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

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

JOSEPH ZALENSKI VS FLYING DANS INC

Plaintiff has asserted the following causes of action against Chang: first (i.e., for Fraud), 2nd (i.e., for Negligent Misrepresentation), 3rd (i.e., for Conversion) , 8th (i.e., Violation of Family Code § 5235), 9th (i.e., Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) and 10th (i.e., for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress). The Labor Code violation and FEHA causes of action are asserted against Flying Dan’s only.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

RASHYN REYNOLDS, ET AL. VS AHM RESICOM LLC

B. 2nd COA for General Negligence Defendant re-asserts some of the arguments made against the 1st COA for fraud – lack of facts showing knowledge of the illegal unit. However, as reviewed above, the TAC sufficiently alleges facts showing the element of knowledge of the falsity. Further, the basis of the general negligence COA is for retaliatory eviction – violation of CC §1942.5 and failure to follow rent control ordinances or notices (See TAC ¿GN-1.).

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

BLASI CIUDAD VS MARC CANADELL TORRAS, ET AL.

On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff Blasi Ciudad (Plaintiff) filed suit against Marc Canadell Torras and 9719 Heather LLC, alleging: (1) fraud; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) accounting; (5) breach of oral agreement; (6) quantum meruit; and (7) declaratory relief. Plaintiff now seeks leave of court to file a first amended complaint (FAC).

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRIAN KENNEDY VS KARISH & BJORGUM PC, A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

., alleging: (1) professional negligence; (2) breach of written contract; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; and (4) financial elder abuse. Now, Defendants Karish & Bjorgum PC and Alfred Eric Bjorgum (collectively, Defendants) move to strike Plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest. Legal Standard Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer, such as words, phrases, and prayers for damages. (See Code Civ Proc., §§ 435-437.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LARRY CURLEE V. JOHN E. ODUM

The allegations supporting Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim in the fourth cause of action will be understood to be pled in Plaintiff’s first cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. Fifth cause of action. Defendant argues that the fifth cause of action for professional negligence is duplicative of the third cause of action, which is also for professional negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

MERCO, LLC VS STARR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The SAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of insurance binder against C&F, (2) breach of the contractual duty to pay a covered insurance claim against C&F, (3) professional negligence against RFP and Francis, (4) fraudulent misrepresentation against RFP and Francis, (5) breach of written contract against RFP and Francis, (6) breach of written contract against C&F and US Fire, and (7) intentional misrepresentation against C&F and US Fire.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

Y.S. MEDIA AGENCY, INC. VS L & S BROTHERS LLC, ET AL.

Complaint On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed the initial complaint against L & S Brothers LLC (“L&S”), Harish Solanki (“Solanki”), Chuck Lee (“Lee”) (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 20 asserting eight causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) tortious interference with contractual relations; (4) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) intentional or negligent misrepresentation

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

LOMITA NARBONNE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS GO FRESH, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

“[E]xcepted from the rule [of imputed negligence] are those instances where the attorney's neglect is of that extreme degree amounting to positive misconduct, and the person seeking relief is relatively free from negligence. The exception is premised upon the concept the attorney's conduct, in effect, obliterates the existence of the attorney-client relationship and for this reason his negligence should not be imputed to the client.” Buckert v. Briggs (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 296, 301.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

PAYMON BANAFSHE ET AL VS J&L DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES LLC

“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 19, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EX REL. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD VS NOIL ENERGY GROUP, INC.

Further, the prior judgment will be conclusive on new causes of action in brought subsequent proceedings because litigants “cannot, by negligence or design, withhold issues and litigate them in consecutive actions.” (Id. at p. 187, citing Thibodeau, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 755.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

MIGUEL ANGEL HUERTA VS CURT VAN SCHULTZ, ET AL.

Surprise occurs when a party is unexpectedly placed in a position to his injury without any negligence of his own. Excusable neglect is a basis for relief when the party has shown some reasonable excuse for the default or dismissal. (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 19, 2021

ANNA BASA VS LUIS ARIAS, ET AL.

