Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Res ipsa loquitor “is a way for a plaintiff to use a shortcut of circumstantial evidence to prove negligence.” (Howe v. Seven Forty Two Co., Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1161). “In California, it is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.” (Id. at 1161). It is codified in California Evidence Code § 646:
“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has three conditions:
(Ybarra v. Spangard (1944) 25 Cal. 2d 486, 489). All of these elements are aimed at ensuring that the defendant had control, so as to cause the injury, and permit the presumption of negligence. (Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno (1952) 39 Cal.2d 436, 444-45).
If the plaintiff is able to prove these three elements, then the presumption applies; the defendant is presumptively negligent. (Howe v. Seven Forty Two Co., Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1161). If a plaintiff is not able to prove the elements, the plaintiff can still prove negligence in the usual way by introducing actual evidence that the defendant was negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. (Id. at 1163).
"The requirement of control is not an absolute one. Although, as we have seen, the doctrine will not ordinarily apply if it is equally probable that the negligence was that of someone other than the defendant, the plaintiff need not exclude all other persons who might possibly have been responsible where the defendant's negligence appears to be the more probable explanation of the accident." (Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 436, 443-444).
In medical negligence claims, res ipsa loquitor only applies "when a layperson 'is able to say as a matter of common knowledge and observation that the consequences of professional treatment were not such as ordinarily would have followed if due care had been exercised.'" (Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hosp. Medical Ctr. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001). Typical circumstances in which the doctrine might properly be applied are "... where a sponge was left in the body of the patient after closing an operative incision ...; where the patient was burned by the application of hot compresses or heating apparatus ...; where the patient was burned through the operation of an X-ray machine ...; and where the patient sustained an infection through the use of an unsterilized hypodermic needle .... In each one of these situations the rule was applied because common knowledge and experience teaches that the result was one which would not have occurred if due care had been exercised." (Engelking v. Carlson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 216, 221).
“[I]f evidence is produced that would support a finding that the defendant was not negligent or that any negligence on his part was not a proximate cause of the accident, the presumptive effect of the doctrine vanishes.” (Howe v. Seven Forty Two Co., Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1163). “[T]he mere introduction of evidence that would be sufficient to sustain a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact causes the presumption, as a matter of law, to disappear.” (Id.).
When the presumption has vanished, then the plaintiff has the burden to introduce evidence that proves the defendant was negligence and caused injury. (Id.).
Res ipsa loquitor can be considered as a “count” within the negligence cause of action. “[I]t is not an independent ground of liability.” (Gicking v. Kimberlin (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 73, 78).
There is no harm in including the count in the complaint. (See 4 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Plead § 607 -08 (2008) (negligence can be plead across different counts); Sproul v. Cuddy (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 85, 97 (setting up different counts for negligence in the complaint is proper)). “The essence of the matter is fairness in pleading to give the defendant such notice by the complaint that he may prepare his case”. (4 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Plead § 607 (2008)).
A “general plea of negligence does not preclude the plaintiff from relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur” in its jury instructions. (Ellis v. Jewett (1937) 18 Cal.App.2d 629, 636-37).
As for plaintiff's res ipsa loquitur argument, the mere fact that the fire occurred is insufficient to raise an inference of negligence. Bartholomai v Owl Drug Co. (1940) 42 Cal.App.2d 38, 42. On the other hand, the fact that this case involves a fire does not make the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur inapplicable. Seeley v Combs (1966) 65 Cal.2d 127, 133.
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. MARK HALVORSEN
56-2011-00400929-CU-PO-VTA
Oct 01, 2012
Ventura County, CA
As the Complaint asserts a cause of action for res ipsa loquitur, and no such cause of action exists, the demurrer must be SUSTAINED. Leave to amend will not be granted to allege a separate cause of action for res ipsa loquitur. That said, the complaint currently does not allege joint ownership or control of the defendants to establish the theory of res ipsa loquitur. (See Ybarra v.
BRENDA COX VS EDGEWATER TOWERS CONDOMINIUMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC
BC706369
Nov 28, 2018
Stephen I. Goorvitch or Elaine Lu
Los Angeles County, CA
Defense counsel declares that on August 12, 2021, he conversed with Plaintiff’s counsel over the telephone regarding the cause of action for res ipsa loquitur. (Colbert Decl., ¶ 3.) The parties did not reach an agreement. ( Id ., ¶ 4.) Defense counsel’s declaration satisfies the meet and confer requirement. Defendant demurs to the third cause of action for “res ipsa loquitur.” Res ipsa loquitur is not a separate tort cause of action.
DOROTEA HENRIQUEZ VS WALMART CLAIMS SERVICES, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV25428
Oct 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Res Ipsa Loquitur Defendant demurs to the second cause of action for res ipsa loquitur on grounds there is no separate cause of action for res ipsa loquitur. It is true res ipsa loquitur is not a separate tort cause of action and Plaintiff cannot obtain damages for both negligence and res ipsa loquitur arising out of the same accident. Rather, res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine whereby negligence may be presumed if the evidentiary requirements are met.
