Negligent Entrustment of Motor Vehicle

Useful Rulings on Negligent Entrustment of Motor Vehicle

Recent Rulings on Negligent Entrustment of Motor Vehicle

MARTIN BALMACEDA VS ZHICHENG LIU ET AL

PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff alleges that he was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Liu on December 30, 2015. Plaintiff filed this action on November 9, 2017. Defendants filed an answer on June 19, 2018, but Liu has not appeared in this case. On November 4, 2019, Defendants first moved for summary judgment, which was noticed for hearing on January 22, 2020.

  • Hearing

HAIM¿ AHRONI VS LISA¿ DIANE HARPER, ET AL.

In this case, Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) Defendant Lisa Harper veered into Lane #1 in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle due to inattentive driving and speeding; (2) In doing so, Defendant Lisa Harper violated Vehicle Code section 22107; (3) Defendant Lisa Harper unlawfully entered Plaintiff’s path of travel; and (4) There was negligent entrustment. None of these allegation supports a claim for punitive damages. To the contrary, this case sounds in negligence.

  • Hearing

LAUREN MARTINEZ VS COUGAR PAPER CORPORATION, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On January 30, 2019, Plaintiff Lauren Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants alleging motor negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent entrustment based on a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 30, 2017. On November 3, 2020, Defendant Cougar Paper Corporation (“Defendant”) filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for a physical examination. Trial is scheduled for October 21, 2021.

  • Hearing

ODILIA MATEO VS MIGUEL GONZALEZ RESENDIZ

The plaintiffs allege motor vehicle negligence, negligence perse, and negligent entrustment, hiring, undertaking, retention, supervision, and training arising from a pedestrian-automobile collision that occurred on February 9, 2016. On October 7, 2020 and October 22, 2020, Petitioner Odilia Mateo filed petitioning papers to approve a compromise of pending action on behalf of Claimant Nathaly Mateo.

  • Hearing

JEREMY BRAMER VS SHAWN DAYAN ET AL

BACKGROUND On February 2, 2018, Plaintiff Jeremy Bramer (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Shawn Dayan (“Defendant Dayan”) alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on January 24, 2017. On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff amended his complaint to rename Doe 4 as Defendant Better Living & Care Homes, Inc.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

RALPH JORGE, ET AL. VS GLOBAL MEDICAL RESPONSE, ET AL.

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ have alleged a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence and negligent entrustment, hiring, undertaking, retention, supervision, and training. Plaintiff has identified various indica of Defendant American Medical Response Ambulance Service Inc.’s and Defendant Matthew Anthony Monsisvais’ negligence that caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Moreover, the complaint is not uncertain.

  • Hearing

IYABO SAMUEL VS LYFT INC., ET AL.

BACKGROUND On April 23, 2019, Iyabo Samuel filed a complaint against Lyft Inc. and David Doe for (1) assault, (2) battery, (3) negligence, (4) negligent entrustment, (5) vicarious liability, (6) negligent hiring, training, and supervision, and (7) IIED. On July 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) assault, (2) battery, (3) negligence, (4) vicarious liability, (5) negligent hiring, training, and supervision, and (6) IIED.

  • Hearing

CASSANDRA MARIE TRIVISANO VS RUPINDER SINGH JHALLI ET AL

There are no triable issues of material fact as to Vojdaniheris Plaintiffs allegations in the First Cause of Action- Motor Vehicle, MV 2a that Doe Defendants 1 to 5 operated a motor vehicle. 3.

  • Hearing

VICTOR OBREGON, AN INDIVIDUAL VS YONG XU, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

In this action, Plaintiff Victor Obregon claims he was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the alleged driver of the vehicle, Yong Xu, who is alleged to have been acting in the course and scope of his employment with CTour Charter at the time of the accident. Plaintiff asserts a claim for vicarious liability against CTour based on Yong Xu’s alleged negligence.

  • Hearing

STANLEY SID KINOSHITA, ET AL. VS MANUEL TORRES, JR., ET AL.

(“Torres”) and Westley McDowell (“Defendant”) arising from a June 13, 2019 motor vehicle vs. pedestrian collision. Plaintiffs allege Torres drove a vehicle owned by Defendant while Torres was intoxicated, ran a red light, and collided the vehicle into Plaintiff. Kinoshita asserts a claim for loss of consortium. Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations from the Complaint.

  • Hearing

THOMAS MARTINEZ VS JUDD GRISELDA, ET AL.

Defendant Enterprise has demonstrated the Graves amendment bars Plaintiff’s action for negligent entrustment against Defendant Enterprise. Defendant Enterprise has also shown that it properly ensured Defendant Judd Griselda was licensed to drive the rental vehicle Defendant Judd Griselda. The burden shifts to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence showing there is a triable issue of material fact.

  • Hearing

JUDITH M. HALL V. JAVIER JONATHAN ANTUNEZ, ET AL.

Since a bare allegation of driving under the influence is insufficient to constitute willful misconduct, negligent entrustment of a vehicle to an intoxicated individual also cannot constitute willful misconduct; the act of entrusting a vehicle to one known to be unfit to drive constitutes only negligent entrustment.

  • Hearing

MORRIS GHADISHAH VS HECTOR CARRANZA TORRES, ET AL.

