Corenbaum v. Lampkin
215 Cal. App. 4th 1308
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Corenbaum and Carter were passengers in a taxi struck by Lampkin, who fled the scene and was later convicted of a felony (fleeing the scene).
- Plaintiffs sued Lampkin for negligence and related claims; damages included past and future medical expenses and noneconomic damages; punitive damages were sought by Corenbaum and Carter.
- At trial, evidence of the full medical bills was admitted, despite agreements that providers accept less than billed as full payment; evidence of Lampkin’s 2007 DUI arrest was admitted to support malice.
- Jury found Lampkin negligent, with apportionment of fault; punitive damages awarded to Corenbaum and Carter but not to Daniella Carter.
- Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions clarified that damages for medical expenses are limited to amounts paid or incurred or the amount accepted as full payment, not the full billed amounts; the court later applied this to determine admissibility of evidence and future damages.
- Lampkin moved to reduce past medical damage awards; Howell was decided after trials, leading to posttrial reconsiderations and appeals on damages and fees under §1021.4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of full billed medicals | Full bills reflect damages; admissible to show extent of injuries. | Full billed amounts are not evidentiary value and violate Howell. | Error to admit full billed; remand for new trial on compensatory damages. |
| DUI arrest evidence | Prior conduct relevant to malice; supports punitive damages. | Prejudicial character evidence; improper under 1101/352. | Evidence admissible; no abuse of discretion; supports punitive finding. |
| Punitive damages against Carter | Carter sought punitive damages; trial court allowed amendment. | No punitive claim in original complaint; improper instruction. | No error; Carter properly instructed after amendment. |
| Attorney fees under §1021.4 | Prevailing plaintiffs entitled to fees since felonies caused the damages. | Action not based on the same felonious conduct as Lampkin's conviction. | Section 1021.4 does not authorize fees here; affirmed denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 541 (Cal. Supreme Court 2011) (limits past medical damages to amounts paid/incurred or accepted as full payment; collateral source rule aligned)
- Hanif v. Housing Authority, 200 Cal.App.3d 635 (Cal. App. 1988) (initial rule that damages for past medical expenses reflect amounts paid/incurred)
- Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco, 93 Cal.App.4th 298 (Cal. App. 2001) (pre-H Howell limits on medical expense damages; negotiated rates context)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 69 Cal.2d 33 (Cal. 1968) (collateral source rule foundational rule)
- Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105 (Cal. Supreme Court 1991) (exemplary damages framework and consideration of financial condition)
- Neal v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 21 Cal.3d 910 (Cal. Supreme Court 1978) (relevant to punitive damages factors and financial condition considerations)
- People v. Mace, 198 Cal.App.4th 875 (Cal. App. 2011) (discussed in context of Vehicle Code 20001 and civil damages scope)