JULIAN BARAZI VS EMAD AMMAR, DDS
19STCV37021
Aug 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Because there is no cause of action for res ipsa loquitur, the demurrer is sustained. Leave to amend will not be granted to allege a separate cause of action for res ipsa loquitur. Instead, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint to allege res ipsa loquit‘ur as a part of the underlying negligence claim in the second cause of action. Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice No. 2 is granted. Request No. 1 is denied.
THERESA MIERZ VS. KIMBERLY WHITEHOUSE, ET AL
CV2002034
Mar 02, 2021
Marin County, CA
Similarly, the Court in Cordova stated: “While a plaintiff may properly rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur even though he was not inactive at the time of the accident and participated in the events leading up to it, before he can do so the evidence must exclude his conduct as the responsible cause.” (Id. at 187.) Based on the above, although the application of res ipsa loquitur is limited, it applies where the evidence eliminates the possibility of fault on the part of Plaintiff.
KIMURA VS. PEREIRA
30-2016-00874926-CU-PA-CJC
Jun 13, 2017
Orange County, CA
The question presented here is whether plaintiff has adequately put in issue the question of res ipsa loquitur with the operative pleading. Plaintiff does not mention the doctrine in the Complaint, but neither does plaintiff plead a specific basis for negligence. The rule is this: “where a plaintiff pleads negligence both generally and specifically the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be relied upon.” Radisich v. Franco-Italian Packing Co. (1945) 68 Cal.App.2d 825, 839.
RHODIUM FLOORS VS EVERLUX PRODUCTS, INC.
30-2018-00983707-CU-BC-CJC
Jul 27, 2018
Orange County, CA
Harvard states generally that there is no recognized cause of action for res ipsa loquitur. Harvard cites no authority for this proposition. While res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary presumption, courts have recognized a cause of action for negligence based on res ipsa loquitur with elements the same as the elements for the presumption. See, e.g., Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center, 117 Cal.App.4th 493, 517 (2004).
KAREN LOOMIS ET AL VS RAYMOND ARIAS CONSTRUCTION ET AL
1342562
Nov 16, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
Whether a pleading generally or specifically alleges negligence may impact whether a party can subsequently present res ipsa loquitur to the trier of fact.
EDNA BETETA VS LNR PARTNERS, LLC, ET AL.
19STCV01820
Sep 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint asserts causes of action for: General Negligent Product Liability against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Samsung; General Negligence against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligence against Samsung; General Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy; General Negligence against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; and Specific Negligence against Best Buy.
MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL
BC688588
Feb 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Third Cause of Action for Res Ipsa Loquitur Negligence: Plaintiffs state the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a separate cause of action. �Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule for �determining whether circumstantial evidence of negligence is sufficient.�� Howe v. Seven Forty Two Co., Inc., 189 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1161 (2010). �The judicial doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.� Evid. Code � 646(b).
DANIEL CERVANTES ET AL VS SKYDIVE SANTA BARBARA LLC ET AL
1440054
Oct 27, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
The court merely noted that a “general plea of negligence does not preclude the plaintiff from relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur” in its jury instructions. (Id. at 636-37.) Plaintiff also cites Chauvin v. Krupin (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d 322 which also did not involve a separate claim for negligence based upon res ipsa loquitor.
TRIMSKY INC VS OLYMPIC TOWN LLC
BC624658
Sep 14, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Instead, "[t]he attorney shall certify upon filing of the complaint that the attorney is solely relying on the doctrines of 'res ipsa loquitur' or failure to inform of the consequences of a procedure or both, and for that reason is not filing a certificate required by this section." (Code Civ. Proc., § 411.35(d).) Defendants assert that the complaint is not based solely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur nor a failure to inform of the consequences of a procedure.
BONILLA VS JENNINGS
37-2023-00007617-CU-BC-CTL
Oct 20, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Code, § 646 states, in relevant part: (b) The judicial doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
GRACIELA PLATA VS ERIC KALEKA, ET AL.
21STCV19616
Jan 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
“Though there is a separate jury instruction for res ipsa loquitur,” Prime Wheel contends “the jury instruction specifically provides that this a manner of proving negligence.” (Id., citing CACI 518.) The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the 5 th cause of action for res ipsa loquitur WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Res ipsa loquitur is not a cause of action; it is “an evidentiary rule for ‘determining whether circumstantial evidence of negligence is sufficient.’” ( Howe v.
MOHAMED MOHAMUD VS PRIME WHEEL CORPORATION, ET AL.
18STCV00334
Oct 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Further, Plaintiff has established triable issues as to res ipsa loquitur. The fact that this case involves a fire does not make the doctrine inapplicable. (Seeley v. Combs (1966) 65 Cal.2d 127, 133.)
THE DENTISTS INSURANCE VS ANOSHEH
56-2016-00479120-CU-PO-VTA
Aug 13, 2018
Vincent O'Neill
Ventura County, CA
The Complaint asserts causes of action for: General Negligent Product Liability against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Samsung; General Negligence against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligence against Samsung; General Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy; General Negligence against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; and Specific Negligence against Best Buy.
MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL
BC688588
Nov 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
In addition, Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing on each of these elements pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur creates a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. (Evid. Code § 646, subd. (b).)
JUDITH GIUSTI V. DANIEL MASLUK, MD, ET AL.
17CV001132
Jan 24, 2019
Napa County, CA
(Fact Nos. 20, 21) Plaintiff seems to set forth an argument for res ipsa loquitur. Specifically, because defendant's crew may have used the garden hose when completing the project that defendant must have been responsible for plaintiff's injuries. However, the law requires that a defendant have exclusive control over the premises in order for res ipsa loquitur to apply. (Brown v.
ROBERT SUSSMAN VS. PARADISE POOLS INC
37-2015-00005329-CU-PO-CTL
Jan 19, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The facts alleged are sufficient to support a claim of negligence under res ipsa loquitur. As to the contract claim, the First Amended Complaint fails to allege that Mark Shanley is a party to any agreement between the corporate Defendant and Plaintiff's insured. The Motion to Strike is granted as to the prayer for attorney's fees and the allegation on Page 3, Lines 24-25. There is no contract or statute providing for attorney's fees.
CRESTBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY VS SHANLEY CONSTRUCTION INC.
SC124022
Sep 20, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Opposing Burden Plaintiffs argue the motion should be denied because (a) the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur precludes entry of judgment, (b) Plaintiffs’ expert raises triable issues of material fact, and (c) the hearing on the motion must be continued if the Court is otherwise inclined to grant the motion. Res Ipsa Loquitur Plaintiffs first argue the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur precludes entry of judgment in this case.
JAY BOOTH ET AL VS BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION ET AL
BC682724
Jun 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
“Res ipsa loquitur is a rule concerning the presentation of evidence; it is not an independent ground of liability.” Gicking v. Kimberlin (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 73, 78 (“Thus, appellants could not invoke the doctrine as their theory of recovery.”) (Citations omitted). “The judicial doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.” Evidence Code §646(b).
LAUREN, BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM, DEANNA RIVERA RIVERA, ET AL. VS TORRANCE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.
20STCV20751
Dec 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Conclusion Defendant Edgewater Towers Condominiums Homeowners’ Association’s (“Defendant”) demurrer to the res ipsa loquitur cause of action and motion to strike that cause of action are continued to October 1, 2018 at 1:30 pm in Department 5. Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such. DATED: August 1, 2018 ___________________________ Elaine Lu Judge of the Superior Court
BRENDA COX VS EDGEWATER TOWERS CONDOMINIUMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC
BC706369
Aug 01, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The commission gives several examples of situations in which the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applicable.
FALLGREN V. JELLY BELLY CANDY COMPANY
FCS050953
Jun 12, 2019
Solano County, CA
Res Ipsa Loquitur as to Comcast Res ipsa loquitur is not itself a separate, independent cause of action. It is a principle that allows the trier of fact to infer a defendant’s negligence under specified circumstances. (Newing v. Cheatham (1975) 15 Cal.3d 351, 359; Gicking v. Kimberlin (1985) 170 Cal.App.73, 75.) “In California, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is defined by statute as ‘a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.’ ” (Brown v.
BRENDA ENGLISH VS. CITY OF GRASS VALLEY ET AL
CU21-085664
May 05, 2023
Nevada County, CA
Based on the record, the Court cannot properly make this determination at this juncture. 4th COA for Res Ipsa Loquitur Miller acknowledges that res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine and not a stand-alone cause of action. As stated, above, there are triable issues of fact as to whether Miller’s negligence can be presumed under this doctrine. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
SANTIAGO VS. MILLER BREWING COMPANY
30-2016-00011049-CU-JR-CJC
May 08, 2017
Orange County, CA
Motion: Defendant moves to strike the allegations regarding ultrahazardous activity, strict liability and res ipsa loquitur. The motion to strike is moot in light of the ruling on demurrer. In the event plaintiffs decide to file an amended complaint for general negligence only, the court would strike the ultrahazardous activity and strict liability allegations as those do not belong in a general negligence cause of action.
DANIEL CERVANTES ET AL VS SKYDIVE SANTA BARBARA LLC ET AL
1440054
Jul 07, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
With respect to the third cause of action for Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur, “Res ipsa loquitur is a rule concerning the presentation of evidence; it is not an independent ground of liability.” (Gicking v. Kimberlin (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 73, 78.) Like negligence per se, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule, not a cause of action.
SHU-HUI TING VS FASHION PARK VILLAS ? OWNERS ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV09531
Sep 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Moving Defendant further argues that any theory of liability under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur fails because: (1) Plaintiff cannot prove that her harm ordinarily would not have happened unless someone was negligent (the first element of the standard res ipsa loquitur doctrine); and (2) Plaintiff cannot show that her harm was caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of Moving Defendant (the second element of the standard res ipsa loquitur doctrine). Plaintiff objects to Ms.
