|
2867 REVIEW DENIED Verdicts indicating the jury's belief that a discharged employee's employment had been at will and also that it had not been at will are inconsistent and require a new trial; a jury's finding that an employee had been wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy, but failing to award damages that had been proven, suggests a compromise verdict and requires a new trial; a jury's finding that an individual who uttered certain statements was not liable for defamation, but that his employer was liable for his having made those statements was improper and required reversal; the Cedars-Sinai decision, which abolished the tort of spoliation, should be applied retroactively.CitationSHAW v HUGHES (Inconsistent Verdicts) 83 CA4 1336 [See: Morris v McCauley's 60 CA3 964; Foley v Interactive 47 C3 654; Rose v Melody 39 C2 481; Wilson v Werner 108 CA3 878; Freeman v Churchill 30 C2 453; Cedars-Sinai v Superior Court 18 C4 1, T/AT 6/98; Hassoldt v Patrick (RhrgGrtd) 80 CA4 1392, T/AT 7/00]
|
|
