Soto v. Costco Wholesale
Defendant, Costco Wholesale Corporation, appeals from an August 17, 2010 judgment and denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Defendant argues: it owed no duty of care of plaintiffs, Ruben, Brunilda and Anabel Soto[1]; there is instructional error; the trial court should not have permitted evidence that a former co-defendant, Robert Livingston, pled no contest to driving under the influence of a drug; it was error to introduce evidence of the use of bollards at other locations operated by defendant. On cross-appeal, Ms. Soto and Anabel argue that the trial court improperly reduced their recovery from defendant to zero because of their settlement with Mr. Livingston. We modify the judgment to reverse the credit provided to defendant by reason of the settlement with Mr. Livingston. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
Comments on Soto v. Costco Wholesale