DENISE R BRAY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS INC ET AL
BC603737
Jun 12, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, demurrer to the 7 th cause of action is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend. 8 th CAUSE OF ACTION RES IPSA LOQUITUR: Res Ipsa Loquitur is not a cause of action. It is an evidentiary rule for determining circumstantial evidence of negligence. ( Howe v. Seven Forty Two Co., Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1163-1164.)
ERICA KIM, ET AL. VS YEJUN PARK, ET AL.
21STCV41940
Jun 21, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff contends that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as applied to foreign object cases essentially eliminates the need for expert testimony on causation. First, the res ipsa loquitur exception to the requirement for expert testimony in medial malpractice in foreign object cases generally applies when a foreign object (i.e., scalpel, sponge, etc.)
BUDINA SMITH VS RICHARD ROBINSON, ET AL.
17CV-00110
Feb 14, 2023
Merced County, CA
Plaintiffs also argue that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should apply in this case.
MSC21-00121
Mar 16, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
“Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine affecting the burden of producing evidence applicable to certain kinds of accidents that are so likely to have been caused by a defendant’s negligence that, in the Latin equivalent, ‘the thing speaks for itself.’” (Baumgardner v. Yusuf (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1389.) “If applicable, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur establishes a presumption of negligence requiring the defendant to come forward with evidence to disprove it.” (Id.)
HERBERT HUDSON VS KOUROSH MADDAHI, ET AL.
18STCV03826
Feb 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Fourth Cause of Action for Res Ipsa Loquitur BUSD avers the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not a separate theory of recovery. Res ipsa loquitur is not a cause of action; rather, it is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. (Evid. Code §§ 646, 604.) The doctrine is applied to permit the jury to infer a defendant's negligence from the fact of a defect under appropriate circumstances. (Romig v.
BELLA ROSSAL BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM JACQUELINE GARCIA VS CITY OF BURBANK, ET AL.
20STCV12022
Feb 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Res Ipsa Loquitur Defendant contends Plaintiffs second cause of action for res ipsa loquitur fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because res ipsa loquitur is not a separate tort. The Court agrees. Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine that allows negligence to be inferred based on circumstantial evidence. (See Evid. Code, § 646, subd. (b); Hale v. Venuto (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 910, 918; Zentz v.
ANTRANIK BAGHASARIAN VS EL POLLO LOCO, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV04625
May 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to include causes of action for lack of informed consent and negligence based on res ipsa loquitur. The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).
JAMES MORRIS VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
BC619252
Jan 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied. Because res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied, Plaintiffs failure to provide contravening expert evidence is fatal. Plaintiff has not met her burden of producing evidence to show a triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendants breached their duty of care. Therefore, moving party Antelope Valley Hospital is entitled to summary judgment.
KAMEEKE TREECE VS PEDRO J. CEPEDA, ET AL.
19AVCV00694
Aug 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Even if the res ipsa loquitur theory is properly before the court, summary judgment would still be appropriate.
JENNIFER KIM VS CITY OF HOPE
BC558635
Feb 03, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Negligence, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Private Nuisance, Trespass, Premises Liability, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Violation of California Civil Code section 1942.4.
EDUARDO MACIAS VEGA VS CARMEN GODINEZ, ET AL.
20STCV01300
Apr 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Because Stater Bros. did not meet its initial burden on the negligence claim, finding that res ipsa loquitur does not apply would not completely dispose of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(1). Thus, summary adjudication is not available on the res ipsa loquitur “claim.” (2) Harbor’s Joinder Harbor’s second joinder is barred by CCP Sections 437c(f)(2) and 1008.
SANTIAGO VS. MILLER BREWING COMPANY
30-2015-00811049-CU-PO-CJC
May 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
“Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine affecting the burden of producing evidence applicable to certain kinds of accidents that are so likely to have been caused by a defendant’s negligence that, in the Latin equivalent, ‘the thing speaks for itself.’” (Baumgardner v. Yusuf (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1389.) “If applicable, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur establishes a presumption of negligence requiring the defendant to come forward with evidence to disprove it.” (Id.)
HERBERT HUDSON VS KOUROSH MADDAHI, ET AL.
18STCV03826
Apr 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Under the facts presented, res ipsa loquitur does not apply as a matter of law because Plaintiff's have not ruled out driver error or incapacity as the cause of the accident. Accordingly, summary judgment is proper.
MARIA DE JESUS LUNA VS. LANDINI USA
56-2016-00485413-CU-PL-VTA
Feb 26, 2018
Vincent O'Neill
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine affecting the burden of producing evidence applicable to “certain kinds of accidents [that] are so likely to have been caused by a defendant’s negligence that one may fairly say ‘the thing speaks for itself.’” Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 825. “If applicable, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur establishes a presumption of negligence requiring the defendant to come forward with evidence to disprove it.
