Opinion
Page 1402d
148 Cal.App.4th 1402d __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ YVETTE MUNOZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF UNION CITY et al., Defendants and Respondents. A110121 California Court of Appeal, First District, Second Division April 2, 2007Trial Court: Alameda County Superior Court, Super. Ct. No. H204672-7, Trial Judge: Hon. Yolanda Northridge
COUNSEL
Law Office of Daniel U. Smith, Daniel U. Smith, Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso & Brewer, Steven R. Cavalli, for Appellants Yvette Munoz et al.
Farmer, Murphy, Smith & Alliston, George E. Murphy, Suzanne M. Nicholson, Ferguson, Praet & Sherman, Bruce D. Praet, for Respondents City of Union City et al.
Kline, P.J.
THE COURT.
It is ordered that the published opinion filed herein on February 28, 2007 (148 Cal.App.4th 173; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___), be modified as follows:
1. On page 5 [148 Cal.App.4th 179, advance report, 1st full par., line 7], at the end of the first paragraph, add as a new footnote1 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent
1In a petition for rehearing, Union City complains that our opinion failed to address their contention, raised in a footnote of its brief on the appeal, that the law of the case doctrine precludes us from modifying the amount of vicarious liability assessed against it. “ ‘ “The rule of ‘law of the case’ generally precludes multiple appellate review of the same issue in a single case. . . .” ’ [Citation.] [¶] . . . [¶] We will apply the law of the case doctrine where the point of law involved was necessary to the prior decision and was ‘ “actually presented and determined by the court.” ’ (People v. Shuey [(1975)] 13 Cal.3d 835, 842 [120 Cal.Rptr. 83].)” (People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 196-197 [33 Cal.Rptr.3d 451].)
Union City’s argument is based on our statement, in Munoz I, that “this opinion affirms respondents’ judgment as to their vicarious liability claim.” (Munoz I, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1115, fn. 14.) This statement was
Page 1402e
made in the context of rejecting the plaintiffs’ request that they be allowed to amend their complaint to allege their direct negligence claim as one for vicarious liability based on the negligence of identified employees other than Woodward. Munoz I did not address the reallocation issue presented by the current appeal; it affirmed the City’s vicarious liability for Woodward’s negligence but did not necessarily freeze the measure of that liability at 50 percent.
There is no change in the judgment.
Respondents’ petition for rehearing is denied.