Bennett

Bennett v. Suncloud

Bad Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 529·56 Cal. App. 4th 91·65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 80·97 Daily Journal DAR 8453·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5248
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 1997B094399California2,352 words

Opinion

Opinion

Baron, J.

Appellant Michael R. Bennett appeals from the judgment entered after the demurrer of respondent Suncloud, a division of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (Suncloud), to his third amended complaint was sustained. We reverse in part and affirm in part the order sustaining the demurrer, and reverse the judgment.

Background

The Original Complaint

On January 19, 1994, appellant, an attorney acting on his own behalf, filed a complaint in the west district of the superior court against Suncloud and codefendant Sport Chalet for negligence, property damage, and fraud. The complaint alleged that appellant was injured on January 18, 1993, by a defective pair of Suncloud sunglasses purchased at Sport Chalet. The complaint further stated that defendants represented that the sunglasses were unbreakable or break resistant, safe, and otherwise suitable and specifically designed for skiing, and that in reliance on that representation, appellant purchased the product and used it while skiing.

Suncloud demurred on the grounds that the causes of action were barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in section 340, subdivision (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the complaint…

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.