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.
Required elements for strict liability based on failure to warn:
(CACI 1205.)
Required elements for negligent failure to warn:
(CACI 1222.)
Generally speaking, “manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about the hazards inherent in their products.” (Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 987 at 1003.) “The requirement’s purpose is to inform consumers about a product’s hazards and faults of which they are unaware, so that they can refrain from using the product altogether or evade the danger by careful use.” (Id.) “Typically, under California law, we hold manufacturers strictly liable for injuries caused by their failure to warn of dangers that were known to the scientific community at the time they manufactured and distributed their product.” (Id; see also Carlin v. Super. Ct. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1104, 1108.)
“A manufacturer is not liable to a sophisticated user of its product for failure to warn of a risk, harm, or danger, if the sophisticated user knew or should have known of that risk, harm, or danger.” (Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 71; see also CACI No. 1244. Affirmative Defense—Sophisticated User Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2017 edition).)
In order to demonstrate that the "sophisticated user" defense applies, the defendant must
(Buckner v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 522, 535.)
“§ 388 provides that a supplier of goods is liable for physical harm the goods cause if the supplier knows, or should know, the items are likely to be dangerous, fails to reasonably warn of the danger, and “has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition.” (Johnson v. American Standard, Inc.(2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 71.) “Comment k to § 388(b), is entitled “When warning of defects unnecessary,” and it emphasizes this point.” (Id.) “It declares that although the condition may be one that only specialists would perceive, the supplier is only required to inform the users of the risk if the manufacturer has “no reason to believe that those who use it will have such special experience as will enable them to perceive the danger[.]” (Id. citing § 388(b), com. k, p. 307.)
SUSTAIN the Demurrer to causes of action 1,2,3,4,6,and 7, with 30 days leave to amend. 1st Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability-Failure to Warn The First Amended Complaint (FAC) pleads conclusory allegations but fails to clearly articulate a clear factual basis for a proper failure to warn claim. Plaintiff mixes in elements of a negligence claim along with her product liability claim by alleging issues of “duty”.
VEAZEY VS CINTAS CORPORATION
CVRI2202455
Feb 01, 2023
Riverside County, CA
See CACI 1205 (Strict Liability-Failure to Warn); CACI 1222 (Negligence-Manufacturer or Supplier-Duty to Warn); see also Conte v. Wyeth, Inc.
6-12-19
May 15, 2022
San Mateo County, CA
The willful failure to warn count is based on Civil Code Section 846, but Section 846 pertains to recreational users of private property, not property owned by public entities. Plaintiff concedes that County’s demurrer to counts one and two is well taken and does not oppose the demurrer. Accordingly, the court will sustain the demurrer to the negligence and willful failure to warn counts, without leave to amend.
SEAN CICERO VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
18CV00017
Aug 13, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
As part of Plaintiff’s cause of action for premises liability, she alleged 3 counts - Negligence, Willful Failure to Warn, and Dangerous Condition of a Public Property. On November 2, 2018, Defendant Walmart, Inc. moved to strike counts two and three – failure to warn and dangerous condition of a public property – from Plaintiff’s Complaint. No opposition to Defendant’s motion to strike was filed. However, on November 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
SILVA GHAZARIAN VS WALMART INC
BC705330
Jan 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Any failure to warn regarding the same is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, as discussed above regarding the failure to warn of asbestos. The court similarly finds the failure to warn of toxic mold barred by the two-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.) However, the claims for personal injury from exposure to toxic mold are controlled by the special two-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.8.
NAIROBI MASTROMARINO, ET AL AND HILARITA-TIBURON ECUMEN'ICAL ASSOCIATION
CV1701469
Feb 04, 2020
STEPHEN P, FRECCERO
Marin County, CA
Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff’s second cause of action, count two, Willful Failure to Warn, and Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Breach of Contract fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. Willful Failure to Warn Plaintiff placed a check in box Prem. L-3 of Plaintiff’s Premises Liability First Amended Form Complaint. Prem.
