Although compliance with the law does not prove the absence of negligence, violation of the law does raise a presumption that the violator was negligent. This is called negligence per se. Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1526.
The necessary elements of negligence per se are:
Evid. Code, § 669(a).
Negligence per se is not a distinct cause of action, but merely creates a presumption affecting the standard of care for negligence. Johnson v. Honeywell Int'l Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 549, 555.
The defendant may rebut a presumption of negligence but only with evidence establishing a justification or excuse for the statutory violation. Spriesterbach v. Holland (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 255, 263; 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 306, (internal citation omitted).
The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se (Cal. Vehicle Code § 21760), (3) negligence per se (Cal. Vehicle Code § 22450), and (4) negligence per se (Cal. Vehicle Code § 22107). Defendant now demurs to the second, third, and fourth causes of action for negligence per se on the ground these claims do not constitute separate causes of action or provide a private right of action. 2.
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants maintain that “Plaintiff also alleges Negligence per se under the first cause of action, however, fails to provide sufficient facts to how defendant violated Welfare and Institution Code or how the code was designed to protect plaintiff.” (Id. at p. 5:25-27.)
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges vehicular negligence and negligence per se arising from an automobile collision that occurred on January 3, 2017. On April 15, 2019, the Court dismissed Defendants Enterprise Leasing Company—West and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company-West without prejudice. On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, Raymond D. McElfish, Esq. and McElfish Law Firm, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Trial is set for August 20, 2021.
Los Angeles County, CA
The plaintiff alleges a violation of Civil Code section 3342, negligence, and negligence per se in the complaint arising from a dog attack that occurred on July 19, 2018. On August 5, 2020, Petitioner Elen Aslanyan filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action on behalf of Claimant H. H. An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is scheduled for February 25, 2021.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Lastly, the Court views Plaintiffs’ negligence per se cause of action as merely another count upon which Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action is based. Thus, the demurrer is properly overruled as to Plaintiff’s negligence per se cause of action. Therefore, the demurrer must be overruled. CONCLUSION The demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendants must answer the complaint within 20 days.
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs allege motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and negligence per se in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on December 30, 2017. May 19, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint to rename Roe 1 as Defendant Josue Rogelio Salazar (“Defendant Salazar”). On July 10, 2020, Defendant Salazar filed an application for a determination of a good faith settlement without a hearing.
Los Angeles County, CA
Bigelow’s motion for summary adjudication is granted as to plaintiff’s causes of action 1 (negligence), 3 (respondeat superior), 4 (negligent hiring and supervision), 5 (negligence per se), and 10 (negligent infliction of emotional distress). It is denied as to plaintiff’s cause of action 11 (UCL). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff’s complaint.
Contra Costa County, CA
The XC alleges nine (9) causes of action sounding in (1) Trespass, (2) Private Nuisance, (3) Negligence, (4) Negligence Per Se, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), (6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”), (7) Assault, (8) Declaratory Relief, and (9) Injunctive Relief.
Real Property
Quiet Title
Los Angeles County, CA
Negligence Per Se Doctrine Plaintiff does not dispute Alvand’s case law establishing the scope of the duty of care owed by landlords to tenants. Instead, Plaintiff appears to argue that Alvand can be held liable on a negligence per se theory. “ ‘Negligence per se’ is an evidentiary doctrine codified at Evidence Code section 669.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint, filed August 5, 2019, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; and (2) negligence per se. B. Motions on Calendar There are 3 motions on calendar. On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed 2 motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to: (1) Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 (“FROG”); and (2) Requests for Admission (“RFA”). On August 20, 2020, Defendant filed opposition briefs to the 2 motions. On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed reply briefs.
Los Angeles County, CA
Discussion Defendant moves for summary judgment, or alternatively adjudication of Plaintiff’s first cause of action for Premises Liability; second cause of action for Negligence; third cause of action for Failure to Warn; and fifth cause of action for Negligence Per Se.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Bitton, and American Contractors Indemnity Company asserting causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Negligence; (4) Negligence Per Se; (5) Fraudulent Inducement; (6) Fraud/Promise Without Intent to Perform; (7) Breach of Express and Implied Warranties; (8) Recovery on Contractors’ License Bonds; (9) Disgorgement; (10) Elder Financial Abuse; and (11) Conversion.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer – Negligence Per Se Negligence per se is not a distinct cause of action, but merely creates a presumption affecting the standard of care for negligence. (Johnson v. Honeywell Internat. Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 549, 555.)
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs allege negligence and negligence per se in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on September 13, 2017. On October 1, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Carolyn Houston without prejudice. On March 25, 2020, Plaintiff Carolyn Houston’s counsel, Bretil Beittmirza, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2).
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs allege negligence and negligence per se in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on September 13, 2017. On October 1, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Carolyn Houston without prejudice. On March 25, 2020, Plaintiff Carolyn Houston’s counsel, Bretil Beittmirza, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2).
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint alleges negligence and negligence per se arising out of a vehicle-bicycle incident that occurred on Marcy 9, 2016. No proof of service for the complaint was filed. On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, Sandeep G. Agarwal, Esq., filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2). On March 20, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to be relieved as counsel to May 14, 2020.
Los Angeles County, CA
The Fourth Cause of Action for Negligence per se is entirely redundant of the Third Cause of Action for Negligence. Demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action is Sustained without Leave to Amend. Motion to Strike is Denied, however, any amended pleadings should be verified by Plaintiff under CCP § 425.50(b)(1).
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiff alleges general negligence, motor vehicle negligence, and negligence per se in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on September 28, 2017. On August 11, 2018, Defendant Ryan Michael filed a motion to quash the service of summons pursuant to California Code of Civil procedure section 418.10. Trial is set for January 28, 2021.
Los Angeles County, CA
On August 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligence Per Se (Violation of Vehicle Code §23103); (3) Negligence Per Se (Violation of Vehicle Code §22100.5); (4) Negligence Per Se (Violation of Vehicle Code §22107); (5) Trespass to Chattel; (6) Conversion; (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (8) Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Defendant moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Acain - 20STCV24175 Upon review of the legal file, the Court notes that Plaintiff's "First Amended Complaint for Damages From Personal Injuries Based Upon Negligence and Negligence Per Se" is filed herein 10/30/2020. Therefore, the Court orders: The Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint Pertaining to Punitive Damages filed by Ophelia Acain on 10/13/2020 and set for hearing on 11/13/202 is hereby taken off calendar as MOOT. Moving party to give notice.
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserts claims for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence and negligence per se. Defendant Carlson demurs to the third cause of action, arguing that the claim fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendant is correct that negligence per se is an evidentiary doctrine creating a presumption of negligence, as opposed to a cause of action distinct from other forms negligence. (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center, 140 Cal. App. 4th 1256, 1285 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2006).)
Los Angeles County, CA
Icban Defendants’ Demurrer to First Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Defendants DOLORA ICBAN, ANTONIO ICBAN, and ICBAN’S HOME (together the “Icban Defendants”) demur to Plaintiffs JUDITH BELLAMY and CYNTHIA PIKE’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) against them for negligence and negligence per se. “The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” (Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420.)
Solano County, CA
As to plaintiff’s negligence per se claim under this cause of action, defendant argues that there was no failure to report and they did not hinder the investigation by the TPD. Etherington had no reasonable suspicion of child abuse and thought she had taken care of the situation and only found out what happened after the principal showed her the surveillance footage. Etherington depo.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserts claims for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence and negligence per se. Defendant Carlson demurs to the third cause of action, arguing that the claim fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendant is correct that negligence per se is an evidentiary doctrine creating a presumption of negligence, as opposed to a cause of action distinct from other forms negligence. (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center, 140 Cal. App. 4th 1256, 1285 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2006).)
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the fourth cause of action for negligence per se, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. While a negligence per se claim is not an independent tort, it is a recognized claim in California. Plaintiff must allege all elements of a negligence claim. Here, Plaintiff does not allege what statute or ordinance was violated. The reference to PUC section 2106 merely acknowledges liability of a public utility. The reference to H&S section also merely recites liability for fire damage.
Dept. 6
Nevada County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