In this action, Plaintiff Morris Ghadishah alleges he was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was alleging driving his vehicle at 1 miles per hour on the 101 freeway when Defendant Hector Carranza Torres rear-ended his vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that Torres was driving a Peterbilt truck in the course and scope of his job duties for Regents Capital Corporation and/or Cemex Trucking, Inc. at the time of the incident.

  • Hearing

MORRIS GHADISHAH VS HECTOR CARRANZA TORRES, ET AL.

In this action, Plaintiff Morris Ghadishah alleges he was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was alleging driving his vehicle at 1 miles per hour on the 101 freeway when Defendant Hector Carranza Torres rear-ended his vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that Torres was driving a Peterbilt truck in the course and scope of his job duties for Regents Capital Corporation and/or Cemex Trucking, Inc. at the time of the incident.

  • Hearing

JUAN MORENO LOBATO VS SISTLA VENKATA ANISH, ET AL.

NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CLAIM Plaintiff also asserts a claim for negligent entrustment. That claim is not barred by the Graves Amendment because it is based on allegations of the Zipcar Defendants’ own negligence, and not on vicarious liability. Zipcar has affirmatively established that it is entitled to judgment in its favor on this claim. Under limited circumstances, “[a] rental car company may be held liable for negligently entrusting one of its cars to a customer.

  • Hearing

TANIA OLVERA, ET AL. VS RAY FISH, ET AL.

Section 10(f) of the motor vehicle cause of action also states “Negligent Entrustment of Motor Vehicle.” On May 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their form complaint for motor vehicle and general negligence. On July 16, 2019, the court overruled the demurrer of Electro Adapter, Inc. and Ray Fish. On July 22, 2019, defendants answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief, and apportionment of fault.

  • Hearing

JONATHAN PEREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS XU PAN, ET AL.

The complaint alleges that defendants “negligently owned, maintained, operated, entrusted, and/or drove the motor vehicle(s)…” [Comp., para. GN-1]. This is sufficient to state a cause of action against this defendant on several theories, including negligent entrustment of the vehicle. There is no legal authority cited under which further facts supporting the subject causes of action is required, or that any independent act of negligence beyond negligent entrustment be alleged.

  • Hearing

AVOGNON VS FEDERAL PAVING SYST

The complaint is a judicial form complaint for motor vehicle negligence arising from a head on collision in Sacramento County on August 24, 2018 between Edmar Ferreira Da Silva (hereinafter “Edmar” due to the similar surnames of several defendants) and plaintiffs, Betty and Bertin Avognon. (Complaint, 4.) Plaintiffs sue the remaining defendants, Federal Paving Systems, Inc., Deivide M.

  • Hearing

TERRE MARCEL BRETT, ET AL. VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC , ET AL.

Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action against the following defendants: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence against all defendants, (2) General Negligence against all defendants, (3) Negligent Hiring/Retention of an Unsuitable Employee against Uber, (4) Negligent Entrustment and Supervision against Uber, (5) Willful Misconduct against Uber, and (6) Vicarious Liability against Uber. Now, Defendants demur to the fifth and sixth causes of action.

  • Hearing

RAMON ROSALES SR ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

(collectively, “The Petrosians”) and Does 1-100 for: Negligent/Reckless Operation of Motor Vehicle Resulting in Wrongful Death and Personal Injury; Negligent/Reckless Entrustment of Motor Vehicle to Minor Resulting in Wrongful Death and Personal Injury On July 25, 2017, this case was ordered transferred to this instant department, at the direction of Department 1. On September 11, 2017, this case was consolidated with Case No. BC611815 for all proceedings.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SHIZI PU VS KEJIA ZHANG ET AL

The Motion is DENIED as to the remaining claims of negligence and negligent entrustment. On February 1, 2018, Plaintiff Helen Chow (“Chow”) filed a complaint (in BC692392) against Defendants Kejia Zhang (“Zhang”) and Xiuju Zhou (“Zhou”) (collectively “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EDWARD CONTRERAS VS UVONNA DENISE ESKRIDGE, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On January 13, 2020, Edward Contreras filed a complaint against Uvonna Denise Eskridge, Kevin David Preus, Uber Technologies, Inc, and Rasier, LLC for (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring/retention of an unsuitable employee, (3) negligent entrustment and supervision, (4) willful misconduct, and (5) vicarious liability based on a vehicle collision that occurred on January 11, 2019 with plaintiff’s motorcycle.

  • Hearing

EVANGELINA ALVARENGA DE CABRERA VS KELLY ANN LEWIS BORTMAN, ET AL.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Evangelina Alvarenga de Cabrera claims she was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by Defendant Kelly Ann Lewis Bortman (“Kelly Bortman”).

  • Hearing

TANIA OLVERA, ET AL. VS RAY FISH, ET AL.

Section 10(f) of the motor vehicle cause of action also states “Negligent Entrustment of Motor Vehicle.” On May 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their form complaint for motor vehicle and general negligence. On July 16, 2019, the court overruled the demurrer of Electro Adapter, Inc. and Ray Fish. On July 22, 2019, defendants answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief, and apportionment of fault.

  • Hearing

MANTHEY VS BELTRAN

They assert two causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence. On November 26, 2019, Padillo filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs, Beltran and Barrillas. He asserts seven causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; (2) General Negligence; (3) Negligent Entrustment; (4) Vicarious Liability; (5) Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision; (6) Apportionment; and (7) Declaratory Relief.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 18     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.