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 Resources for Negligence

Recent Rulings on Negligence

226-250 of 10000 results

YOPP VS WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

C. 4th cause of action (negligence) A lender generally does not owe a duty of care to a borrower where there are no allegations that the lender did anything wrongful that prevented the borrower from making the original monthly payments under a loan. (See Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 346, 353-58, petition for review granted on November 13, 2019; Lueras, 221 Cal.App.4th at 67; see also Nymark v. Heart Fed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

4741 SC, LLC VS ELM WOOD BC, LLC, ET AL.

“Mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to justify such an award” for punitive damages. (Kendall Yacht Corp. v. United California Bank (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 949, 958.) The allegations supporting a request for punitive damages must be alleged with specificity; conclusory allegations without sufficient facts are not enough. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANCO LARA VS JOSEPH TORKAN

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s action rests on the allegation that “[D]efendants negligently maintained their property in a dangerous condition that allowed plaintiff to be injured.” (Motion, 6:4-7.) Defendants further argue the premises at issue did not pose a significant risk of injury to a reasonable person because the grassy area at issue created no more than a trivial risk of injury.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

DARLENE WAGGONER VS 241 S. BEVERLY DR, LLC

The complaint adequately alleges the elements of premises liability and general negligence and is not uncertain. Among other things, the complaint alleges that minimum safety standards were not met. The court does not prejudge whether Defendant could prevail on a motion for summary judgment. Defendant 241 S. Beverly Drive, LLC’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALMA DELIA JIMENEZ VILLEGAS, ET AL. VS VANESSA MARIE VENTURA

ANALYSIS: Plaintiffs Alma Delia Jimenez Villegas (“Plaintiff”) and Luis Rey Perez Tapia filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Vanessa Marie Ventura (“Defendant”) on February 25, 2019. Tapia was dismissed from the action on December 3, 2020. Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Attendance at Deposition on December 7, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LAUREN B. VS KF COMMUNITY CARE, LLC, ET AL.

of emotional distress against Community Care and Arjona, (8) negligence against Community Care and Arjona, (9) negligent supervision, hiring and retention against Community Care, (10) dependent adult abuse and/or neglect against Community Care, (11) negligence against Community Care, (12) negligent hiring, supervision or retention against Community Care in connection with its hiring of Defendant, Christopher Andaya (“Andaya”) (13) sexual battery against Andaya, (14) denial of civil rights (Civil Code §§ 41.7

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

RODOLFO ROMERO, ET AL. VS KIMCO REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants argue that the Court cannot dismiss Defendants’ cross-claim for negligence against Calhoun, but Calhoun does not see that remedy. Calhoun shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: January 13, 2021 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SIMI VALLEY WHOLESALE ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS B MITCHELL ELECTRIC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Negligent Misrepresentation 10. On Contractor’s License Bond (not alleged against Moving Defendants) RULING: The unopposed demurrer of Defendant Bryan Mitchell to all causes of action alleged against him in the Complaint (1st – 9th causes of action) is sustained without leave to amend. The unopposed demurrer to the 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th causes of action and the Prayer for Attorneys’ Fees is also sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOSE MUNOZ ET AL VS SBI INDUSTRIES INC ET AL

On March 9, 2020, the court executed a stipulation allowing for the filing of a first amended complaint for product liability, loss of consortium, and negligence. On May 4, 2020, Nordtrom dismissed its complaint in intervention against Intelligrated Sytems, LLC. On June 29, 2020, Department 31 transferred the action to Department 47. Plaintiffs filed a peremptory challenge on July 16, 2020, thereby leading to reassignment to Department 49 on July 22, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

IRMA MARGARET GARCIA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS 888 PROPERTY PARTNER, ENTITY TYPE UNKNOWN

The plaintiffs allege negligence and premises liability arising from an incident that occurred on August 26, 2018. On November 16, 2020, Petitioner Adonia Soto filed petitions to approve compromises of pending actions on behalf of Claimants Christian Soto and Rudy Soto. On December 9, 2020, the Court granted the petition as to minor Christian Soto with modification. However, minor Rudy Soto because Rudy Soto was not appointed a guardian ad litem at that time.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

CJWORLD-LA, ET AL. VS 147-151 W. 25TH ST. LLC, ET AL.

