What is negligence?

The elements of any negligence cause of action are duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687; Strong v. State of Cal. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1439, 1449; County of Santa Clara v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.

“To establish liability in negligence, it is a fundamental principle of tort law that there must be a legal duty owed to the person injured and a breach of that duty which is the proximate cause of the resulting injury.&rdquo?; Jacoves v. United Merchandising Corp. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 88, 114.

A fundamental element of any cause of action for negligence is the existence of a legal duty of care running from the defendant to the plaintiff. Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, 593.

Whether a duty of care exists is a question of law for the court. Strong v. State of Cal. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1439, 1449. “The issue of whether a legal duty exists is an issue of law, not an issue of fact for the jury.” Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 814, 819.

“Primary assumption of risk arises where a plaintiff voluntarily participates in an activity or sport involving certain inherent risks; primary assumption of risk... bar[s] recovery because no duty of care is owed as to such risks.” West v. Sundown Little League of Stockton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 351, 357 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Nonetheless, a defendant has “a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the [activity].” Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 315-316. An inherent risk is one that cannot be eliminated without altering the nature of the activity. Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 317.

Children are an exception to negligence claims. Gonzales v. Davis (1925) 197 Cal. 256, 260 (five year old too young to be contributorily negligent); Ellis v. D’Angelo (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 310, 315-317 (four year old cannot be negligent, as a matter of law).

In general, attorney’s fees are not recoverable in an ordinary action for negligence. Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.

Useful Rulings on Negligence

Recent Rulings on Negligence

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The analysis applicable to MaryJane as to the negligence claim applies equally to Evolution. 3. HRB HRB operates the food and beverage facilities, bars and conference rooms in the hotel pursuant to a lease with T-12. Turner moves for summary adjudication only as to HRB’s Second Cause of Action for Negligence. Turner’s motion fails for the same reason explained above relevant to MaryJane’s negligence claim. 4.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

.; (6) escrow negligence; (7) fraud; (8) civil conspiracy; and (9) declaratory relief. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Sam and Defendant Kwan entered into a business venture together to create CAC LLC in 2013, where Kwan and Sam appointed Sam as the managing member of CAC, LLC. (FAC, ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

This is so because negligent misrepresentation “more closely resembles” negligence than fraud. (Id. at p. 1531.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges the representations were made in September 2016 (FAC ¶ 71), but he did not file this action until almost three years later, approximately one year past the expiration of the statute of limitations. Thus, this claim is also time barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 339, subdivision (1).

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

“The doctrine of negligence per se is not a separate cause of action, but creates an evidentiary presumption that affects the standard of care in a cause of action for negligence.” (Johnson v. Honeywell International Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 549, 555, quotation marks and brackets omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANNE SHOYKHET, ET AL. VS NATHALIE DUBOIS, ET AL.

Third, Plaintiffs state that the products returned by Defendant were damaged and unsellable, but a trier of fact could not determine the damage to the product was conversion without further facts describing the nature of the wrongful act or disposition of Plaintiffs’ rights in the products, as damaging the product could have been the result of mere negligence. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED, with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KOUROSH IZADPANAHI VS MARIA ALMA YOLANDA IBARRA DABDOUB, ET AL.

Thus, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently state a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

NINA MARIE JOHNSON VS IAN PATTON, ET AL.

Second Cause of Action: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress “The negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort, but the tort of negligence. The traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. Whether a defendant owes a duty of care is a question of law.” (Spates v. Dameron Hosp. Ass’n (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 213, ellipses, quotation marks, brackets, and paragraph breaks omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOHNATHAN MOLTONI, ET AL. VS XTREME MOTOR SPORTS, INC., ET AL.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendants and Does 1-20 for: Breach of Contract Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Fraud—Concealment Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200 Conversion Unjust Enrichment Conspiracy Money Had and Received Negligence On June 24, 2019, Defendants’ defaults were entered. On October 24, 2019, Plaintiffs dismissed Xtreme, without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Ribas (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant Beau Monde Association and Sommer Adel Salam (Defendant Rodriguez), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) libel per se, (4) slander per se, (5) fraud (false promise), (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

TITO A THOMAS VS MARK ANTHONY SARNO

On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC), alleging: (1) violation of Ralph Civil Rights Act; (2) battery; (3) assault; (4) interference with exercise of civil rights; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) negligence (premise liability). On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (TAC). However, Plaintiff did not properly move for leave to amend, and the TAC was order stricken on February 21, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Ribas (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant Beau Monde Association and Sommer Adel Salam (Defendant Rodriguez), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) libel per se, (4) slander per se, (5) fraud (false promise), (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

NICHOLAS V. MORETTA VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

(a Minnesota corporation), Seidner Enterprises LLC dba Bert’s Mega Mall (“Seidner”) and Does 1-100 for: Strict Product Liability Negligence Failure to Warn Negligent Recall Violation of Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq. and Violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

