Kirby

Kirby v. Southern California Edison Co.

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 146·2000 Daily Journal DAR 2233·78 Cal. App. 4th 840·93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 223·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1632
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 29, 2000E023834California1,880 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKINSTER, J.

A plaintiff in a wrongful death action appeals from an order dismissing her action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Finding that the summary procedures of section 664.6 are inapplicable in these circumstances, we reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

In May of 1997, Patricia Kirby filed a complaint against Southern California Edison Company, alleging that as the result of Edison’s negligent design, maintenance or operation of a power line, her son, Carl Lee Jones, was electrocuted. She prayed for general and special damages, including medical and burial expenses.

Edison generally denied the allegations of Kirby’s complaint. It also alleged as an affirmative defense that Kirby had entered into a binding settlement of her claim prior to filing suit.

In August of 1998, Edison moved pursuant to section 664.6 for an order enforcing its alleged settlement agreement with Kirby. Edison’s motion was supported by a declaration from an Edison claim representative, stating that Kirby’s son had been electrocuted by a downed high-voltage wire during a windstorm on the evening of December 14, 1996, and that in exchange for a $2,500 check Kirby had executed a…

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.