Torts

Torts involve intentional or unintentional harms. These include negligence, fraud, personal injury, defamation, conversion (taking other people's money or property), dangerous conditions on land, assault, battery, trespass, and numerous others. There are rules—some simple and some complex—covering liability, causation, and recoverable damages. Bruce has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in numerous tort cases.

Martini v. Bel Azure Homeowners Association et al. (D071846) (2018)

California Court of Appeal
Fourth Appellate District, Division One

Bruce represented the contractor respondent in a premises liability case arising from a trip-and-fall incident during a repaving project at a condominium complex. The plaintiff alleged negligence against the homeowners association, its property manager, and the contractor. At trial, the jury found the contractor not negligent, while assigning partial fault to the other defendants and the plaintiff. Bruce successfully defended the judgment on appeal, with the Court of Appeal affirming the verdict and rejecting claims of instructional error, evidentiary issues, and inconsistency. The court upheld the finding that the contractor did not owe a nondelegable duty and was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Opinion

Kwon v. Kim (B128128) (2001)

California Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District, Division Two

Bruce represented the plaintiffs, a husband and wife who owned a lighting store in Koreatown, in a slander action against a former customer. The defendant had lost a prior lawsuit against the plaintiffs and then began an extensive campaign against the plaintiffs, contacting their creditors, business associates, and community leaders, and repeatedly accusing the plaintiffs of fraud and dishonesty. She also instigated a defamatory article in a Korean-language newspaper. The trial court found the statements were slander per se and made with malice, awarding $900,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. On appeal, the court affirmed, rejecting the defendant’s arguments that her statements were mere opinion, that the plaintiffs failed to plead special damages, and that she should have been allowed to amend her answer to assert truth as a defense.

Opinion

Bruce's clients later got into a fee dispute with their lawyer. They prevailed in the trial court, and Bruce successfully represented them on appeal a second time. Details here.

Lopez v. Kwan Industries, Inc. (B166694) (2005)

California Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District, Division Three

On appeal, Bruce represented the plaintiff, James Lopez, who was injured during a forcible ejection from a bar. The jury awarded substantial damages for both economic and noneconomic harm. On appeal, the bar challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and argued that future noneconomic damages should have been discounted to present value. Bruce successfully defended the judgment, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the verdict and that the parties had stipulated to discount economic damages, but not noneconomic damages.

Opinion

Cook v. Behavioral Health Care, Inc. (E033548) (2004)

California Court of Appeal
Fourth Appellate District, Division Two

Bruce represented the adult sons of a woman who died from overmedication while in a skilled nursing facility. The case involved claims for professional negligence, elder abuse, and wrongful death. After a significant settlement, the decedent’s husband moved to claim the entire amount, arguing it represented personal injury damages that passed to him as community property. The sons argued it should be split between the husband and them, arguing the settlement reflected wrongful death damages and should be distributed equally among the husband and three sons. The trial court agreed with the sons and divided the proceeds equally, finding no clear and convincing evidence to support the higher showing required for an elder abuse claim and thus the settlement likely reflected wrongful death damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion and that the husband failed to provide evidence justifying a different allocation.

Opinion