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

    Apr 25, 2026

NICHOLAS V. MORETTA VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

On October 4, 2019, Seidner filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Roes 1-10 for: Indemnification Apportionment of Fault Declaratory Relief Negligence On November 13, 2019, this action was transferred from the Department 4A of the Personal Injury Court to this department. On June 1, 2020, Seidner filed an Amendment to Cross-Complaint, wherein John Moretta was named in lieu of Roe 1. The Final Status Conference is set for January 25, 2021. Trial is set for February 9, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

(erroneously sued as Crystal Mountain) and Does 1-50 for: Negligence Negligence—Products Liability Strict Products Liability On June 19, 2019, DS Services and Costco filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Cross-Defendants Crystal Mountain International Limited and Roes 1-10 for: Implied Indemnity Contribution Express Indemnity Breach of Contract Declaratory Relief On October 3, 2019, this action was transferred from the personal injury hub (Department 5) to this department.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MICHAEL GREEN ET AL VS CASA VIEJA GRILL ET AL

Accordingly, Counsel asserts that Atkinson’s personal injury causes of action for which his office was retained are moot as a matter of law. Counsel further declares that to the extent Atkinson still has a viable survivor cause of action against Defendants, Counsel’s office was not retained for such purposes.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEAN NDJONGO VS HENRY M. WILLIS, 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 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

    Jul 14, 2020

DANIEL KANG VS VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

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. Simply stated, the economic loss rule provides: '[W]here a purchaser's expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only ‘economic’ losses.'

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JESSICA STEVENS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS NBA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

“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. Simply stated, the economic loss rule provides: '[W]here a purchaser's expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only ‘economic’ losses.'

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPO

Security does not cite any law for its contention that Plaintiff’s attorneys should not be paid because they took the case on a contingency basis, which is common for personal injury plaintiffs’ attorneys. Security also fails to cite any law for its argument that Reinke should have recovered more money in settlement. (See, Soliz v. Spielman (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 70, 72 [employee has no duty to sue third party for benefit of employer].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

JEFF REINKE VS ELMER ERNESTO LOPEZ PLIEGO ET AL

Security does not cite any law for its contention that Plaintiff’s attorneys should not be paid because they took the case on a contingency basis, which is common for personal injury plaintiffs’ attorneys. Security also fails to cite any law for its argument that Reinke should have recovered more money in settlement. (See, Soliz v. Spielman (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 70, 72 [employee has no duty to sue third party for benefit of employer].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JUAN MANUEL GUTIERREZ VS CRYSTAL GEYSER WATER COMPANY

Opposing Party was deposed on his personal injury claims arising from the subject incident on July 26, 2018. (Yoshioka, Decl. ¶ 3.) The second deposition sought would be limited to facts and circumstances giving rise to Moving Party’s first amended cross-complaint, which did not occur until after Plaintiff’s first deposition was taken.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

GUZMAN VS FCA US, LLC

Further, Plaintiffs were not exposed to any personal injury damages independent of the economic loss that was foreseeable from a defective [product] . . . . The type of damage Plaintiffs suffered is distinguishable from Robinson's exposure to personal injury liability, among other types of damage. The fraudulent concealment claim in this case is not predicated on affirmative misrepresentations that led Plaintiffs to be exposed to liability or damages beyond those expected from a defective [product].

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

GUADALUPE M LOPEZ VS EL MONTE CITY SCHOOL DISTICT ET AL

On October 18, 2018, this action was transferred from the personal injury hub (Department 3) to this department. On October 30, 2018, APM filed an Amendment to Cross-Complaint, wherein Nazerian was named in lieu of Roe 1. On December 7, 2018, Nazerian filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Cross-Defendants Royal, APM, G&Y General Contractors, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

Breeze, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 608, 625 (providing examples of primary rights including “the right to be free from personal injury” and “the right to possession of real property”).) In Gillies, the appellate court examined a res judicata defense predicated on four pre-foreclosure lawsuits involving “similar allegations of claimed wrongful foreclosure procedures and [the lender’s] standing to foreclose.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

BRUCE A ARONSON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

Economic Loss Rule Kia argues that because Plaintiff only seeks money damages (not from personal injury), the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff’s fraud claim. The court finds that it does not. Generally, 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....” (Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 979, 988 (citations omitted).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

KELSEA SAKAMOTO VS GLENOAKS TOWNHOMES LLC, ET AL.

