Byrum

Byrum v. Brand

Good Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 377·219 Cal. App. 3d 926·268 Cal. Rptr. 609
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 20, 1990D008825California8,470 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

Plaintiffs George L. Byrum and J. Virginia Byrum (collectively, Byrum) appeal a judgment entered on a defense verdict in favor of Richard Garth Brand after jury trial was held in Byrum’s action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Byrum raises claims of instructional error concerning (1) the nature of the representations or omissions which are properly actionable under a theory of negligent misrepresentation, (2) the duties and burden of proof applicable to an “investment adviser” within the meaning of certain provisions of the Corporations Code and the Civil Code, and (3) the effect of a judicial admission contained in Brand’s answer. Further, Byrum contends he was prejudiced by the use of a special verdict form for the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action which he claims was contrary to that approved by stipulation of the parties and was in any case contrary to law, and moreover that certain special verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent, improper, and contrary to the evidence.

We do not find the claims of instructional and other error to be well taken, with the exception that we conclude the special verdict form used for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.