LELIA SHARPE VS. EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL
BC639641
Jan 30, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
With respect to Item 3 concerning the alleged Willful Failure to Warn and Item 4 concerning the prayer for punitive damages listed in the notice of motion, as stated above, plaintiffs did not allege any facts supporting the alleged failure to warn or facts supporting allegations of oppression, fraud, or malice. Accordingly, the motion as to Items 3 and 4 listed in the notice of motion is GRANTED.
OBEER QAZI, ET AL. VS NBC UNIVERSAL, A BUSINESS ENTITY, ET AL.
19STCV03879
Sep 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The Court STRIKES Prem.L-2 Count One – Negligence and Prem.L-3 County Two – Willful Failure to Warn from the complaint. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
MANUEL AURELIO OCHOA VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
18STCV09911
Jul 23, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Discussion Defendant demurs on Plaintiffs causes of action for willful failure to warn and dangerous condition of public property.
VIVIANA BAUTISTA VS PLATINUM BANQUET HALL & AUDITORIUM INC.
22STCV16449
Aug 17, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Motion is denied as to Count Two – willful failure to warn and the 3rd cause of action for willful failure to warn as there is no request for punitive damages in those claims. Defendant has not shown the claims are otherwise, irrelevant, false or improper.
MARIA ELENA GAMBOA VS. KING JANITORAL EQUIPMENT SVCS
37-2017-00015151-CU-PO-CTL
Aug 07, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Premises Liability – Count Two - Willful Failure to Warn Regal demurs to count two of the second cause for premises liability for willful failure to warn the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain. (CCP section 430.10(e)&(f).) Count two for willful failure to warn under premises liability is subject to Civil Code section 846.
BONNYE BENHAM VS MARKET PLACE LONG BEACH ET AL
BC662005
Oct 13, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court notes that there are not specific causes of action for negligent failure to warn or strict liability failure to warn. There is a negligence cause of action that would appear to include allegations of negligent failure to warn but also negligent design and manufacture. Likewise there is a strict liability cause of action that would appear to include failure to warn and defect claims.
193201
Aug 26, 2021
Shasta County, CA
The Court notes that there are not specific causes of action for negligent failure to warn or strict liability failure to warn. There is a negligence cause of action that would appear to include allegations of negligent failure to warn but also negligent design and manufacture. Likewise there is a strict liability cause of action that would appear to include failure to warn and defect claims.
193201
Aug 25, 2021
Shasta County, CA
The Court notes that there are not specific causes of action for negligent failure to warn or strict liability failure to warn. There is a negligence cause of action that would appear to include allegations of negligent failure to warn but also negligent design and manufacture. Likewise there is a strict liability cause of action that would appear to include failure to warn and defect claims.
193201
Aug 27, 2021
Shasta County, CA
The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the count for failure to warn, which is included in the cause of action for premises liability, is also granted with leave to amend. Civil Code Section 846 does not apply to a public entity. (Avila v. Citrus Community College (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148, 156). Therefore, the complaint cannot state a cause of action for failure to warn under Civil Code Section 846 against the CITY.
LITSA V. CITY OF VALLEJO
FCS049645
Oct 19, 2018
Solano County, CA
Willful Failure to Warn. Civil Code section 846 does not apply to public entities. (Delta Farms Reclamation District v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 699, 709.) The meaning of this is that public entities are not immunized against claims of failure to warn under the aegis of that statute.
FCS057645
Jun 15, 2022
Solano County, CA
This Tentative Ruling is made by Judge Stephen Kaus The Court GRANTS defendant Oakland Unified School District's ("Defendant") unopposed Motion to Strike Counts One (Negligence) and Two (Willful Failure to Warn) of plaintiff Amelia Juarez's ("Plaintiff") Complaint's Cause of Action for Premises Liability WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
JUAREZ VS OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
HG21093526
Sep 27, 2021
Alameda County, CA
However, the instant case is not a failure to warn case and so the analysis does not parallel Phyllis. Further, Plaintiffs try to assert duties through paragraph 25 in the FAC. However, those duties are owed to students and/or employees. Plaintiffs are neither.