JOSE CASTILLO VS RAMA CHANDRAN, M.D., ET AL.
19STCV31939
Dec 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Res Ipsa Loquitur Wang also argues that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies here because Plaintiff was given general anesthesia in the procedure and was under total control of the Defendants. (Opposition, p.2: 7-10.)
QINGFEN WANG VS THOMAS TAYLOR, ET AL.
21STCV30687
Oct 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the incident underlying his allegations. In order to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a plaintiff must demonstrate that the event in question is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur absent someone’s negligence, that the event was caused by an agency or instrumentality in exclusive control of the defendant, and that the event was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. (Howe v.
FCS058575 - BRADLEY III, WILLIE VS. WALMART, INC, ET AL (DMS)
FCS058575
Mar 07, 2023
Solano County, CA
This evidence does not have a tendency to establish the elements of res ipsa loquitur. (See Brown v.
PATRICIA LOCKETT ET AL VS MALIBU CANYON ET AL
BC690197
Jul 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant State of California generally demurs to the third cause of action labeled res ipsa loquitur in the Complaint filed on June 15, 2023. Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties could not reach a resolution resulting in Defendant filing the present demurrer. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which removes the challenged third cause of action.
LIMON VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
23CV-0202491
Nov 14, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Defendant State of California generally demurs to the third cause of action labeled res ipsa loquitur in the Complaint filed on June 15, 2023. Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties could not reach a resolution resulting in Defendant filing the present demurrer. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which removes the challenged third cause of action.
LIMON VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
23CV-0202491
Nov 16, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Defendant State of California generally demurs to the third cause of action labeled res ipsa loquitur in the Complaint filed on June 15, 2023. Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties could not reach a resolution resulting in Defendant filing the present demurrer. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which removes the challenged third cause of action.
LIMON VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
23CV-0202491
Nov 15, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Defendant State of California generally demurs to the third cause of action labeled res ipsa loquitur in the Complaint filed on June 15, 2023. Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties could not reach a resolution resulting in Defendant filing the present demurrer. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which removes the challenged third cause of action.
LIMON VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
23CV-0202491
Nov 17, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence res ipsa loquitur; (3) negligent training; (4) battery; and (5) declaratory relief. Moving Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiff then filed a First-Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Moving Defendant filed a demurrer and motion to strike as to Plaintiff’s FAC. Moving Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is MOOT given the filing of the FAC which is now the operative complaint.
THE ESTATE OF LEWIS NYARECHA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCV07212
Aug 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendant State of California generally demurs to the third cause of action labeled res ipsa loquitur in the Complaint filed on June 15, 2023. Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties could not reach a resolution resulting in Defendant filing the present demurrer. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which removes the challenged third cause of action.
LIMON VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
23CV-0202491
Nov 12, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Defendant State of California generally demurs to the third cause of action labeled res ipsa loquitur in the Complaint filed on June 15, 2023. Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties could not reach a resolution resulting in Defendant filing the present demurrer. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which removes the challenged third cause of action.
LIMON VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
23CV-0202491
Nov 11, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Defendant State of California generally demurs to the third cause of action labeled res ipsa loquitur in the Complaint filed on June 15, 2023. Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties could not reach a resolution resulting in Defendant filing the present demurrer. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which removes the challenged third cause of action.
LIMON VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
23CV-0202491
Nov 10, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Defendant State of California generally demurs to the third cause of action labeled res ipsa loquitur in the Complaint filed on June 15, 2023. Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties could not reach a resolution resulting in Defendant filing the present demurrer. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which removes the challenged third cause of action.
LIMON VS. CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.
23CV-0202491
Nov 13, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Although Defendant relies on CCP § 411.35 and § 411.36, Defendant fails to establish the applicability of CCP § 411.35 (titled "Malpractice actions; architects, engineers, or surveyors; certificate of review and consultation; res ipsa loquitur exception; failure to file") and CCP § 411.36 has been repealed. If this tentative ruling is confirmed, the Minute Order will be the final order of the court, and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.
SCHULZ VS JURENKNOVA
37-2018-00000022-CL-PO-CTL
Aug 02, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendant now demurs to the complaint arguing the second cause of action for res ipsa loquitur and general negligence fails to state a claim against Defendant. Further, Defendant contends the second cause of action is duplicative of the first. In opposition, Plaintiff contends the complaint sufficiently states a claim for res ipsa loquitur and general negligence against Defendant under Government Code § 815.2.
MIA, GARCIA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, VIVIANA COLMENARES PINTO VS ABC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
20STCV25633
Feb 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
To succeed on a res ipsa loquitur theory, as plaintiff is trying to do, plaintiff “must produce the following evidence in order to receive the benefit of the doctrine: 1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; 2) it must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and 3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.” Gicking v.
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY VS FUENTES
CVRI2101154
Aug 21, 2022
Riverside County, CA
To succeed on a res ipsa loquitur theory, as plaintiff is trying to do, plaintiff “must produce the following evidence in order to receive the benefit of the doctrine: 1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; 2) it must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and 3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.” Gicking v.
