Russell

Russell v. Dopp

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 645·36 Cal. App. 4th 765·42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 768·95 Daily Journal DAR 9231·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5441
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 12, 1995E011775California7,024 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hollenhorst, J.

A judgment was entered against defendants Gussman, Dopp and Stillwater Institute after a jury trial despite the trial court’s discovery that defendants’ attorney was not authorized to practice law. The trial court refused to grant a mistrial and denied a motion for new trial on grounds that the defendants knew or should have known their attorney was not an attorney. Defendant Dopp appeals, arguing that the trial court erred procedurally and that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding as to her. We agree and reverse.

The Underlying Action

Plaintiff Randi Sue Russell sued Robert Gussman, Nancy Dopp and Stillwater Institute, doing business as Green Pastures, alleging that Mr. Gussman molested her daughter. Mr. Gussman was a former patient and employee of Green Pastures, and Mrs. Dopp was the administrator of the facility. Green Pastures is a care facility for developmentally disabled adults in Cherry Valley, California.

At trial, plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings that (1) Mr. Gussman committed a battery on the minor; (2) Mrs. Dopp and Stillwater were negligent; and (3) their negligence was a legal cause of…

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.