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

201-225 of 10000 results

ALEXANDRA FACTOR VS DV FINANCIAL GROUP, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Although the account was created after the loan was originated, the FAC alleges Defendants Ashbel and Sherman engaged in multiple negligent misrepresentations (after the execution of the loan documents) regarding repayment, etc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

BATTAGLIA VS RIVERSIDE TRANSIT ANGENCY

The complaint sets forth a single cause of action for negligence. * * * RTA now moves for summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

BARRERA VS HELLING

Although the declarations in support of the motion are weak, “[i]n a case like this one, where there would have been no real prejudice had the set-aside motion been granted, the rule is that a party's negligence in allowing a default to be taken in the first place ‘will be excused on a weak showing.’” (Lasalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, 140 [citations omitted, emphasis in original] (Lasalle).)

  • 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

JENNIFER CAMPOS VS CHINTU SHAH, ET AL.

Accordingly, Dume’s demurrer to the first and second causes of action for negligence and premises liability is SUSTAINED with twenty days’ leave to amend. Negligence Per Se Dume demurs to the third cause of action for negligence per se on grounds it is not liable under Civil Code section 3342. However, as an initial matter, there is no separate cause of action for negligence per se. Rather, it is an evidentiary doctrine whereby negligence may be presumed if the evidentiary requirements are met.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DONGHONG DENG, ET AL. VS EAST WEST BANK, ET AL.

Likewise, “[e]ach element in a cause of action for. . . negligent misrepresentation must be factually and specifically alleged.” (Cadlo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2004) 125 C.A.4th 513, 519 [citation omitted].) Plaintiffs have alleged that “[o]n or about August 15, 2015, Plaintiffs were solicited by Linda Fang, Vice President Financial Consultant of East West Bank, to come to her office at the Bank . . .

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ST. PATRICK'S DAY ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP VS WESTSIDE CART RENTALS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On September 25, 2020, defendants filed a cross-complaint against CBRE, Inc. for (1) negligence, (2) fraud, (3) tort of another, and (4) indemnity. LEGAL AUTHORITY When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228. “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SEAN ROSS PAUL VS TISHMAN SPEYER ARCHSTONE-SMITH ET AL

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of express and implied contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing/breach of express/implied warranty of habitability; (3) fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and concealment; (4) negligence—premises liability; (5) negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent management (owner and manager); (6) negligence; (7) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

MICHELE VEDON VS LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

First, Defendant argues that the contracts Plaintiff seeks are not relevant to establishing any element for a cause of action for medical negligence against Defendants, and therefore should not be produced. However, the scope of discovery is not so narrow. The most basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information must be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

KAMAL MCHANTAF VS ASHANTI TRAVERS, ET AL.

“A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

FREDERICK TUCKER VS LONE OAK FUND, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s allegations must show “that the conduct of the defendant, whether or not it also constitutes a breach of a consensual contract term, demonstrates a failure or refusal to discharge contractual responsibilities, prompted not by an honest mistake, bad judgment or negligence but rather by a conscious and deliberate act, which unfairly frustrates the agreed common purposes and disappoints the reasonable expectations of the other party thereby depriving that party of the benefits of the agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JESUS OCAMPO VS PAULOS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLC

The elements of trespass are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or control of the property; (2) the defendant’s intentional, reckless, or negligent entry onto the property; (3) lack of permission for the entry or acts in excess of permission; (4) harm; and (5) the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Ralphs Grocery Store v. Victory Consultants Inc., (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 261-62.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GETHSEMANI CHURCH, CHRISTIAN PENTECOSTAL FOURSQUARE GOSPEL, INC. VS MICHAEL A. GONZALEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The elements of trespass are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or control of the property; (2) the defendant’s intentional, reckless, or negligent entry onto the property; (3) lack of permission for the entry or acts in excess of permission; (4) harm; and (5) the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Ralphs Grocery Store v. Victory Consultants Inc., (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 261-62. Church provides evidence that it has owned the Property for decades. Frances Decl., ¶3, Ex. 9.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