MATHISEN VS. FISHER
MCC1701183
Sep 12, 2018
Riverside County, CA
Leave to amend is denied on the failure to warn and design defect counts. Moving party is ordered to give notice.
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX VS ELIZABETH LOONEY, ET AL.
20STCV30633
Jul 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant argues the evidence is relevant to the cause of his illness, the failure to warn allegations, live expectancy, and damages. The motion is granted as to argument that smoking evidence is relevant to the failure to warn claims.
ROBERT STRANGMAN, ET AL. VS AERON MARINE SHIPPING COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV41615
Sep 06, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court strikes Count Two for Willful Failure to Warn alleged in the 2nd cause of action for Premises Liability. Plaintiff does not address Defendant’s arguments that Section § 846 does not apply to the alleged facts. Rather, Plaintiff agrees to file a First Amended Complaint removing that count. Section 846 confers immunity recreational use immunity except where there is a willful or malicious failure to warn. Cal. Gov. Code § 846.
CHAD CRITTENDEN VS EXCEL HOTEL GROUP, INC.
18STCV03496
Jan 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, the Court notes that it will be referring to Count Two Willful Failure to Warn on page 5 of the FAC. Second Cause of Action - Premises Liability Count Two Willful Failure to Warn The Court notes that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a cause of action for premises liability under count one negligence. Therefore, this motion to strike only pertains to the allegation of willful failure to warn.
FIDELINA DIAZ-ORELLANA VS FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARK ASSOCIATION
23GDCV00393
Oct 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff checked the box concerning “Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code section 846].” In so doing, Plaintiff has alleged that the defendants “willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity.” Plaintiff also alleges that she was a “recreational user” of the hotel. The Attachment Prem. L-3 attachment contains additional allegations in support of a negligent failure to warn theory.
KATHLEEN MERRICK VS PRISM HOSPIALITY LP ET AL
BC680096
Nov 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
First and Second Causes of Action: Strict Liability Failure to Warn & Strict Liability Design Defect Defendants argue Plaintiffs First and Second causes of action are alleged in the caption to be Strict Liability Failure To Warn and Strict Liability Design Defect. Defendants argue that, however, in the body of the Complaint Plaintiffs First cause of action is entitled Strict Products Liability dropping off the Failure to Warn.
JUSTIN ARMSTRONG VS VK UNION CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV33786
May 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Leave to amend is denied on the failure to warn and design defect counts. Moving party is ordered to give notice.
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX VS ELIZABETH LOONEY, ET AL.
20STCV30633
Jul 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The only difference between the two pleadings is that the FAC omits the third cause of action for failure to warn, and thus, the FAC essentially serves as a dismissal of the failure to warn claim. There are no substantive changes between the original complaint and the FAC.
ELIZABETH VALENZUELA VS EQUINOX HOLDING, INC.
20STCV14205
Dec 05, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Third Cause of Action for Willful Failure to Warn: Plaintiff's third cause of action for willful failure to warn is based on Porat's alleged violation of duties as owner/manager/controller of the premises and statutory/regulatory duties, including duties under OSHA, to warn against the dangerous condition of the ceiling that Porat alleged knew of. Porat's argument that there are no allegations to show "willful" failure to warn is unavailing.
ABIKHZER VS OWENS
56-2016-00488480-CU-PO-VTA
Jun 01, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Nor is there any indication that plaintiff will be able to show a design or manufacturing defect or failure to warn hazard in the future. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.) Defendant’s expert makes it clear that nothing in the report from Hot Wire Electric suggests a design or manufacturing defect (and for that matter, a failure to warn danger). Mr.
MARIA GALVEZ VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC
18CV01636
Jul 09, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
Defendants further argue that the failure to warn claim fails because they were under no duty to warn Plaintiffs. In their opposition, Plaintiffs concede that the design defect theory is not well pled, but argues that the failure to warn claim is adequate. In general, a product seller will be strictly liable for failure to warn if a warning was feasible and the absence of a warning caused the plaintiffs injury. ( Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 181.)
