Hilliard

Hilliard v. A. H. Robins Co.

Bad Law
148 Cal. App. 3d 374·196 Cal. Rptr. 117·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2312
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 27, 1983Civ. 62162California15,313 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fainer, J.

1. Introduction

Plaintiff Hilliard appeals from the judgment rendered after the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of defendant Robins on the bifurcated issue of punitive damages. Plaintiff also contends that the trial court erred in granting nonsuits as to her fraud claims and in excluding certain evidence. Defendant Robins cross-appeals from the judgment on special verdict for $600,000 general damages in favor of plaintiff and against Robins only, asserting that the case was not brought to trial within the five-year mandatory time limit of Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b), that the amount of general or compensatory damages was excessive, that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment for compensatory damages, and that the trial court committed reversible errors in instructing the jury, in failing to grant a mistrial because of prejudicial misconduct by plaintiff’s lawyer and/or because the jury was subjected to prejudicial media publicity, and, finally in receiving inadmissible prejudicial evidence over Robins’ objections.

Defendant Robins has included in its grounds for appeal, the denial of its motion for new trial. An…

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.