Savnik

Savnik v. Hall

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 796·74 Cal. App. 4th 733·88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 417·99 Daily Journal DAR 9115·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7100
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 30, 1999C030006California3,580 words

Opinion

Opinion

Callahan, J.

Defendant Opal Hall appeals from an order denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs Sinisna Savnik and Michele Conant in their action for personal injuries as a result of an automobile accident.

Two questions are raised by this appeal: (1) was it error for the trial court to refuse to strike the noneconomic portion of plaintiff Savnik’s damages by retroactively applying Proposition 213 (Civ. Code, § 3333.4) to the case at bar?; and (2) did Conant’s status on the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records as a registered owner of the vehicle conclusively establish her as an “owner” within the meaning of Proposition 213, thereby precluding submission of the ownership issue to the jury as a disputed issue of fact?

We conclude Savnik was barred from recovering his noneconomic damages by Proposition 213. On the other hand, Conant was properly awarded her noneconomic damages based on the jury’s finding she was not the “owner” of the vehicle involved in the accident. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Background

Plaintiffs Savnik and Conant filed a complaint for personal injury, alleging that on…

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.