JAMES SHAW, ET AL. VS WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL.
19STCV36986
Apr 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Willful failure to warn pursuant to Civil Code §846 is a claim that arises where a landowner has permitted entry to the land for recreational purposes but maliciously fails to warn of a dangerous condition on the land. Here, there are no facts alleged related to entry on land for recreational purposes. Defendant’s request to strike the allegations contained in Prem. L-3 is granted.
JEANETTE RIVERA VS AVIS CAR RENTAL
BC580599
Dec 06, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
s motion for summary judgment and alternate motion for summary adjudication is granted as to issues 1 and 2 (general negligence excluding negligent failure to warn, strict liability design and manufacturing defect), denied as to issues 3 and 4 (negligent failure to warn and strict liability failure to warn), taken off calendar as to issue 5 (false representation) and denied as to issue 6 (punitive damages).
JOHN T BALL VS. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.
CGC11275775
Jul 11, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the Plaintiffs' failure to warn claim in the Second Amended Complaint. The Court agrees with SJM LLC that the failure to warn claim contains insufficient allegations of causation linking the failure to warn to Mr. Garey's death. The demurrer is overruled as to SJM LLC's contention that the Plaintiffs' manufacturing defect claim does not adequately plead causation.
CYNTHIA GAREY, ET AL. VS ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ET AL.
19STCV27376
Mar 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Within that cause of action, Plaintiff alleges three counts against the City and the Does: Count One- Negligence (Complaint, p. 4, ¶ Prem.L-2), Count Two-Willful Failure to Warn (Id., ¶ Prem.L-3) and Count Three-Dangerous Condition of Public Property (Id., ¶ Prem.L-4.)
HOWARD PARKER V. CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
19CVP-0162
Sep 26, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied so long as the case includes an operative strict liability failure to warn cause of action. This case contains a strict liability failure to warn cause of action. Defendants did not show good cause to depart from this order. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.
DANNY CLAYTON LAMBERT, , ET AL. VS 3M COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV17939
Feb 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs are not asserting a failure to warn claim against HMA and have no evidence, facts, or documents to support a failure to warn claim against HMA. Plaintiffs are not asserting a negligence claim against HMA and have no evidence, facts, or documents to support a negligence claim against HMA. Plaintiffs are not asserting a breach of warranty claim against HMA and have no evidence, facts or documents to support a breach of warranty claim against HMA.
MIA MOORE, ET AL. VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.
18STCV00818
Oct 09, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Failure to Warn Where the state is immune from liability for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of its property because the dangerous condition was created as a result of a plan or design which conferred immunity under section 830.6, the state may nevertheless be liable for failure to warn of this dangerous condition where the failure to warn is negligent and is an independent, separate, concurring cause of the accident. (Cameron v. State of California (1972) 7 Cal.3d 318, 329).
ROBENSIN VS CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO
37-2018-00042458-CU-PO-CTL
Oct 10, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
In addition, Defendant argues that a claim for willful failure to warn is based on Civil Code section 846, which does not apply to public entities. (See Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 699, 704-710.) Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike the willful failure to warn count (Count 2) in the first cause of action.
ALEN VARTANIAN VS CITY OF GLENDALE
22STCV00603
Sep 25, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Under De La Paz a claim based on the failure to warn the FDA of adverse events is not preempted to the extent state tort law recognizes a parallel duty (although a claim based on a failure to warn physicians or patients of adverse events would be preempted). Stengel , 704 F.3d at 1234. De La Paz at 1096-1097 . The complaint in unclear. It does not state whether Plaintiff is suing for failure to warn the FDA or failure to warn consumers or physicians.
ALBERTO SIORDIA VS ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION
22STCV12268
Oct 03, 2022
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Supreme Court found that federal law preempted state common law claims based on failure to warn. (Id. at p. 524.) In Medtronic, Inc. v.
