|
3253 REVIEW DENIED In a wrongful death action, the collateral source rule prevents admission of evidence that upon a decedent’s death, his retirement benefits were replaced by death benefits payable to his widow; evidence of the value of household services rendered by decedent is admissible without proof that the decedent’s widow hired anyone to perform those services after the decedent’s death; a wrongful death action qualifies as a personal injury action under the statute permitting the award of enhanced costs to a party who received a judgment more favorable than an offer of compromise that was rejected by the other party; in a cause of action for asbestos injury that arose while a statute conferred on tobacco companies immunity from product liability, none of the fault should be apportioned to tobacco.CitationMcKINNEY v CA PORTLAND (Asbestos Death) 96 CA4 1214 [See: CCP 998; CivC 3291, 1714.45; PG&E v Superior Court 28 CA4 174, T/AT 10/94; Helfend v SCRTD 2 C3 1; Arambula v Wells 72 CA4 1006, T/AT 7/99; Loth v Truck-A-Way 60 CA4 757, T/AT 2/98; DaFonte v Up-Right 2 C4 593; Richards v Owens-Illinois 14 C4 985, T/AT 2/97]
|
|
