Garretson

Garretson v. Miller

Good Law
121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 317·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4309·2002 Daily Journal DAR 6981·99 Cal. App. 4th 563·67 Cal. Comp. Cases 744
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 20, 2002C034976California4,645 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

Following a jury verdict for plaintiff on her legal malpractice claim, the trial court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of defendant Harold I. Miller, a Professional Law Corporation (defendant). The court also granted defendant’s motion for new trial but denied as moot defendant’s motion to vacate, or amend, the judgment.

Plaintiff appeals both the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the order granting a new trial. Defendant appeals the order denying the motion to vacate the judgment.

We conclude, as did the trial court, plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden of proving that any judgment she might have obtained in her “case-within-a-case” would have been collectible. We, therefore, affirm the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Facts and Procedural History

Plaintiff, Monica Garretson, sustained an injury on December 23, 1991, while working for Jackson Creek Dental Group (Jackson Creek). Plaintiff had arrived at work that morning and began turning on a bank of switches that controlled the lights and equipment in the office. When she turned on a switch that controlled an air compressor, plaintiff “heard a loud bang like a shotgun going…

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.