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

151-175 of 10000 results

SALAS V. AMECI PIZZA & PASTA, INC.

This claim is made in connection with Plaintiff’s negligent hiring claim. The allegations, sounding in negligence, do not state facts sufficient to support malice. (See Woolstrum v. Mailloux (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 10 [“[c]onduct which may be characterized as unreasonable, negligent, grossly negligent or reckless does not satisfy the highly culpable state of mind warranting punitive damages.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MOJAB V. LINEBERGER, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s FAC contains two identical causes of action for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence. (ROA 166).

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

INDUSTRIOUS MOTORS, LLC V. KHAN

Defendants’ demurrer to the second (bad faith), third (intentional interference with contract), fourth (misappropriation of trade secrets), fifth (intentional interference with prospective economic advantage), sixth (negligent interference with prospective economic advantage), and seventh ( B. & P. § 17200) causes of action of plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Demurrer sustained in part with 10 days leave to amend and overruled in part.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

LISA GOODRICH VS GUILLERMO EDUARDO PADILLA JR ET AL

Defendants Padilla and R+L Carriers have filed a cross-complaint for negligence, contractual and equitable indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief against plaintiff and cross-defendant Eric Goodrich, alleging that Lisa Goodrich was the owner of the vehicle which defendant Eric Goodrich was driving with the permission and knowledge of Lisa Goodrich, and that cross-defendants negligently owned, operated and controlled the vehicle causing it to collide with the truck owned and operated by cross-complainants

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

DESSALEGN ALEMU VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

, while acting in the course and scope of his employment or as an individual, negligently operated a vehicle in such a way as to rear end plaintiff’s vehicle, causing injuries to plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

PAUL ADAM TAYLOR VS MERCEDES FUENTES

Further, Plaintiff’s sole cause of action against Defendant is for motor vehicle negligence. Thus, Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that Defendant acted intentionally with malice, nor has he alleged facts that Defendant acted in a manner that was oppressive, fraudulent, or despicable. Thus, the motion to strike the request for punitive damages is granted. As this is Plaintiff’s first attempt at the pleading, the Court will allow 20 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GREG RAMIREZ VS HENRY CARRILLO, ET AL.

Plaintiff asserted one cause of action for negligence against West Tower. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action on November 03, 2020. Ordinarily, “[w]here an action has been voluntarily dismissed or dismissed pursuant to a settlement of the case, there shall be no prevailing party for purposes of [section 1717].” Marina Glencoe, L.P. v. Neue Sentimental Film AG (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 874, 877.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SHEHEDA ABUSAMAHA VS AAA AUTO CLUB ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

As a result, Plaintiff may only recover punitive under their negligence or negligent misrepresentation causes of action. While generally unintentional torts, even gross negligence, will not support an award of punitive damages, an unintentional tort can support an award of punitive damages where the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct and defendant’s conduct was despicable. (See Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210-13; Nolin v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

COREY LOGSDON VS NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL.

BACKGROUND On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Neutron Holdings, Inc. dba Lime (“Lime”) and Church of Scientology International (“Church of Scientology”) for motor vehicle and general negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LONNIE FRANKLIN VS JOSE MAURO RAMIREZ, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On November 1, 2018, Plaintiff Lonnie Franklin filed a complaint against Defendants Jose Mauro Ramirez and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, alleging motor vehicle negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on May 4, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

ANTRANIK KEVORKIAN VS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPT.

Constitution; (3) negligence; (4) violation of Article 1, Sections 7(a) and 13 of the California Constitution; (5) intentional infliction of physical and emotional pain and distress; and (6) racism. B. Relevant Background On July 26, 2018, Judge Ralph C. Hofer entered the Judgment in this action. The Judgment stated that on July 20, 2018, the demurrer of Defendants was heard and argued before the Court and the Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANTHONY TIKIDJIAN VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC

Negligent Misrepresentation 4. Promissory Estoppel 5. Unfair Business Practices – B&P 17200 RULING: The hearing on the demurrer is placed off calendar. Due to the filing of a First Amended Complaint on 1/4/21, the demurrer is rendered moot. See CCP 472(a).

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

WILLIAM CARLYLE V. CAL FIRE, ET AL.

