The elements of a premises liability and negligence cause of action are the same: duty, breach, causation and damages. Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998. “The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619; Annocki v. Peterson Ent., LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.
While an owner of premises is not an insurer of the safety of its patrons, the owner still owes them a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe. Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.
To establish liability for negligence, “[t]here must be some evidence... to support the conclusion that the condition had existed long enough for the proprietor, in the exercise of reasonable care, to have discovered and remedied it.” Girvetz v. Boys’ Market (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 827, 829; Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at 1206 (the owner must have had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition or have had the ability, through the exercise of ordinary care, to discover it, and sufficient time to correct it). However, “(t]he plaintiff need not show actual knowledge where evidence suggests that the dangerous condition was present for a sufficient period of time to charge the owner with constructive knowledge of its existence.” Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at 1206.
Typically, the question of whether a condition existed so long as to be discoverable within a reasonable time is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. Hatfield v. Levy Bros. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 798, 807; Tuttle v. Crawford (1936) 8 Cal.2d 126, 130; Rothschild v. Fourth & Market St. Realty Co. (1934) 139 Cal.App. 625, 627. If there is no substantial evidence from which it can be reasonably inferred that the condition existed for a sufficient period of time to charge the defendant with constructive notice of its presence and to remedy the condition, a defendant may be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Perez v. Ow (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 559, 562.
A person who owns/leases/occupies/controls property is negligent if he or she fails to use reasonable care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 403, 431. A person who owns/leases/occupies/controls property must use reasonable care to discover any unsafe conditions and to repair, replace, or give adequate warning of anything that could be reasonably expected to harm others. Id. In deciding whether defendant(s) used reasonable care, the court considers, among other factors, the following:
See Campbell v. Ford Motor Co., 206 Cal.App.4th 15, 22 (2012).
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT — NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFT/CROSS-DEFT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT FOAM DISTRIBUTORS, INC. [DEFT] ALBECO, INC. RULING The motion for summary judgment by defendant Albeco, Inc. dba Mollie Stone’s Markets (“Defendant”) is denied. Plaintiffs Gun and Bo Bjursten (“Plaintiffs”) have proffered evidence establishing that triable issues of mat...
..t the Bon Air Center in Greenbrae while shopping for groceries sustaining “serious personal injuries resulting in special damages. . . .” (Complaint, First and Second Causes of Action.) Plaintiffs further allege they have been lawfully married and because of Mrs. Bjursten’s injuries, Mr. Bjursten has suffered a loss of consortium, (127111.) Motion tar Summary Judment Defendant contends it is ent...
Lisa giasi, Plaintiff, v. ELIZABETH BITNER, et al. Defendants. Case No.: 18STCV09384 Hearing Date: August 28, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Demurrer to Complaint BACKGROUND Plaintiff Lisa Giasi (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant Elizabeth Bitner (“Defendant”) on December 17, 2018. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of warranty, (3) f...
..and Hills, CA (“Premises”). On April 1, 2016, Plaintiff moved into the Premises pursuant to a one-year lease agreement. During the lease, Plaintiff experienced numerous issues with the Premises causing the Premises to become uninhabitable. On December 17, 2016, Plaintiff’s heater stopped working and reported the problem to Defendant. Defendant did not undertake prompt repairs nor obtain a qualifi...
Currently before the Court are the following matters: (1) the motion by defendant International Merchandising Corporation (“IMC”) for summary judgment of the first amended complaint (“FAC”) of plaintiffs Tatyana Rozenblum (“Tatyana”), Felix Rozenblum (“Felix”), Tatevik Yedigaryan (“Yedigaryan”), and Aris Harutyunyam (“Harutyunyam”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) or, alternatively, summary adjudicati...
..negligence. On August 2, 2014, Plaintiffs were attending the Bank of The West tennis tournament at Stanford Stadium. (FAC, ¶ Prem.L-1.) Plaintiffs were sitting in their assigned seats in Stanford Stadium watching a tennis match in progress, when David Peshek (“Peshek”) fell down the stairs in the stands and landed on top of Tatyana and Yedigaryan, causing them severe injuries. (Id. at ¶¶ GN-1 (p....
Defendant Mike’s Termite and Fumigation’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave as to the Fourth cause of action and OVERRULED as to the remainder. The instant case arises from the alleged burglarizing of 33 apartment units located at 12056, 12058 and 12048 S. Venice Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90044 (the “Premises”). The Premises is in a documented high crime neighborhood...
..rned to their apartments to find that they had been burglarized. Defendants, including the property owners and fumigators, allegedly failed to secure the premises. On November 30, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the instant premises liability suit against numerous defendants, including the moving party Defendant Mike’s Termite and Fumigation (“Mike’s”). The Complaint alleges that Defendants Vermont 53 Lim...