The complaint alleges general negligence motor vehicle negligence, and negligence per se based upon a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 6, 2017. Arias was operating a vehicle while Plaintiff was a rider when Deleon-Ramirez collided with Arias’ vehicle. On November 27, 2019, Deleon-Ramirez filed a cross-complaint against Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively “Uber”) for indemnification and contribution.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA ET AL VS NEWHALL UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST

Plaintiffs allege that defendants negligently and carelessly controlled, inspected, and operated the project and/or created a dangerous condition (the modular classroom and surrounding areas); failed to protect/guard against or warn of the dangerous condition; failed to ensure the safety of Mata; and/or failed to act with reasonable care all of which Plaintiffs allege caused a modular classroom to collapse onto Mata. On 6/3/16, Defendant Impact Construction Services, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EMILIA AGUILAR-LOPEZ VS FRANCISCA SKRIPKO, ET AL.

ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Emilia Aguilar-Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Francisco Skripko (“Defendant Skripko”) and Mauricio De La Cruz on November 12, 2020. Following Defendant Skripko’s failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered her default on May 19, 2020. Defendant and “Real Party in Interest Alliance United Insurance” filed the instant Motion to Vacate Default on November 12, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

RAFI PELTEKIAN, ET AL. VS INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB

On April 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. On June 4, Defendant answered and filed a peremptory challenge to Department 47. The case was assigned to Department 49. RULING: Granted. The motion was improperly reserved with the court as a motion to compel, rather than the identified motion to compel further responses.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

CLAUDIA VENEGAS VS SAN PEDRO FISH AND OYSTER CORPORATION

BACKGROUND On March 21, 2019, Plaintiff Claudia Venegas filed a complaint against Defendant San Pedro Fish and Oyster Corporation dba Crusty Crab and Does 1 to 25 for general negligence and premises liability. The complaint alleges Defendants negligently maintained the premises to allow a defective table and bench to remain on their restaurant premises, resulting in Plaintiff’s fall on April 2, 2017. On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

LAURA AMPARO VS RENEE ANDERSON

ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Laura Amparo (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Dawnette Anderson (erroneously named Renee Anderson) (“Defendant”) on May 23, 2018. Following Defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered her default on January 14, 2019. Plaintiff filed a second proof of service of the Summons and Complaint with respect to Defendant on August 5, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

WILLIAM JEFFERSON VS DOUD ASSOCIATES INC., ET AL.

As pointed out by Plaintiff in opposition, the general negligence cause of action also contains allegations for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. (FAC, ¶¶ 28-29.) To this extent, the general negligence and premises liability claims are not duplicative. Accordingly, the demurrer to the FAC on this ground is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WILLIAM CARLYLE V. CAL FIRE, ET AL.

The Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Failure to Allege a Duty is Overruled “Gross negligence is pleaded by alleging the traditional elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. However, to set forth a claim for gross negligence the plaintiff must also allege conduct by the defendant involving either want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

NELSON VS DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE

Negligence Product Liability. None of the Does defendants have been specifically named and the employer’s insurer, Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, administered by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies (Redwood Fire) has filed a Notice of First Lien, based on its status as the workers’ compensation carrier for Alpha Materials, Inc., plaintiff’s employer. The lien is for $184,976.89 in benefits paid.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

PHENOMENON MARKETING AND ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED COMPANY VS CAPPELLO GLOBAL, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Proof of negligence, gross negligence, or recklessness is insufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. (Dawes v. Sup.Ct. (Mardian) (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 88–89.) Punitive damages may be recovered in an action for negligence or other nonintentional torts if the plaintiff pleads and proves that the defendant acted with the state of mind described as “conscious disregard” of the potential dangers to others. (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YASSY HOSSEINI ET AL VS CEDAR-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Defendants were allegedly negligent in their care and treatment, causing Plaintiff to overdose on experimental drugs. The operative Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and intentional tort. On April 24, 2018, this case was transferred to Department 3 of the PI hub. There was little activity on the case until July 2, 2019, when Department 3 deemed the case complex and transferred it to Department 30.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JESUS HERRERA VS JOSE LUIS CORRAL, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff Jesus Herrera (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Jose Luis Corral (“Corral”) and Maria Elena Lopez (“Lopez”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for negligence and motor vehicle owner liability – permissive use of vehicle. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise out of an automobile accident that occurred on May 28, 2018. On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of related case, identifying Jose Luis Corral v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

BRENDA NICHOLS, ET AL. VS CATALINA ISLAND COMPANY, ET AL.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendants argue that under admiralty law, John has no valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. As discussed above, state law governs the instant action. The motion is denied on this ground. Duplicate Causes of Action (Negligence; Premises Liability) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ cause of action for premises liability is duplicative of their cause of action for negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

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.