Sandy v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Merle Sandy died of cancer after a jury awarded him damages of more than $700,000. The sole defendant at trial was Exxon Mobil Corporation. After its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was deemed denied by operation of law, Exxon appealed from the judgment and from the denial of its motion. Exxon contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying its motion because there is not substantial evidence to establish liability; (2) the trial court committed instructional error; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the testimony of two defense expert witnesses.
The first two of Exxons contentions are founded on the premise that Kinsman v. Unocal Corporation (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659 (Kinsman) effected a radical restriction in the scope of the still recent decision in Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198 (Hooker). In Hooker, our Supreme Court concluded that an employee of an independent contractor may sue the hirer of the contractor if the hirers conduct affirmatively contributed to the employees injuries. In Kinsman, the court set forth the conditions under which the employee of an independent contractor may sue the hirer of the independent contractor when the hirer is the owner of real property having a hazardous condition that contributed to the employees injuries. Court conclude that Exxons premise is untenable in that nothing in Kinsman hints at any intent by the court to effect any curtailment of Hookers scope. Court further conclude that Exxons final contention is without merit. Court therefore affirm the judgment and the order.
Comments on Sandy v. Exxon Mobil Corp.