Defendants Mattes Auto Sales, Inc., Mike Mattes, Gabriela Mattes, and the Mattes 1997 Family Trust UTD 8/27/97’s demurrer to the first amended complaint of Plaintiff Elvis Quintanilla is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendants’ motion to strike is MOOT. Demurrer Defendants Mattes Auto Sales, Inc. (“MASI”), Mike Mattes (“M. Mattes”), Gabriela Mattes (“G. Mattes”), and the Mattes 1997...
..tiff failed to allege sufficient facts to constitute the causes of action. (See C.C.P. §430.10(e).) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) “‘A demurrer reaches only to the contents of the pleading and such matters as may be considered under the doctrine of judicial notice’ [Citations] The allegations of the...
Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer Tentative Ruling: The court overrules defendant Meridian Group Real Estate Management, Inc.’s demurrer to plaintiff Ryan Kaufman’s complaint. Defendant Meridian Group Real Estate Management, Inc., shall file its answer to the complaint on or before June 25, 2018. Background: Plaintiff Ryan Kaufman alleges that, on June 1, 2017, while working on premises located at...
..mplaint are: 1) premises liability, 2) general negligence, 3) products liability (strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied and express warranties; and 4) negligence per se. Kaufman has since added former “Doe” defendants Rockber Partners, LLC (later dismissed); Daketta Los Carneros, LLC; Hurst Enterprises, Inc.; Meridian Group Real Estate Management, Inc.; Beyond Heating and Air, Inc. (...
1-25 of 5771 results
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff filed his complaint on October 22, 2019, to which Defendant Herberg A. Bagoro demurred. Prior to the hearing, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Therefore, the demurrer is overruled as moot. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: December 1, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court
Personal Injury/ Tort
Los Angeles County, CA
Negligence—Premises Liability 5. Nuisance 6. Battery 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 8. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 9. Breach of Contract 10. Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment On August 31, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein All County West Property Management aka All County Property Management West was named in lieu of Doe 1.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND On November 29, 2018, Plaintiff Aleksandr Bible filed a complaint against Defendant Robert Allen Flowers for motor vehicle, general negligence, intentional tort, products liability, and premises liability. On July 10, 2020, specially appearing defendant Robert Allen Flowers (“Defendant”) filed a motion to quash service of process. No opposition papers have been filed. Trial is set for March 10, 2021.
(“Alltech”), Pacific, PolyOne Corporation, Marinela Hendon (“Hendon”) and Does 1-100 for: General Negligence Premises Liability Negligent Undertaking Strict Products Liability—Design Defect Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn On November 10, 2020, a “Stipulation of Plaintiff Joseph Soria and Defendants MillerCoors, LLC, MillerCoors USA, LLC, Molson Coors Brewing Company, and Marinela Hendon to Dismiss MillerCoors USA, LLC, Molson Coors Brewing Company, and Marinela Hendon” was filed.
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer First Cause of Action Defendants argue it is unclear whether Plaintiff is bringing a first cause of action given that the only attached causes of action for general negligence and premises liability are labeled as the “second” and “third” causes of action, respectively. While the attached causes of action are labeled as the second and third causes of action, paragraph 10 of the complaint clarifies that Plaintiff is only bringing causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.
The complaint alleges premises liability and negligence for a trip-and-fall that occurred on January 27, 2018. On August 12, 2020, Defendant Service Concierge, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a motion to compel responses to request for production of documents. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant requests a court order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,355.00.
The complaint alleges motor vehicle negligence, negligence, premises liability, and statutory liability for dangerous condition of public property for an automobile-pedestrian collision that occurred on November 9, 2016. On May 20, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint and the motion was granted on July 17, 2020. On August 4, 2020, judgment was entered for Defendant. On August 6, 2020, Defendant filed a notice of entry of judgment.
Demurrer – Premises Liability “The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.”¿(Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp¿(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) Stoltz demurs on grounds that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to show Stoltz had a duty to Plaintiff or Decedent, and this cause of action is duplicative of Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action. (Demurrer, pg. 13-14.)
BACKGROUND On August 9, 2019, Plaintiff Sandy Park filed a complaint against Defendants Armstrong Garden Centers, Inc. and Does 1 to 20 for premises liability and general negligence arising from an improperly restrained tree falling on top of Plaintiff while Plaintiff was on Defendants’ premises. On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint, substituting in Rolling Hills Nursery, Inc. for Doe 1. On October 27, 2020, Defendant Armstrong Garden Centers, Inc.