Cross-Defendants Sperry, Koo, and Yoo were negligent in their duty owed to Cross-Complainants through the execution of a listing agreement, owed a duty of care to Cross-Complainant as their real estate broker/agent to find a suitable tenant. (FACC ¶¶ 55-59, 66-76.) Cross-Defendants Sperry and Koo additionally breach their fiduciary duty owed to Cross-Complainants by failing misrepresenting and negligently performing duties under the listing agreement. (FACC ¶¶ 61-64.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EMMETT RUSHING, ET AL. V. MICHAEL RYAN, MD, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges two causes of action for medical negligence and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Defendants were negligent in the examination and treatment of Mr. Rushing. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Rushing “has been rendered sick, sore, lame, disabled and disordered, both internally and externally” as a result of Defendants’ negligent treatment. (Compl., ¶ 11.) Now before the Court is Lisa Ryan, M.D.1’s motion for summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

MARIA DODOS VS CHUCK AND JACKIE WEISSMAN, DOES 1-25

On July 17, 2019, plaintiff filed a TAC for (1) breach of CC&Rs, (2) breach of written contract, (3) breach of oral contract, (4) specific performance, (5) negligence, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) nuisance, and (8) declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on February 7, 2017, and a FAC on December 24, 2019, alleging six causes of action: Negligence Strict Liability — Failure to Warn Strict Liability — Design Defect Fraudulent Concealment Breach of Implied Warranties Loss of Consortium On December 5, 2019, this Court sustained Defendant Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC, successor-in-interest to Sasol North America Inc. (Doe 3) (“Sasol”)’s Demurrer to the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

S PATTI BRACKS VS 99 CENTS ONLY STORES LLC

Patti Bracks filed a complaint against Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC for general negligence and premises liability arising from a trip and fall incident that occurred on May 7, 2016. On November 9, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for order requiring Plaintiff to file an undertaking. Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 30, 2020. Defendant filed a reply on January 6, 2021. Trial is set for April 2, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

JEFFREY JOHNSON VS OUTFRONT MEDIA

This is meets Defendant’s burden to advance evidence that Plaintiff cannot prevail on his complaint for negligence. (See Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) Defendant has shifted the burden to Plaintiff to advance evidence to raise triable issues of material fact as to whether Defendant is liable for negligence. As Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, Plaintiff cannot meet that burden. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANCISCA TORRES VS MIGUEL CARILLO, JR., ET AL.

Here, it has already been found that Correa was not negligent in any way in connection with the subject automobile accident. Consequently, Correa has been found to not be responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries. (Jocer Enterprises, 183 Cal.App.4th at 573-74.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

NINETTA CAVALLO, ET AL. VS AAA ASSISTED LIVING ELDER CARE, LLC

Defendant AAA Assisted Living Elder Care, LLC motion to strike the punitive damages request is GRANTED as to the contract and wrongful death claims and DENIED as to the negligence claim.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOSE LUIS SERRANO VS FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARK ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s action rests on the allegation that “[D]efendants negligently maintained their property in a dangerous condition that allowed plaintiff to be injured.” (Motion, 6:4-7.) Defendants further argue the premises at issue did not pose a significant risk of injury to a reasonable person because the grassy area at issue created no more than a trivial risk of injury.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE VS RIGOBERTO VEGA AVILA

On February 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-20 for: General Negligence Motor Vehicle Subrogation On August 16, 2010, Plaintiff dismissed Lilia Avila, without prejudice. On December 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a conditional “Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.” On January 5, 2011, the court dismissed the case, without prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, including the judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

ALBERT MASSACHI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE A. MASSACHI TRUST, ET AL. VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, A LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY

To recover for inverse condemnation arising out of a work of public improvement, the damage must arise out of “the improvement as deliberately designed and constructed[,]”not out of negligent maintenance of the work. e.g. Pacific Bell v. City of San Diego (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 596, 608-609. However, if the public work’s underlying maintenance plan is inadequate, inverse condemnation liability may exist. Id.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTIAN FUHRER, ET AL. VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

On October 9, 2019, Plaintiffs Christian Fuhrer and L.F. through his guardian ad litem Christiana Fuhrer (“Plaintiffs”), filed a third amended complaint containing six causes of action for (1) violation of privacy under the California Constitution and California Civil Code section 1708, (2) constructive discharge, (3) defamation, (4) negligence, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LIDIA S. PAREDES VS TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC

The court previously sustained Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on such grounds, granting leave as to all causes of action except the 6th cause of action for Negligence, which was sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff then filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Violation of Civ. Code § 2924(a)(1) (1st Cause of Action) Plaintiff contends that a substitution of trustee was not recorded first before a notice of default was executed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CRYSTAL JAMES VS COVENANT CARE CALIFORNIA, INC.

The proposed amendments are all based on the same general set of facts as the original medical negligence claim, and therefore, should not be particularly surprising to the Defendant. Court will sign the proposed order submitted with this motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

TIFFANIE T. KENNEDY VS USA, INC.

The Consolidated Second Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract (seeking declaratory relief); (2) tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) negligent or intentional misrepresentation; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) negligence; (6) fraud; and (7) conversion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.