Allen

Allen v. Sully-Miller Contracting Co.

Good Law
80 Cal. App. 4th 245·95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 142
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 12, 2000B127946California6,019 words

Opinion

Opinion

This case presents the question whether an uninsured motorist is barred by Civil Code section 3333.4 from claiming pain and suffering damages in an action for premises liability against a private construction company. In Hodges v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 109 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 884 , 980 P.2d 433 our Supreme Court held the statutory provision did not apply in a products liability action against a car manufacturer to bar an uninsured motorist from claiming pain and suffering damages. We find the Hodges court's analysis of the application and scope of the statute applicable to the factual situation in the case at bar. Accordingly, we hold the trial court erred in ruling the injured uninsured motorist was barred from presenting evidence of general damages and reverse the judgment.

In 1996 the City of Los Angeles awarded a contract to defendant and respondent Sully-Miller Contracting Company (Sully-Miller) to perform road construction on Bundy Drive. Construction under the contract included widening the street and installing storm drains, a sewer system, traffic signals and street lights. Sully-Miller entered into a subcontract with Daniel Lopez Concrete…

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.