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY VS FUENTES
CVRI2101154
Aug 20, 2022
Riverside County, CA
To succeed on a res ipsa loquitur theory, as plaintiff is trying to do, plaintiff “must produce the following evidence in order to receive the benefit of the doctrine: 1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; 2) it must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and 3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.” Gicking v.
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY VS FUENTES
CVRI2101154
Aug 22, 2022
Riverside County, CA
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to impose the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, she may do so through the first cause of action since res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. (Evid. Code §§646, 604.) The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s reliance on Kraft v.
CHRISTINA MANN ET AL VS LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER
BC645480
Aug 27, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Moving Defendants further argue that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim for res ipsa loquitur. A demurrer cannot be sustained for a failure allege sufficient facts to support a claim for res ipsa loquitur because res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary doctrine affecting the burden of producing evidence, not a cause of action. (See Cal. Evid. Code, § 646.)
MICHELE VEDON VS LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV34964
Jun 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Medical Malpractice (Res Ipsa Loquitur) Surgical Error On December 22, 2023, Attorney C. Gregory Shamoun (Shamoun) filed this instant Verified Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. No opposition has been filed. DISCUSSION I.
NANCI A. BERNARD, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DR. PHILLIP R. FLESHNER, AN INDIVIDUAL
23STCV25079
Jan 24, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur creates a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.” (Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 316; Evid. Code, § 646, subd. (b).)
DENISE R BRAY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS INC ET AL
BC603737
Jan 18, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Negligence – res ipsa loquitur The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur authorizes an inference of negligence in the absence of a showing to the contrary. (Roddiscraft, Inc. v. Skelton Logging Co. (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 784, 793.)
SOUNGI KIM ET AL VS ALBERT A ABRAHAMIANS
BC643701
May 04, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Plaintiff relies on another theory to establish the existence of a dangerous condition of public property: res ipsa loquitur. Defendant contends that the fact that the LAUSD is a public entity means that res ipsa loquitur does not apply citing to the case of Brown v. Poway (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820. Defendant is correct, except for establishing the existence of a dangerous condition of public property, which Brown still permits under a res ipsa loquitur theory.
LENA MANUKYAN VS NESTLE AVENUE CHARTER SCHOOL, ET AL.
19STCV35765
Jun 20, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
If applicable, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur establishes a presumption of negligence requiring the defendant to come forward with evidence to disprove it. ( Id . at p. 825, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 679, 843 P.2d 624; Evid.Code, § 646, subd. (b).) ( Fields v. Yusuf (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1389.) Res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable to WME because there is no evidence showing that WME had control over the Vehicle.
DONALD BARRON VS WARNER BROS RECORDS INC ET AL
BC696215
Sep 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Fifth Cause of Action (Res Ipsa Loquitur). Likewise, res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary presumption, not an independent cause of action. “In California, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is defined by statute as "a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence." (Evid. Code, § 646, subd. (b).)” Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 825. Accordingly, the demurrer to the fifth cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
ALEXIS SANDOVAL VS CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF LA ET AL
BC684372
Aug 01, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Southland argues that under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, Sanders is solely negligent. However, res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. (Evid. Code §§646, 604.) As such, this is not a proper ground for demurrer. Southland also argues that Plaintiff has not pled the second and third elements of negligence with sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.
ELVIRA BEKNAZAROVA VS ANGELIA BIBBS SANDERS ET AL
BC714190
Nov 28, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle
Los Angeles County, CA
Cause of Action for Res Ipsa Loquitur Lastly, Lloyds contends that Plaintiffs first cause of action for res ipsa loquitur is not a cause of action. Lloyds notes that the res ipsa loquitur rule is not a rule of substantive law imposing liability in the absence of negligence but is a rule of evidence giving rise to an inference of negligence in certain cases.
LEART INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS THE GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV15469
Jun 15, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Second, Plaintiff is not entitled to an inference of Res Ipsa Loquitur . California requires a showing that the “defendant exercise control over the article involved in the accident or exercise right of control”. Black v Partridge (1953) 115 Cal. App.2d 639,645.
CORLISS VS GIORGIANNI
RIC1901773
Aug 14, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Second, Plaintiff is not entitled to an inference of Res Ipsa Loquitur . California requires a showing that the “defendant exercise control over the article involved in the accident or exercise right of control”. Black v Partridge (1953) 115 Cal. App.2d 639,645.
CORLISS VS GIORGIANNI
RIC1901773
Aug 15, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiff contends that they are entitled to an inference of Res Ipsa Loquitur. First, Plaintiffs have not alleged anywhere in their complaint that the dangerous condition of the property relates to the absence of properly installed carbon monoxide alarms or faulty maintenance of the HVAC unit.
CORLISS VS GIORGIANNI
RIC1901773
Aug 16, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Southland argues that under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, Sanders is solely negligent. However, res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. (Evid. Code §§646, 604.) As such, this is not a proper ground for demurrer. Southland also argues Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts supporting the second and third elements of negligence.