The FAC set forth causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4) violation of constitutional rights; (5) elder abuse; (6) conspiracy; and (7) estoppel. Both the County and Cal Fire filed demurrers to the FAC. On November 5, 2019, the Court sustained Cal-Fire’s demurrer without leave to amend and struck the fifth and sixth causes of action on its own motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

IN RE MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

No scienter is required; defendants are liable even for innocent or negligent misstatements or omissions. (Ibid.) With regard to falsity, it is important to distinguish between statements of fact, which “express[] certainty about a thing,” and statements of opinion, which do not. (Omnicare, supra, 575 U.S. at p. 183.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

YOUNG, ET AL. V. TSAI, ET AL.

“The elements of a cause of action for legal malpractice are (1) the attorney-client relationship or other basis for duty; (2) a negligent act or omission; (3) causation; and (4) damages.” (Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1528.) Citing Barnard v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JERKOVICH V. AZZARELLO, ET AL.

Negligence (7th Cause of Action) The Court first addresses the seventh cause of action for negligence as the issue of duty is determinative on the substantive merits of many of Jerkovich’s remaining claims. In the seventh cause of action, Jerkovich alleges that Azzarello and Kinsella negligently mismanaged the property and breached their duty to her by failing to properly inspect 1010 Park Avenue to uncover defects and make it safe for its intended purpose. (Complaint, ¶ 97.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

HK TRANSPOWER INTL VS SPARK INDUSTIRES LLC

The Court SUSTAINS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND the eighth cause of action for negligence. Plaintiff concedes this claim is not properly asserted and should be dismissed. ANALYSIS 1st and 2nd Causes of Action: Deceit and Misrepresentation Claims for deceit and misrepresentation sound in fraud.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

KIMBERLY THOMPSON VS. RICK J MARTINEZ

As a result, they have stated claims for negligence separate and apart from the claim asserted on behalf of the minor.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DU VS JOHN MUIR HEALTH

Usually, this is done by alleging that the defendant negligently drove or maintained a vehicle or real property; or that he served as the plaintiff’s architect, engineer, lawyer, or physician and negligently advised, acted, or failed to act, further details describing the manner in which the defendant was negligent being unnecessary. Here, plaintiff does not allege directly that Dr. Kim was her doctor or ordered the first MRA or MRI, or negligently diagnosed or treated her.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

CONENZA, INC. VS ENTERPRISEJUNGLE, INC.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional and negligent interference with contractual relations, and unfair competition. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion as to Plaintiff’s third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST VS MAJESTIC REALTY COMPANY, ET AL.

January 14, 2021 Background Facts Plaintiff Insurance Company of the West (“West”) filed this action against Defendants Majestic Realty Company, Pacific Palms Resort, and City of Industry for negligence and premises liability.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NATALIE NASSER V. MARGARITA ADVENTURES, LLC

Plaintiff alleges two causes of action, for (1) negligence and/or gross negligence; and (2) negligence per se – violation of Title 8, sections 344.5-344.17, 3195.1-3195.14, Civil Code § 2101. Defendant now moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivisions (a)(1) and (f)(1), for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JOHN BIRKE VS LOWES HOME CENTERS, LLC, A NORTH CAROLINA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Ellison for fraud – intentional misrepresentation, public nuisance and negligence. Plaintiff has alleged that Ellison is and at all relevant times has been a resident of and domiciled in North Carolina. (Compl. ¶7). Plaintiff further alleges that Ellison is and at all relevant times was the Chief Operating Officer and/or Chief Executive Officer of LHC. Id.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TRACY DURONSLET, ET AL. VS JOYCOOK KOREA, ET AL.

“Regardless of the theory which liability is predicated upon, whether negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability in tort, or other grounds, it is obvious that to hold a producer, manufacturer, or seller liable for injury caused by a particular product, there must first be proof that the defendant produced, manufactured, sold, or was in some way responsible for the product.” (Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 868, 874, internal quotations and citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

NATALIE NASSER V. MARGARITA ADVENTURES, LLC

Plaintiff alleges two causes of action, for (1) negligence and/or gross negligence; and (2) negligence per se – violation of Title 8, sections 344.5-344.17, 3195.1-3195.14, Civil Code § 2101. Defendant now moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivisions (a)(1) and (f)(1), for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  « first    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 load this page.