., LLC (“1723 James Wood”) and Rami Grinwald (“Grinwald”) (collectively, “Defendants”), among others, for wrongful death and premises liability. Plaintiffs allege that in early to mid-May 2018, Decedent was employed as a caretaker for Jose Guillermo Sandoval (“Sandoval”) and would go to Sandoval’s apartment, located at 1723 James M. Wood Blvd., Los Angeles, several days a week to help with errands and house cleaning. (Compl., ¶¶ 1-2.)
Personal Injury/ Tort
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on January 02, 2018, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in: (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; (3) Strict Products Liability (Design Defect); (4) Strict Liability (Failure to Warn); and (5) Products Liability (Negligence). PRESENTATION: The instant motion was received by the Court on March 13, 2020, the opposition was received on March 24, 2020, and the reply was received on March 30, 2020.
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges negligence, premises liability, and violations of various sections of the Government Code arising from an incident where Plaintiff hit an uneven divot in the road while riding an electric scooter on May 1, 2019. On July 14, 2020, the Court dismissed Defendant County of Los Angeles without prejudice. On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
Issue No. 3: The Second Cause of Action for Premises Liability – Dangerous Condition of Public Property is barred because the County has immunity pursuant to Government Code, section 831.4(b). The court DENIES the Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issue No. 2 for the same reasons given for Issue No. 3. Issue No. 1: The First Cause of Action for Common Law Negligence is barred because the County has no liability for common law negligence as a matter of law.
Orange County, CA
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint (filed on 1-7-19 under ROA No. 2) alleges a cause of action for Negligence/Premises Liability against Defendant. CACI No. 1000 sets forth the elements necessary to establish a cause of action for premises liability. “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. [Citations.]
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff alleges negligence and premises liability arising from a fall that occurred on February 9, 2019. On September 2, 2020, Defendant Westlake filed a demurrer to the complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. Trial is set for December 22, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant Westlake asks the Court to sustain its demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint because Defendant Westlake cannot be liable for the furnishing of alcoholic beverages.
Plaintiff alleges premises liability and negligence arising from a trip-and-fall that occurred on August 30, 2015. On March 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to, in part, name Defendant Palace Entertainment. On June 26, 2020, Defendant Festival Fun Parks, LLC dba Raging Waters (“Defendant Festival”) filed a motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.
Plaintiff alleges negligence, premises liability, and strict liability in the complaint arising from a dog attack that occurred on August 2, 2018. On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, Richard Kahanowitch, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1362. Trial is set for April 21, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Richard Kahanowitch asks the Court to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff because Plaintiff has been unresponsive.
Demurrer – Statute of Limitations An action for negligence and premises liability must be brought within two years of the date of the negligently caused injury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1; Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1109.) In assessing a demurrer challenging the complaint based on a statute of limitations defense, the Court must determine whether such a defense is plain on the face of the complaint.
Plaintiff alleges premises liability in the complaint arising from an incident that occurred on February 20, 2018. On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, Frank G. Piazza, Jr., filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Trial is set for August 17, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff’s counsel, Frank G.
(KFHP), any contracted health care providers, administrators, or other associated parties on the other hand, for alleged violation of any duty arising out of or related to membership in KFHP, including any claim for medical or hospital malpractice (a claim that medical services were unnecessary or unauthorized or were improperly, negligently, or incompetently rendered), for premises liability, or relating to the coverage for, or delivery of, services or items, irrespective of legal theory, must be decided by
Ventura County, CA
Plaintiff alleges negligence and premises liability arising from a gate that fell on Plaintiff on August 17, 2011. On August 26, 2020, Defendant Crisette LLC filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. Trial is set for September 23, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant Crisette LLC asks the Court to sustain its demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint because it is barred by the relevant statute of limitations.
Plaintiff alleges negligence and premises liability arising from a trip-and-fall that occurred on September 27, 2019. On August 21, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b). Trial is set for December 22, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant asks the Court to strike punitive damages from the complaint because Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to ask for punitive damages.
As such, the Court will deny summary judgment as to the first cause of action sounding in premises liability. Gabriel Defendants – Second Cause of Action (Negligence) – The elements for a negligence claim are identical to that of a premises liability claim. As the Court has analyzed the parties' arguments for premises liability, supra, the Court will deny summary judgment as to the second cause of action sounding in negligence.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges negligence and premises liability in the complaint for a slip and fall that occurred on November 26, 2016. On September 17, 2019, the Court approved an amendment to the complaint renaming Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, Inc. as Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC (“Defendant”). On October 15, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 438. Trial is set for March 9, 2020.
As to the first cause of action for premises liability is overruled. Plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant controlled and property, was negligent in the maintenance of the property, plaintiff was harmed, and defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. As to the third cause of action for strict liability is sustained with leave to amend.
Nevada County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.