(5) His right to have the landlord exercise a duty of care to prevent personal injury or personal property damage where that duty is imposed by law.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

IVAN K STEVENSON VS WAI CHING SHILON ET AL

Stevenson filed a complaint against Wai Ching Shilon aka Anne Shilon and Moti Shilon for negligence, breach of oral contract, breach of implied contract, fraud, personal injury, and property damage. On October 18, 2016, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On May 1, 2017, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. On January 16, 2018, filed amendments designating Doe 1 as Grand Hall USA, Inc. and Doe 2 as Best Built Construction, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

DANIEL GARCIA VS BRUNTON ENTERPRISES INC

Bigge moves to sever trial of the cross-complaints between Plas-Tal and Bigge from Plaintiff’s underlying personal injury action. Alternatively, Bigge requests that the trial be conducted in two phases before two separate juries: (1) the issues of the cross-complaints of Plas-Tal and Bigge (each alleging express and implied indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief) be heard in phase one; and (2) Plaintiff’s underlying personal injury claim (negligence) in phase two.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRUCE A ARONSON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

Economic Loss Rule Kia argues that because Plaintiff only seeks money damages (not from personal injury), the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff’s fraud claim. The court finds that it does not. Generally, 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....” (Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 979, 988 (citations omitted).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

RANVIR KAUR V. CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

And so, in the absence of any articulation by Kaur as to particular communications she is withholding based on a valid claim of privilege, the mere fact that this is a personal injury action in which Caltrans seeks medical records does not trigger the privilege standing alone.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

THOMAS O'BRIEN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET

This personal injury action was filed by Plaintiff THOMAS O’BRIEN on June 26, 2015. Plaintiff’s “Revised Second Amended Complaint” (“SAC”) was FILED on February 15, 2019. The relevant facts, as alleged, are as follows: “In or about 1993, plaintiff leased space for the purpose of conducting a warehouse business at 2403 and 2415 E. Firestone Blvd., South Gate, CA 90280 and similarly described addresses (‘the Property’) ….

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DANIELLA AFSHAR VS MICHAEL OBENG MD ET AL

Law Governing Causation In order to establish that defendant's negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing injury or death, the plaintiff must prove the negligence was of itself sufficient to bring about that harm. “The law is well settled that in a personal injury action causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SUSAN CHAN CHOW ET AL VS MA LEYBA ET AL

Pavitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1498 (“‘The law is well settled that in a personal injury action causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. [Citations.] That there is a distinction between a reasonable medical ‘probability’ and a medical ‘possibility’ needs little discussion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ABDELLATIF JOUIBLI, ET AL. VS DIANA CAMACHO

Costco contends that Vaziri Law Group, APC regularly files personal injury lawsuits against Costco and hired Federico Stea (“Stea”) knowing that he was a former employee of Yukevitch | Cavanaugh, Costco’s lead counsel in many personal injury suits similar to the instant case. (Motion at p. 5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

HARRY SLOAN V. PEOPLES’ SELF-HELP HOUSING CORP., THE DUNCAN GROUP CORP.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not sought or had medical help during the relevant period, and that in a personal injury action, causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based on expert testimony; a mere possibility is insufficient. (UMF 41, 42; Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 14 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff has no evidence to a reasonable medical probability that his physical and mental injuries are a result of EMFs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ISAAC ESCOBAR V. QUINN LIFT, INC., ET AL.

Second, if the injuries did arise out of and in the course of the employment, the exclusive remedy provisions apply notwithstanding that the injury resulted from the intentional conduct of the employer, and even though the employer’s conduct might be characterized as egregious. … Further, we noted that the legal theory supporting such exclusive remedy provisions is a presumed ‘compensation bargain,’ pursuant to which the employer assumes liability for industrial personal injury or death without regard to fault

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 114     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.