Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Laabs v. Southern California Edison Co., No. E044917

By FindLaw Staff on July 21, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a negligence action, trial court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where the evidence did not establish that defendant did not have a duty to plaintiff a as a matter of law, and triable issues of fact remained as to defendant's duty as a public utility and its exercise of control in determining the placement of the light poles.   

Read Laabs v. Southern California Edison Co., No. E044917 in PDF

Read Laabs v. Southern California Edison Co., No. E044917 in HTML

Appellate Information
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kurt J. Lewin (retired judge of the L.A. Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) and Tom Garza, Judges. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Filed July 20, 2009

Before King, J., Miller, J., Hollenhorst, J.
Opinion by King, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Hollenhorst, J.

For Plaintiff: Lascher & Lascher, Wendy Lascher, Aris Karakalos; Richard Harris Law Firm and Richard Harris
For Respondent: Brian A. Cardoza.

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard