What is personal injury caused by negligence?

Useful Rulings on Negligence – Personal Injury

Recent Rulings on Negligence – Personal Injury

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The doctrine has four exceptions: “[i]n the absence of (1) personal injury, (2) physical damage to property, (3) a “special relationship” existing between the parties, or (4) some other common law exception to the rule, recovery of purely economic loss is foreclosed.” (J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799. There is no question that this case involves physical damage to property arising from alleged defects.

  • Hearing

MARTIN BALMACEDA VS ZHICHENG LIU ET AL

According to Lukken: On August 24, 2019, [Plaintiff’s counsel] engaged me to arrange for translation and service of the following documents: Summons Complaint (Personal Injury) Causes of Action—Motor Vehicle and General Negligence Civil Case Cover Sheet with Addendum Notice of Case Assignment with 7th Amended General Order Statement of Damages (Id., ¶ 8.) Simply, there is no evidence in the record that Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to serve a deposition subpoena on Liu.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

A Personal Injury Action is an unlimited civil case described on the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location (LACIV 109) as Motor Vehicle-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death; Personal Injury /Property Damage/Wrongful Death-Uninsured Motorist; Product Liability; Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage; Wrongful Death; or Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death. (Local Rule, Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A).)

  • Hearing

BAHRAM JARIDIAN VS SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action: Fraud (Economic Loss Rule) “Economic loss consists of damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product or consequent loss of profits-without any claim of personal injury or damages to other property.

  • Hearing

JIN HONG VS MICHELLE KIM, ET AL.

Code Violation RICO/Hobbs Act Violation Professional Negligence On July 27, 2020, Dinglasan’s default was entered. On October 7, 2020, this case was transferred from Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department. A Status Conference is set for December 1, 2020. Discussion The hearing on the demurrer is CONTINUED to January 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128; 430.41[2].)

  • Hearing

JESSIE MEDINA VS. STATE READY MIX INC

CCP § 36 provides that a civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.

  • Hearing

BLANCA Y NAVARRO, ET AL. VS ROBERT WU, ET AL.

On October 6, 2020, this action was transferred from Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court to this department. A Status Conference is set for November 30, 2020. 1. Demurrer Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSEPH SORIA VS MILLERCOORS, LLC, ET AL.

On January 10, 2020, Pacific Mechanical Supply (“Pacific”) filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Roes 1-100 for: Equitable Indemnity Contribution Declaratory Relief On February 27, 2020, this case was transferred from Department 28 (personal injury court) to this instant department. On July 30, 2020, Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company filed its Complaint-In-Intervention for Recovery of Worker’s Compensation Benefits.

  • Hearing

KIMBERLEY BERRUETE LOPEZ VS WESTERN MERCHANDISED EXPRESS, INC., ET AL.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Solares’ act of fleeing the scene of the accident after causing personal injury to plaintiff is despicable and in conscious disregard of the safety of Plaintiff. The Court finds Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state a prima facie case for punitive damages. As to Defendant Western, Plaintiff has not alleged any malice, oppression, or fraud by any officer, director, or managing agent.

  • Hearing

KIAN MORADZADEH VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

The City of Los Angeles self-administers, defends, settles, and pays third-party claims for bodily injury, personal injury, death and/or property damage. Protection under the program is warranted up to One Million Dollars, combined single limit, per occurrence.” (FAC, Ex. 1 [emphasis added].) The terms of Exhibit 1, entitled “Right of Entry,” explicitly provides for third party claims, and not for claims of the undersigned Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

DEVIN WEISBERG VS JAURIGUE LAW GROUP, ET AL.

In Mojtahedi, the plaintiff, Mojtahedi, represented two clients in a personal injury action until the defendant, Vargas, substituted in as new counsel. (Mojtahedi v. Vargas, supra, 228 Cal. App. 4th at 976.) Mojtahedi informed the claims adjuster that he had a lien for attorneys’ fees, but Vargas deposited the settlement funds into the client trust account after the clients settled their case. (Id.)

  • Hearing

TAMIKO BROWNLEE VS MISSION CONTROL MEDIA INC ET AL

Pyrotechnic devices shall be mounted so that no fallout from the device endangers human lives, results in personal injury, or damages property.” Plaintiff argues that the pyrotechnic device which injured her did not comply with these legal standards because the device was not securely mounted. There are several problems with Plaintiff’s arguments. First, the NFPA is a private organization, not a public entity. (Coalition For ICANN Transparency, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010) 611 F.3d 495, 506.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JACQUELINE PEREZ VS MARIA ANGELICA CANEDO