YONG HWAN KIM ET AL VS CHRISTINE Y KIM ET AL

., dba Bee Realty Group dba Bee Commercial, a California Corporation (collectively, “Brokers”) for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. On December 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Defendants Joon Kim; JK-0618, Inc., a dissolved California Corporation; Elaine Oh; Jisun Oh, and Sookryul Choi (collectively, “Sellers”) to the action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DREW B. GRUNDFOR V. ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff contends that the Law Firm Defendants provided negligent services to Plaintiff. The applicability of Insurance Code section 533.5 (if any) to Plaintiff’s negligence claim against the Law Firm Defendants is unclear at this juncture. As this court recognized almost 25 years ago in Budd v. Nixen, supra, 6 Cal.3d at pages 201-202, depending upon the particulars, actionable harm may occur at any one of several points in time subsequent to an attorney’s negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

INGRAM MICRO, INC. V. VISTA IT SYSTEMS, INC.

The seventh cause of action for negligent misrepresentation also fails under the economic loss rule, as indicated above relative to the fifth cause of action. Vista IT concedes that it did not have permission to file the eighth cause of action, but it asks the court to exercise its “discretion” to allow it. By sustaining the demurrer, the court is effectively striking it.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

FUELING AND SERVICE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. WORLD CNG SW, LLC

The third and fourth causes of action for strict products liability and negligence do not allege facts showing an injury while using the product in the intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. Further, the purchaser of the subject vehicles was the plaintiff, not the cross-complainant. As to the fifth cause of action for declaratory relief, there are sufficient allegations that an actual controversy has arisen and exists between the parties about their respective rights, duties, and obligations.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

NICOLE BRAZIER VS. ROBERT DOUGLAS FREY MD

; and all of this was done by defendants with the intent to conceal the true facts from Brazier (that they were medically negligent) and to induce her justifiable reliance on the fraudulent representations and concealment.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

TSAI VS CAPITAL EQUITES MANAGE

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend so that plaintiff may attempt to state a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation if he so chooses.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

SWOPE VS LIBERTY UNION HIGH SC

Negligent Hiring / Retention (Cause of Action Three) The negligent hiring and retention claim includes many of the allegations included for the negligent supervision claim. In order for this claim to be different from the negligent supervision claim, however, the theory here appears to be one based on negligent hiring and retention of Souza.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

KENT/WOLLMAN VS WCCUSD/JUV INC

., for negligence, trespass, public nuisance, and private nuisance. (SSUMF, No. 3.) They alleged, inter alia, that “[t]he District engaged in large tree removal, grading, and trench work adjacent to the two Subject Properties in order to assist in building a school and related improvements (the school and improvements are continuing to operate as of the date this First Amended Complaint is being filed).” (First Amended Complaint, Exhibit A-1 to Rosen Decl., ¶7.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

MARO BURUNSUZYAN VS DIMITRI ROGER

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Invasion of Privacy/Public Disclosure of Private Facts; Appropriation of Personal Information for Use in a False Light; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Negligence. On March 4, 2020, the Court granted Judgment Creditor’s request for entry of default judgment in the total amount of $601,235.15 against Judgment Debtor.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RAFAEL ARAUJO ET AL VS ELEN BATOYAN

Surprise occurs when a Defendant is unexpectedly placed in a position to his injury without any negligence of his own. Excusable neglect is a basis for relief when the Defendant has shown some reasonable excuse for the default. (Credit Managers Association of California v. National Independent Business Alliance (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1166, 1173; Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 905.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

KARLA GOMEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ANDOVER MAINTENANCE, INC., A CALIFORNIA COMPANY; SPECIALTY SERVICES, A CALIFORNIA COMPANY, ET AL.

Eighth Cause of Action – Negligence The eighth cause of action alleges Defendants were negligent in failing to provide a workplace free of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. A cause of action for negligence requires (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal. App. 4th 292, 318.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MICHAEL LEVINE, ET AL. VS MONTALBA ARCHITECTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

9) Negligence; (10) Conversion; (11) Aiding and Abetting Conversion; and (12) Violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq relating to the design and construction of a property in Westwood located at 839 Manning Avenue.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 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.