TPE ACQUISTION,INC. VS PLATINUM STAFFING

Platinum and Payroll) Negligence (v. Platinum and Payroll) Deceit and Fraud (v. Platinum and Payroll) Negligent Misrepresentation (v. Platinum and Payroll) Alter Ego Liability (v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RUTH XIAOYU ZHANG VS NESTOR H. LLERNA

Negligent Misrepresentation 3. Negligence 4. Breach of Civil Code § 2079 5. Breach of Contract On January 26, 2018, the court granted The Llerenas’ motion for summary judgment. On February 9, 2018, the “Order Granting Defendants Nestor H. Llerena and Myrna T. Llerena’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint” was filed. On February 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

(erroneously sued as Crystal Mountain) and Does 1-50 for: Negligence Negligence—Products Liability Strict Products Liability On June 19, 2019, DS Services and Costco filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Cross-Defendants Crystal Mountain International Limited and Roes 1-10 for: Implied Indemnity Contribution Express Indemnity Breach of Contract Declaratory Relief On October 3, 2019, this action was transferred from the personal injury hub (Department 5) to this department.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MELODY CHACKER VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

.), alleging: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) violation of California Civil Code section 2923.5; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) violation of California Civil Code section 2924.17; (5) quiet title; and (6) declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. Defendants SPS, U.S. Bank N.A., and NDSC (collectively, Defendants) now move for Plaintiff to be declared a vexatious litigant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

REBEKAH LYNN ROGERS ET AL VS STATER BROS MARKETS ET AL

The complaint alleges premises liability and negligence for a slip-and-fall that occurred on May 1, 2015. On May 21, 2020, Petitioner Rebekah Lynn Rogers filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Robert Green, Jr (“Claimant”). An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is set for August 4, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

DANIEL FLORES CAMPO, ET AL. VS AMPCO CONTRACTING, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

“Ordinarily, negligence may be alleged in general terms, without specific facts showing how the injury occurred, but there are ‘limits to the generality with which a plaintiff is permitted to state his cause of action, and . . . the plaintiff must indicate the acts or omissions which are said to have been negligently performed. He may not recover upon the bare statement that the defendant’s negligence has caused him injury.’ [Citation].” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 527.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

ROMEO NATIVIDAD VS ABS FACILITY SERVICES

BACKGROUND On May 3, 2019, Plaintiff Romeo Natividad (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant ABS Facility Services alleging negligence. Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Defendant ABS Facility Services negligently installed a cabinet that caused Plaintiff harm on May 15, 2017. On August 16, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant ABS Facility Services filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 20 seeking express and equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARQUIS PATTERSON VS MOISES CUELLAR, ET AL.

The complaint alleges negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 2, 2018. On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendant Lyft, Inc. to provide verified responses without objections or recourse to production of documents in lieu of written responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (all Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedures sections 2030.290, 2030.230, and 2031.300.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

JAIME QUINONES CISNEROS VS G GU METAL RECYCLING, LLC

Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Defendant’s employee/agent negligently dropped an engine/transmission on Plaintiff’s left foot on June 19, 2018. On February 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant O.Y.K Properties. On May 29, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant O Y K Properties, LLC filed a cross-complaint against Defendant/Cross-Defendant G.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTONIO SARAGOZA VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

Plaintiff alleges negligence and premises liability in the complaint for negligent harm caused to Plaintiff’s foot on July 28, 2018. On February 28, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, Raymond Ghermezian, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to California Rule of Court, rule 3.1362. On March 18, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to be relieved as counsel to May 5, 2020. On April 16, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to be relieved as counsel to July 15, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

CHRISTIAN CARRANZA VS DAVID PHILLIP MEYI, ET AL.

The complaint alleges negligence, gross negligence, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress for an automobile collision that occurred on February 8, 2017. On March 6, 2020, Defendant Lyft, Inc., filed a motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b). A trial setting conference is scheduled for March 24, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant Lyft, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

DELMY YOJANA CASTEJON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

This applies to negligent harm caused from a fire hydrant. (See Razeto v. City of Oakland (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 349, 351-353.) Accordingly, the Court finds there is good cause to grant the motion for leave to the proposed first amended answer. CONCLUSION The motion for leave to file a first amended answer is GRANTED. Moving Party is ordered to file the proposed first amended answer attached to Joseph C. Graven’s declaration as Exhibit B within 20 days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

THE ESTATE OF ROOP GARG ET AL VS JOHN C WEI ET AL

Wei, Paul Ordinario, Behrooz Sumekh, and Yu Hung Kam alleging negligence, negligence per se, premises liability, wrongful death, and survival action for the death of Decedent Roop Garg (“Decedent”), which occurred on August 11, 2016. On August 8, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant John C. Wei filed a cross-complaint against Defendants/Cross-Defendants Paul Ordinario, Behrooz Sumekh, and Yu Hung Kam seeking indemnity and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.