Does the doctrine of stare decisis apply to a plaintiff's application?

It is, of course, a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy, known as the doctrine of stare decisis, is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law. (MoradiShalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296, 250 Cal.Rptr. 116, 758 P.2d 58 (MoradiShalal ).) The doctrine is not applied rigidly, of course, and does not prevent a court from correcting its errors, especially when the prior decision's errors relate to a matter of continuing concern. (Id. at pp. 296297, 250 Cal.Rptr. 116, 758 P.2d 58.) In particular, reexamination of precedent may become necessary when subsequent developments indicate an earlier decision was unsound, or has become ripe for reconsideration. (Id. at p. 297, 250 Cal.Rptr. 116, 758 P.2d 58.).

In MoradiShalal, we concluded considerations of stare decisis did not warrant continuing to follow our then recent decision in

[183 Cal.Rptr.3d 114]