|
1373 REVIEW DENIED Ordinarily, a question of fact exists as to whether an intervening cause of harm was sufficiently extraordinary to be regarded as a superseding cause, relieving a defendant of liability. In apportioning liability under Prop 51, no reduction from non-economic damages should be made for plaintiff's comparative fault; the amounts of workers' compensation benefits and pre-verdict settlements received by plaintiff should reduce economic and non-economic damages awards in the same proportion as the jury apportioned those awards; post-verdict settlements received by plaintiff should be applied to reduce non-economic damages up to the total amount awarded by verdict against the settling party for non-economic damages, and any excess should be used to reduce economic damages.CitationTORRES v XOMOX (Sulfuric Acid) 49 CA4 1 [See: CCP 877; LabC 4600; DaFonte v Up-Right 2 C4 593; Espinoza v Machonga 9 CA4 268, T/AT 11/92; Balido v Improved 29 CA3 633]
|
|
