Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corp.
185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 63
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Bean sued Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation after Lazear caused a collision; jury awarded Bean $1,271,594.74, including $1,145,000 noneconomic damages.
- Trial court denied Pacific Coast’s new trial motion, awarded prejudgment interest, and taxed costs; judgment totaled $1,306,424.74 with prejudgment interest on the entire judgment.
- Pacific Coast appealed contending the noneconomic damages were excessive, jury instruction error on the basic speed law, and misconduct and other trial issues.
- Appellate court agreed only that prejudgment interest on costs was improper; otherwise rejected Pacific Coast’s challenges and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
- Remand instructed to recalculate prejudgment interest consistent with the opinion; amended judgment to reflect only the exclusion of prejudgment interest on costs.
- Costs on appeal awarded to Pacific Coast in the interest of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudgment interest may be awarded on costs | Bean contends Civil Code 3291 allows interest on the total judgment, including costs. | Pacific Coast argues prejudgment interest should apply only to damages awarded for personal injury. | Prejudgment interest may not be awarded on costs. |
| Whether prejudgment interest is proper on the non-personal injury portions of the verdict | Bean asserts interest should apply to the entire verdict per statute. | Pacific Coast relies on Lakin to limit interest to personal injury damages. | Court rejects broad application; interest cannot extend to costs; discusses limiting principle. |
| Whether noneconomic damages were excessive | Bean defends the size of the noneconomic damages award as warranted by evidence. | Pacific Coast argues the noneconomic award was excessive and unsupported by the record. | Unpublished portion; the court rejected the excessive-damages challenge. |
| Whether trial court erred in instructing the basic speed law | Bean contends the instruction correctly stated the law and supported the verdict. | Pacific Coast asserts error in speed-law instruction. | Unpublished portion; the court rejected this challenge. |
| WhetherBean's counsel misconduct and 998 settlement conduct was mischaracterized | Bean asserts no misconduct affected the verdict. | Pacific Coast claims trial misconduct impacted liability and damages. | Unpublished portion; the court rejected the misconduct challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries, 6 Cal.4th 644 (1993) (prejudgment interest limited to personal-injury damages)
- Hess v. Ford Motor Co., 27 Cal.4th 516 (2002) (no compounding of prejudgment interest; interest not part of judgment)
- Doe v. Brown, 177 Cal.App.4th 408 (2009) (statutory interpretation of 3291; de novo review for ambiguity)
- Brown v. Desert Christian Center, 193 Cal.App.4th 733 (2011) (costs and prejudgment interest considerations; costs not part of damages)