|
2495 A person who enters into a settlement agreement while incapacitated by the use of drugs but subsequently accepts the benefits of the settlement while not under the influence of drugs has thereby ratified the settlement and is bound by it; attorney fees properly may be awarded to an employer who is successful in defending a former employee's frivolous FEHA claim; a compensatory damages award of $450,000 was not so disproportionate to the injury sustained as to indicate that it resulted from passion or prejudice.CitationSARET-COOK v GILBERT, KELLY... (Fatal Attraction) 74 CA4 1211 [See: CivC 1588, 1589; Neet v Holmes 25 C2 447; GovC 12965; Bond v Pulsar 50 CA4 918, T/AT 12/96; Cummings v Benco 11 CA4 1383, T/AT 3/93; Fortman v Hemco 211 CA3 241]
|
|
