John G. Gabbert

This case involved claims for wrongful deaths and personal injuries from a 1968 airplane crash near Las Cruces, New Mexico, allegedly caused by a defective fuel system in a Beechcraft plane manufactured by defendant Beech Aircraft Corp. The adult plaintiffs filed suit in 1972, more than three years after the accident, and the trial court sustained demurrers and dismissed their claims as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissals, holding that the discovery rule applies to toll the limitations period when the defendant has fraudulently concealed material facts about the product's defect. The core reasoning was that the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the concealed defect, and the third amended complaint adequately alleged such concealment through misrepresentations to the FAA and failure to warn users.

proceduretorts & liability

This case was an appeal in an interpleader action over ownership of $8,576.08 remaining in escrow after the sale of a restaurant-cocktail lounge and transfer of its liquor license from Kric Enterprises (seller) to King’s Row Restaurant (buyer). The trial court found the escrow had not closed under its terms, so title to the funds remained with the buyer, and after escrow fees it awarded the balance to the United States to satisfy tax claims against the buyer. The appellate court reversed, holding that Business and Professions Code sections 24070-24082 create a comprehensive regulatory scheme for liquor license transfers that requires the purchase price to be held in escrow for the seller’s creditors and establishes their payment priorities once the license transfer is approved, overriding general escrow law on when title passes. The court therefore directed the funds to the seller’s creditors (Doyle and Bank of America) rather than the buyer or the United States.

business & regulatorytaxesproperty

The case involved the State of California seeking a writ of prohibition to halt a negligence lawsuit by American Indemnity Company, which sought damages for arson committed by prisoners released from a state facility under rehabilitative programs. The superior court had overruled the State's demurrer based on sovereign immunity under Government Code section 845.8(a), allowing claims alleging ministerial negligence in applying release rules and regulations. The Court of Appeal granted the writ, holding that the statute provides broad immunity for any injury resulting from decisions to release prisoners or determine the terms of release, without distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts. This interpretation follows from County of Sacramento v. Superior Court and aims to prevent liability fears from inhibiting prisoner rehabilitation efforts, leaving the insurer to bear the risk as a member of the general public.

criminal lawtorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between the East San Bernardino County Water District and the City of San Bernardino over payments due under a 1958 Joint Powers Agreement for shared sewer treatment facilities and trunk lines. The District sought arbitration on whether the City's rate increases were reasonable and whether the District was entitled to credits for protested overpayments, while the City argued the payment formula was fixed and not subject to arbitration. The trial court terminated the arbitration proceedings, finding no arbitrable issues existed under the agreement. The appellate court reversed, holding that the agreement's broad arbitration clause covered controversies over interpretation and application of its terms, and that courts should not prematurely resolve such questions instead of the arbitrators.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Mark Allen Johnson, a Marine, who was convicted after a bench trial of second-degree murder in the killing of his wife. Johnson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting his confessions and admissions because they were involuntary under the totality of circumstances, that he had not been properly advised of his Miranda rights before multiple psychiatric interviews, and that statements made during interviews while under the influence of sodium amytal were inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held that the sodium amytal-induced statements and related evidence should not have been admitted, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial. The core reasoning was that the use of the truth serum rendered the statements unreliable and obtained in violation of the defendant's rights, despite repeated warnings that the interviews could be used against him.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance seeking declaratory relief and an injunction to prevent arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim by William Spann. Spann was injured after his vehicle struck a pedestrian and then a guardrail, and he sought coverage under his policy for damages caused by the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. The court decided that the injuries did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle, affirming the judgment enjoining arbitration. The core reasoning was that Spann, as the insured, had the burden to prove coverage but provided no evidence of a causal connection between the uninsured motorist's use of his vehicle and the accident.

torts & liability