ELVIRA BEKNAZAROVA VS ANGELIA BIBBS SANDERS ET AL
BC714190
Dec 27, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle
Los Angeles County, CA
As Plaintiffs have not submitted opposition, the Court will grant summary judgment as to the second cause of action sounding in res ipsa loquitur negligence.
JUAN CASTRO ET AL VS KEVIN SUK M D ET AL
BC710866
Dec 17, 2021
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint asserts causes of action for: General Negligent Product Liability against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Samsung; General Negligence against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligence against Samsung; General Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; Specific Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy; General Negligence against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; and Specific Negligence against Best Buy.
MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL
BC688588
Jun 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Thus, SGA has not met its prima facie burden to show a triable issue exists as to the Res Ipsa Loquitur cause of action. Retina Defendants' argument for the res ipsa loquitur claim also relies on the Declaration of Smith, as discussed above. The Court finds the same deficiencies in the expert declaration applies here and thus, Retina Defendants have not met their prima facie burden to show a triable issue exists as to the Res Ipsa Loquitur cause of action.
JUAN CASTRO ET AL VS KEVIN SUK M D ET AL
BC710866
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Plaintiff seeks leave to file a corrected First Amended Complaint (herein referred to as “SAC”) to add Stephen Harris as a Plaintiff, and add five additional causes of action: res ipsa loquitur, intentional misrepresentation, breach of oral contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs had initially filed a pleading as their first amended complaint on April 26, 2019, but erroneously filed the wrong document.
OZELIA HARRIS VS PENSKE MERCEDES-BENZ OF WEST COVINA ET AL
BC710673
Jun 24, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The Supreme Court defines res ipsa loquitur as follows: In California, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is defined by statute as “a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.” (Evid.Code, §646, subd. (b).)
ELVIRA CISNEROS DE SILVA ET AL. VS ST. JOHN'S CATHOLIC CEMETERY, A PLACE OF BUSINESS ET AL.
STK-CV-UPI-2020-0004091
Nov 12, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
Third Cause of Action: Res Ipsa Loquitur Against Defendants Plaintiff Bita stipulates that Res Ipsa Loquitur should not be plead as a separate cause of action but is a legal theory that is best incorporated into the fourth cause of action for Medical Malpractice/Negligence. (Opposition p. 2). Therefore, the Third Cause of Action is dismissed. Plaintiff has leave to amend the Fourth Cause of Action to add allegations supporting the res ipsa loquitor theory. C.
BITA NASROLLAHI, ET AL. VS MAHIN AMIRGHOLAMI, M.D., ET AL.
20STCV41102
Nov 03, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Res Ipsa Loquitur Presumption : Res Ipsa Loquitur ( Res Ipsa ) is a presumption of negligence and - if established - Plaintiffs burden of producing evidence to support negligence is no longer required. To establish Res Ipsa , Plaintiff must show three conditions: (1) the incident is one that does not generally happen in the absence of negligence; (2) defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality of the incident; and (3) plaintiff did not contribute to the incident.
SOLAR HYDROGEN HOLDINGS, INC. VS STL ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.
19STCV43929
Dec 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs also argue they are entitled to have the jury determine if the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies here. (Opp., p. 8.) However, Plaintiffs fail to establish the factors required for res ipsa loquitur to apply, as explained below: “Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence allowing an inference of negligence from proven facts. [Citations].
JASON EDWARD ALLEN ET AL VS L A COLISEUM AND SPORTS ARENA ET
BC621062
Feb 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Res Ipsa Loquitur Plaintiff raises res ipsa loquitur in opposition, but the operative complaint lists no such cause of action. “The pleadings play a key role in a summary judgment motion. ‘The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues’ and to frame ‘the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding.’ (Citation.)
EDNA BETETA VS LNR PARTNERS, LLC, ET AL.
19STCV01820
Jul 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Koutoulas filed a complaint for negligence and res ipsa loquitur [Evid. Code § 646] against defendants Raymond Arias Construction (Arias) and Ruben’s Carpet & Janitorial (Ruben’s). Plaintiffs subsequently added Ruben Zarate and Francisco Perez as defendants. Plaintiffs allege as follows: On August 4, 2008, the Villa Mesa Condominium Homeowners Association hired Arias to construct a new deck in plaintiff’s condominium unit.
KAREN LOOMIS ET AL VS RAYMOND ARIAS CONSTRUCTION ET AL
1342562
Jan 25, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
First Cause of Action: Negligence (Res Ipsa Loquitur) Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for negligence on grounds that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate the cone that purportedly caused Plaintiff’s damages was within Defendant’s control.
HAYDEN, MICHAEL VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
16K04474
Nov 03, 2016
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
The "common knowledge" exception is principally limited to situations in which Plaintiff can invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, i.e., when a layperson is able to say as a matter of common knowledge and observation that the consequences of professional treatment were not such as ordinarily would have followed if due care had been exercised. Id. Otherwise, expert evidence is conclusive and cannot be disregarded. Id.