ALLEN G SHAW ET AL VS ASHLAND LLC ET AL
BC695379
Jul 11, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff argued that her case is distinguishable from the Doe II case because Plaintiff is alleging a failure to warn claim, which the CDA immunity does not apply. (Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc. (2016) 824 F.3d 846.) However, as reviewed above, Plaintiffs negligence claim is based upon a duty to protect and breach of that duty. (Compl. par. 59.) Plaintiff does not make any claim as to a failure to warn. Plaintiffs allegation of Defendants knowledge is only made in conclusory fashion.
JANE DOE VS ODED TERMEHI, ET AL.
22VECV01943
Aug 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Strict Liability Failure to Warn (v. Linde and Messer) 6. Negligence Products Liability (v. Linde and Messer) 7. Negligence - Failure to Warn (v. Linde and Messer) 8. Survival Action On February 16, 2021, Plaintiffs Monica Ibarra, Baldemar Gonzalez (Decedent), Karla Gonzalez, Monica Gonzalez and Robert Gonzalez (collectively Ibarra Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint in Case No. 21STCV05789. That action was subsequently consolidated with the lead case.
ANA JIMENEZ,, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF THE ESTATE OF MA ESTHER LETICIA OSYGUSS, DECEASED, ET AL. VS GOLDEN WEST FOOD GROUP, INC., ET AL.
21STCV00562
Nov 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Negligent Supervision/Failure To Warn 3. Negligent Hiring/Retention 4. Negligent Failure To Warn, Train, Or Educate Plaintiff 5. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress 6. Sexual Battery
JENNIFER PARKER VS DEFENDANT DOE 1 SCHOOL DISTRICT
22PSCV02768
Jun 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint includes a count for willful failure to warn. Defendant, Glenoaks Business Properties 1, LLC filed a motion to strike the count for willful failure to warn from the complaint. The Court was originally scheduled to hear the motion on 1/09/19. Prior to the hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling continuing the hearing on the motion due to Defendant’s failure to meet and confer prior to the hearing.
BEVIN GRAHAM VS POWER WINDOWS ET AL
BC673299
Mar 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The failure to warn exception applies if the City failed to warn about the causal factor (Mr. Kopp's colliding with the fence surrounding the light pole) and the causal factor is both a "known dangerous condition" and was "not reasonably assumed" by Mr. Kopp as an inherent part of playing baseball. (Id. at 470; Government Code 831.7(c)(1)(A)).
KAI KOPP VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL
CGC16551183
Jul 24, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
With regard to willful failure to warn - that is CC § 846. CC 846 pertains to use of property for 'recreational purposes' such as fishing, hiking, spelunking, parachuting, riding rock collecting, nature study, hang gliding, etc., etc. Rock concerts are not remotely encompassed under CC 846. The form complaint used for this cause of action was the one for premises liability. Plaintiff checked boxes for negligence and willful failure to warn.
JUSTIN MARKOWITZ VS. RORY KRAMER
56-2014-00452007-CU-PO-VTA
Sep 30, 2014
Ventura County, CA
The City next demurs on the grounds that the cause of action for willful failure to warn (count two of premises liability) has not been stated. The claim contains no unique factual allegations.
ROSE MAHOLSKI VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
1380791
Jul 26, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
Deft Aerojet-General Corporation'S Ntc Of Mo & Mo For Summary Judgment, Calendar Motion: Summary Judgment GRANT NO TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT RE NEGLIGENT CONTROL, FAILURE TO WARN, NEGLIGENT HIRING. (NR)
JOHNSON VS ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC)*
CGC99306874
Nov 15, 2001
San Francisco County, CA
Failure to Warn However , a plaintiff may still bring suit against the manufacturer of a medical device under a strict liability failure to warn theory. In Carlin v.