In this personal injury action, Plaintiff has put her medical condition at issue. Plaintiff has testified that Kaiser is her primary healthcare provider. (Opp. at Ex. C [Pl.’s Depo. at p.45], Ex. B [Pl.’s FROG Response No. 6.4].) The scope of the type of documents sought is overbroad. As stated by Plaintiff, she is only claiming damages for injuries related to treatment of her neck, back, hips, and shoulders (i.e., orthopedic treatment), and not for internal injuries.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEREMY M STAGE ET AL VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

Thus, the Court found that even assuming Oltmans’ active negligence was the cause of the underlying personal injury claim, Oltmans may still be entitled to indemnification from Bayside for the portion of any liability it incurs attributable to others. (Id. at 367.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARSHALL MCQUEEN, JR VS OFFICE DEPOT

Finally, Interrogatory No. 111.2 asks that Plaintiff state the case name, court, and case number for each personal injury action or claim filed by him or anyone acting on his behalf within the past ten years. (Interrogatories Mot., Helfend Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Plaintiff identified one prior personal injury claim, Marshal McQueen Jr. v. Office Depot. (Id., Sep. Statement, p. 2:3-4; 9/10/20 Burnet Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

CASSANDRA MARIE TRIVISANO VS RUPINDER SINGH JHALLI ET AL

On December 19, 2019, the Personal Injury Court granted a motion to consolidate these two cases. On January 28, 2020, the court transferred the case to this Court for all purposes except for trial. (See 1/28/2020 Minute order; see also 2/14/2020 Transfer order.) On April 21, 2020, Defendants Balreet Dyal and Ramandeep Dyal filed a motion for summary adjudication as to both complaints.

  • Hearing

CARMELITA GOMEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS PARITOSH MAZUMDER, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

On April 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants MAZ Management LLC, Paritosh Mazumder (Defendants”) and Does 1-20 for: Negligence Nuisance Breach of Lease Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability On September 18, 2019, this case was transferred from Department 3 (personal injury hub) to this instant department. A Case Management Conference is set for October 14, 2020. Discussion H.G.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SIKES VS. KNC NAILS & SPAS, INC.

This is a personal injury lawsuit alleging general negligence and premises liability causes of action. Around 9:00 a.m. on February 27, 2017, Plaintiff arrived at a strip mall located at 7668 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA. See Ex. A and B to Defendant's Notice of Lodgment ("NOL"); Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("UMF") and Plaintiff's Opposition thereto at ¶ 5.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANGELICA ARNADO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS 901 SOUTH BROADWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

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 a personal injury action 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

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

AVERY SCHWARTZ VS DIGNITY HEALTH

“[T]he basis for the exclusivity rule in workers’ compensation law is the ‘presumed ‘compensation bargain,’ pursuant to which the employer assumes liability for industrial personal injury or death without regard to fault in exchange for limitations on the amount of that liability.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SAVANNAH LUYBEN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOHN LUYBEN VS MEMORIALCARE CENTER FOR WOMEN OB/GYN CLINIC, ET AL.

. §36(b) provides: (b) A civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole. A civil action subject to subdivision (a) shall be given preference over a case subject to this subdivision. Defendant, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center filed an opposition to the motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ZACHARY CHITWOOD VS OCEAN PARK RESTAURANT CORPORATION ET AL

Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, 1310 [270 Cal.Rptr. 151] [equating recovery of attorney fees as damages to medical fees recovered in personal injury action]; see § 3333 [“the measure of damages ... is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not”].)” (Mega RV Corp. v. HWH Corp. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1337–1338, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 20, 2014).)

  • Hearing

JOSEPH SORIA VS MILLERCOORS, LLC, ET AL.

On January 10, 2020, Pacific Mechanical Supply (“Pacific”) filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Roes 1-100 for: Equitable Indemnity Contribution Declaratory Relief On February 27, 2020, this case was transferred from Department 28 (personal injury court) to this instant department. On July 30, 2020, Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company filed its Complaint-In-Intervention for Recovery of Worker’s Compensation Benefits.

  • Hearing

ENGEL VS MEDINA

Factual background: This is a personal injury action based on premises liability. Plaintiffs Alex Engel and Monica Engel (collectively, “plaintiffs”) allege that plaintiff Alex Engel was an unlicensed contractor hired by defendant to install a zip-line on the premises of defendants Victor Medina (Medina) and Leticia Valizan (Valizan) (collectively, Medina and Valizan are referenced as “defendants”) located at 2401 Moonridge Circle in Corona.

  • Hearing

MARQUEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERIC

It does note, however, that fraud – as opposed to, say, negligence or personal injury – is arguably an inherently economic tort. If this argument is renewed on further demurrer, NNA would do well to lay out why an economic-loss rule, as applied to the tort of fraud, would not essentially repeal the tort.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 129     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.