COATES VS. SCRIPPS CLINIC MEDICAL GROUP INC
37-2016-00017883-CU-MM-CTL
Nov 22, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
( Id. ) As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the parties dispute whether res ipsa loquitur applies in this case. The Court of Appeal in Blackwell v.
STEPHANIE YOST, ET AL. VS SUZANNE TROTT, MD, ET AL.
21STCV32349
Jun 10, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff describes this as a combination of res ipsa loquitur and active negligence. Res ipsa loquitur arises as a presumption affecting the burden of proof when the evidence satisfies three conditions: (1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
ALEXANDER VS. SORENSEN
30-2016-00837918-CU-PO-CJC
Feb 01, 2018
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff describes this as a combination of res ipsa loquitur and active negligence. Res ipsa loquitur arises as a presumption affecting the burden of proof when the evidence satisfies three conditions: (1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
ALEXANDER VS. SORENSEN
30-2016-00837918-CU-PO-CJC
Feb 02, 2018
Orange County, CA
Finally, Defendant argues that res ipsa loquitur cannot save Plaintiff’s causes of action. However, as discussed above, there are triable issues of material fact regarding whether Defendant may be liable for negligence or premises liability. As such, the Court need not address res ipsa loquitur. The Court also notes that Plaintiff does not rely on res ipsa loquitur as a theory of liability in her complaint or in the opposition brief to the motion for summary judgment.
SHERYL HOWARD VS RAVE CINEMAS LLC
BC612886
Feb 21, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Instead, Defendant merely argues that the doctrines identified by Plaintiff res ipsa loquitur, non-delegable duty, and captain of the ship - should not be applied because Defendant did not breach those duties. Again, breach of a duty is not the proper subject of a motion for summary adjudication. Finally, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not impose a duty of care. The judicial doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. Evid. Code, § 646(b).
JOSE CASTILLO VS RAMA CHANDRAN, M.D., ET AL.
19STCV31939
May 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs first amended complaint (FAC) alleges a claim under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur against Defendant Harris.
KATHLEEN COLEMAN VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, ET AL.
19STCV20742
Aug 30, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Fremont Medical Center (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 493, 517 (claim of negligence may be based upon allegations that the harm would not have occurred but for negligence that is premised on a theory of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur); Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 737, 745 (res ipsa loquitur). In this case, Plaintiffs fifth cause of action for negligence states facts that are sufficient to state a cause of action against the Appraiser Defendants.
RINGSTROM VS MOORHOUSE
37-2016-00025866-CU-FR-NC
Dec 08, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Plaintiff therefore relies on a res ipsa loquitur theory. “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has three conditions: the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.” Ybarra v. Spangard (1944) 25 Cal. 2d 486, 489. Accord Howe v.
BELTRAN V. FPA4 ARBOR RIDGE, LLC
16CECG03463
Jun 12, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff opposes on the ground that a cause of action for res ipsa loquitur can be alleged against multiple defendants and thus the cause of action is adequately alleged, citing Martinides v. Mayer (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1185, 1195. The court finds that the FAC sufficiently pleads a cause of action for res ipsa loquitur against Defendants.
PHILLIP J BRAUNSTEIN VS DANIEL B KIM ET AL
BC644986
Jun 26, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
With this finding, the court need not reach the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s evidence numbered 1-8 are overruled. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.
FLETCHER HYLER, ET AL. VS. JAMES IRIZARRY
CIV528707
Dec 20, 2017
San Mateo County, CA
The complaint alleges claims for negligence, gross negligence, premises liability, res ipsa loquitur, and negligence per se. Since Plaintiff has not alleged intentional conduct, and in order to recover punitive damages, Plaintiff must allege conduct that is “despicable” and “carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others” which constitutes malicious conduct.
ANGEL ASCENCIO ORTEGA VS ERIC GREENSPAN ET AL
BC680151
Jan 09, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
“The judicial doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.” (Evidence Code §646). It is a way for a plaintiff to use a shortcut of circumstantial evidence to prove negligence. Howe v. Seven Forty Two Co., Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1161.
LAVEN VS SMITH
30-2016-00874307-CU-PA-CJC
Jan 13, 2017
Orange County, CA
Here, Plaintiff seeks to amend the operative Complaint to add several causes of action for negligent hiring, training, and supervision; vicarious liability; res ipsa loquitur; negligence per se; and a prayer for punitive damages.
MOHAMED MOHAMUD VS PRIME WHEEL CORPORATION, ET AL.
18STCV00334
Jul 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court need not delve into a lengthy analysis of causation as summary judgment is not appropriate as Art Mortuary Transport does not address one of the two negligence causes of action brought against it or the Res Ipsa Loquitur cause of action brought against it, and, as such, fails to meet its initial burden by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense as to the causes of action alleged against it.
MARYCRUZ AVILA, ET AL. VS ANTELOPE VALLEY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, ET AL.
21AVCV00899
Apr 23, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.