Livingston Law Firm shareholders Craig Livingston and Crystal Van Der Putten today filed an amicus curiae brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on behalf of client The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. in the case of Gustafson v. Springfield Inc., et al. At issue in Gustafson is the application of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) [15 U.S.C. §§ 7901, et seq.] to a wrongful death action in which a Springfield Arms pistol was used by a teenage boy who accidentally shot and killed his friend and who was thereafter adjudicated a delinquent minor for involuntary manslaughter. Congress enacted the PLCAA in 2005 to prevent lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition when those products are unlawfully or criminally misused. The trial court dismissed the case citing the PLCAA, but the intermediate appellate court reversed. The reversal was upheld by an en banc panel. In its supreme court brief, LLF argued that the product liability exception in the PLCAA – an exception allowing traditional design and manufacturing defect claims to proceed – was inapplicable because the underlying shooting death was the result of a volitional act which constituted a criminal offense, even though the shooter believed the pistol was unloaded when he pointed it at the decedent and deliberately pulled the trigger. Further briefing in the Pennsylvania supreme court is expected and a decision is unlikely until later this year.  

Congratulations to LLF shareholders Crystal L. Van Der Putten and John C. Hentschel.  After five years of litigation, a directed verdict on alleged actual damages and business torts, and a 3+ week jury trial in Contra Costa County Superior Court, they received a defense verdict in a defamation per se action that included allegations of conspiracy. The key questions in the case were whether various statements the defendant made were actionable defamation and whether the other two named defendants conspired with her to defame plaintiffs. In less than six hours of deliberation, the jury determined the statements were not defamatory. Because the jury found no defamation, there could be no conspiracy.  As such, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. LLF recovered $110,000 in expert fees and costs. Fairmont Riding Club, et al. v. Pestana, et al. (Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. MSC17-00630).

​Livingston Law Firm is proud to announce John C. Hentschel has become a shareholder of the firm. After graduating from USF Law School in 1990, John honed his trial skills at a reputable plaintiff firm before moving to the defense side. He joined Livingston Law Firm in 2010 and immediately became an integral part of the firm. John handles some of the firm’s most complex legal matters and deftly develops and implements litigation strategy that positions the firm’s clients for best results. John is a consummate trial attorney, a trusted colleague and a skilled negotiator in addition to being an all-around great guy.  For more information about John and his legal accomplishments, click here.  Congratulations John!

​On Thursday, December 9, 2021, at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada, shareholder Crystal L. Van Der Putten was elected to the Board of Directors. ADC exclusively represents the interests of civil defense attorneys in Northern California and Nevada through its publications, accredited educational programs, and interactions with the judiciary. For more information about the  ADC, click here.

​LLF Shareholders Renée Welze Livingston and Crystal L. Van Der Putten successfully argued to a Santa Clara County judge that plaintiffs were precluded from proceeding against two commercial real estate landowners for catastrophic injuries sustained by an employee of the refrigeration subcontractor during a renovation project. Relying on the holding in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, the defendants argued that the employee of an independent contractor should not be allowed to recover damages from the contractor’s hirer, and the exclusive remedy for the employee was in workers’ compensation. Plaintiffs argued that one exception to the Privette doctrine applied, namely, that a landowner may be liable to a contractor’s employee when the defendants knew or reasonably should have known of a concealed, preexisting hazardous condition on its premises, of which the contractor did not know, and failed to warn the contractor of it. The court, in Lopez v. S.B.C.C., Inc. et al., Case No. 17CV314841, concluded that under the various contracts between the parties, the contractors were responsible for conducting inspections to determine worksite safety, especially after receiving notice from the landowners of possible structural problems in the area where the employee was injured.