O'LASKEY

O'LASKEY v. Sortino

Bad Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 1051·224 Cal. App. 3d 241·273 Cal. Rptr. 674
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 2, 1990B040928California3,762 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Plaintiff Phillip J. O’Laskey appeals from a judgment entered after defendant Mike Sortino’s motion for summary judgment was granted. O’Laskey contends the trial court erred by refusing to receive in evidence a transcript of a tape-recorded telephone conversation which, if admitted, would have created a triable issue of material fact concerning the timeliness of O’Laskey’s complaint. Alternatively, O’Laskey contends the trial court should have continued the hearing on the motion to allow him to obtain admissible evidence with which to create a triable issue. We reject both contentions and affirm the judgment.

Facts

O’Laskey was injured on February 19, 1985, when he “collided” with a cable and fell from his motorcycle. On February 27, 1986, one year and eight days after the accident, O’Laskey filed a complaint for damages for personal injuries, naming as defendants Cablevision Services, Inc., and its employee, Mike Sortino, alleging they negligently stretched the cable across the street.

Cablevision and Sortino were served with the original complaint and one or both of them demurred (the record is unclear), contending the action was barred by limitations. The demurrer…

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.