plaintiff claims that the defendant is personally liable for his harm he must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim:

• Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of his employee's wrongful conduct
• Defendant knew that the wrongful conduct created a substantial risk of harm to the plaintiff
• Defendant disregarded that risk by expressly approving, impliedly approving or failing to take adequate action to prevent his employee's wrongful conduct
• Plaintiff was harmed
• Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff.

Deliberate Indifference

When the supervisor is found responsible for causing harm to the plaintiff based on deliberate indifference, then he is being held liable for his own wrongful action or inaction, but not held vicariously liable for the wrongful actions or inactions of his subordinates

Agency Immunity Rule

According to California Civil Code Section, 2351a sub-agent, legally appointed, represents the principal in like manner with the original agent; and the original agent cannot be liable to third persons for the acts of the sub-agent. Thus, the general rule is that an agent is not responsible for the unlawful act of an employee when the agent is acting on behalf or in an official capacity of the principal. This is called "agency immunity rule." There are substantive exceptions to hold supervisory authority liable for the actions of their employees.

• Negligent hiring or appointment

A supervisor can be held liable for the actions of the employee if he is guilty of negligence in the appointment of such sub-agent. The negligence can include a decision to hire an employee despite knowledge of wrongful conduct of the employee.

• Cooperate or authorize the unlawful conduct

According to California Civil Code Section 2343, a supervisor can be responsible for the torts of an employee within the scope of authority, rather than in an individual capacity. In case the supervisor authorizes or directs an unlawful act of the subagent, or improperly cooperates in the subagent's acts, then he can be held liable for his illegal conduct.

• Expansive Authority

A supervisor with expansive authority over the hiring, management or firing his employee can be liable for the illegal conduct of the employee, in case he had prior knowledge of the tendencies of its employees to commit such conduct.

California Wrongful Termination Claims

California "At-Will" Employees

Employment Contact

• Employee intentionally breached his employment duties
• Employee is habitually negligently performing his duties
• Employee is incapable to perform his duties for some reason.

Exceptions to At-Will Employment in California

• Breaches of existing employment contract
• Retaliatory discharge
• Sexual harassment
• Fraud or misrepresentation
• Firing after inducement
• Implied contracts

Employer Can't Fire an Employee for Unlawful Reasons

• Employee's mental or physical disability
• Employee's religion or religious practices
• Employee's race
• Employee's pregnancy
• Employee's gender
• Employee's age
• Employee's sexual orientation or gender identity
• Employee's political affiliation
• Employee's national origin

Steps the Former Employee Must Undertake in Case of the Wrongful Termination

• Document everything
• Review the employment contract
• Contact a lawyer
• File a claim or lawsuit

Damages the Employee Can Recover

• Economic damages, such as loss of past and future wages and benefits.
• Emotional damages
• Punitive damages in case the employer's conduct was particularly malicious or reprehensible
• Reinstatement

Wrongful Termination in California Video

Will Uber/Lyft Drivers Be Able to Set Their Own Scheduling?

Elements of Battery

• The defendant touched the plaintiff or cause the plaintiff to be touched with the intent to harm or offend him
• The plaintiff did not consent to the touching
• The plaintiff was harmed or offended by the defendant's conduct
• A reasonable person in plaintiff's situation would have been offended by the touching.

Civil Liability

Damages for Injuries and Harm

• Economic damages: The victim can recover all reasonably associated out-of-pocket losses, such as loss of income, medical bills, and personal property damage.
• Non-Economic damages: These damages include recovery for the pain and mental suffering that is associated with the injuries caused to the victim.
• Punitive damages: In contrast with negligence cases, offenses with intentional acts causing harm to trigger the right to recover punitive damages from the attacker. Punitive damages have the aim to punish the violent attacker.
• Wrongful death action: The victim's successors can bring a wrongful death action against the violent offender in case the victim has died as a result of damages, caused during the battery.

Public Policy of Comparative Fault

The Amount of Plaintiff Negligence

• Plaintiff was negligent
• Plaintiff's negligence was a substantial factor in causing his harm

The Way Comparative Fault Works

Joint and Several Liability

Contributory Negligence and Comparative Fault

Examples of Personal Injury Claims Involving Comparative Fault

• Slip and fall accidents
• Premises liability
• Medical malpractice
• Product liability
• Car accidents
• Bicycle accidents

According to Code of Civil Procedure of California (hereinafter: CCP) Section 191 of Title 3 "Persons specially invested with powers of a Judicial Nature" of Chapter 1 "Trial Jury Selection and Management Act":

The Legislature agrees that jury trial is a respected constitutional right and that jury service is a citizenship responsibility.

It is the State of California's policy that all persons selected for jury service are randomly selected from the population of the area served by the court; that all qualified persons get an equal opportunity, in compliance with this chapter, to be known for jury service in the state as well as an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose; and that it is the responsibility of the State of California.

The Types of Jury

There are three types of Juries:

• Grand juries established in accordance with Part 2 of the Penal Code, Title 4 (starting with Section 888 of CCP).
• The jury of the trial.
• Juries of inquest. ("Review" juries)

Section 195 of CCP

• In each county, one commissioner shall be appointed by a majority of the judges of the superior court and shall serve at the pleasure of the county. In either county where a superior court administrator or executive officer is present, that person shall serve as the commissioner of the ex officio jury. In any court jurisdiction where, on the effective date of this section, any person other than a court administrator or clerk / administrator serves as a jury commissioner, that person shall continue to serve as such at the pleasure of the appointing court's majority of judges.
• Any commissioner of the jury may appoint deputy commissioners of the jury whenever the business of the court so requires.
• In accordance with the purpose and scope of the Law, the jury commissioner shall be primarily responsible for managing the jury system under the general supervision of the court. He or she will have the authority to establish the necessary policies and procedures to fulfill this responsibility.

Who Is Not Allowed to Serve on the Jury?

According to the law, all individuals are eligible and qualified as prospective jurors of the court, with the exception of:

• Persons who are not U.S. citizens.
• People under the age of 18.
• Individuals who are not citizens of the State of California as defined in compliance with Article 2 of Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Election Code (starting with Section 2020).
• Individuals who are not jurisdictional citizens in which they are called to serve.
• People accused of malfeasance in the workplace or a criminal offense and whose civil rights have not been recovered.
• Individuals who do not have sufficient knowledge of the English language given that no person is considered to be incompetent solely because of the loss of sight or hearing in any degree or other impairment that impedes the ability of the person to interact or impedes or interferes with the mobility of the individual.
• Individuals who serve in any court of this state as grand or trial jurors.
• Individuals subject to conservation.

No person shall be excluded from eligibility for jury service in the State of California for any other reason than the reasons set out in Section 203 CCP.