NEISY OLIVERA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS X-SPINE SYSTEMS, INC., UNKNOWN ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV22400
Jan 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Third and Fourth Causes of Action – Negligence (Design, Manufacture, and/or Sale, and Failure to Warn) There are triable issues regarding the design of the cold therapy device, and issues regarding the failure to warn. There are also issues regarding causation and whether the cold therapy device caused Plaintiff's injuries. (See ROA 431, Lozano MD Decl.) Thus, summary adjudication of the third and fourth causes of action is DENIED.
MITRIONE VS BREG INC
37-2019-00027996-CU-PL-CTL
Apr 07, 2023
San Diego County, CA
FAILURE TO WARN CONTROLLED BY SAME PRINCIPLES SEE MOSS VS. OUTBOARD MARINE CORP. 915 F.SUPP. 183, 186 (1996). (PB)
SHRAYBER VS. HOLIDAY HARBOR, INC.
CGC01323518
Jun 25, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
The complaint sufficiently pleads causes of action for fraud/failure to warn and conspiracy to defraud/failure to warn. The court denies defendant?s request for judicial notice Exhibits A and B. The court denies defendant?s reply request for judicial notice Exhibits C, D, E and F. Defendant has 10 days to answer. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45a.m. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.
HAROLD KOEPKE ET AL VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL
CGC13276217
Feb 04, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Plaintiff fails to allege the existence of a defect (design, manufacturing or a failure to warn).
DAVID W MANN VS WESTWOOD OPEN MRI LLC ET AL
BC673447
Sep 04, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant Ford Motor Company ("Defendant's) moves the Court for summary adjudication of plaintiff Steven and Cynthia Watts' ("Plaintiffs') causes of action for Negligent Failure to Warn , Strict Liability Failure to Warn, Fraud by Nondisclosure and Punitive Damages. For the reasons set forth below Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication ("MSA") is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant's MSA as to Plaintiffs' Negligent Failure to Warn and Strict Liability Failure to Warn claims are DENIED.
WATTS VS ASHBY LUMBER COMPANY
RG19035791
Aug 18, 2021
Jo-Lynne Lee
Alameda County, CA
DEFENDANT FAILS TO SHIFT BURDEN AS TO NEGLIGENT HIRING AND FAILURE TO WARN. NO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SERVED BY DEFENDANT AND NO DECLARATION FROM DEFENDANT RE COMPETENT HIRING AND DISCLOSING. (302/AJR/BH)
RONALD HENRY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) ET AL
CGC01402718
Apr 16, 2004
San Francisco County, CA
On the attachment form for premises liability, Plaintiff checks boxes for three variations of premises liability: (1) negligence, (2) willful failure to warn, and (3) dangerous condition of public property. Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for general negligence. Separately, Defendant moves to strike the portions of the premises liability claim that pertain to negligence and failure to warn.
CHARLOTTE MAY VS CITY OF ENCINITAS
37-2019-00018885-CU-PO-NC
Aug 01, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
She sued the Gesinee Defendants (and the City of Concord) for premises liability based upon negligence (count one), willful failure to warn, Civil Code §846 (count two) and dangerous condition of public property (count three). The Gesinee Defendants have brought a motion to strike arguing that counts two and three do not apply to them because there are no factual allegations to support those counts against the Gesinee Defendants. Count two is based on the failure to warn under Civil Code §846.
COLLINS VS. VANATTA
MSC18-01958
Jan 24, 2019
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
Discussion Defendant demurs to the second count for willful failure to warn in the complaint and argues that based on the lack of facts of any recreational activity or specific facts of willful, knowing or malicious conduct pled by Plaintiff, the form Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
LOUISE BELLAMY VS CITY OF LONG BEACH
21STCV14423
May 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action Strict Liability-Failure to Warn California law recognizes separate failure to warn claims under both strict liability and negligence theories. In general, a product seller will be strictly liable for failure to warn if a warning was feasible and the absence of a warning caused the plaintiffs injury. [Citation.] Reasonableness of the sellers failure to warn is immaterial in the strict liability context. ( Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc . (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 181.)
SKYLAR R., ET AL. VS MARUCHAN INC., ET AL.
21STCV03297
Jul 28, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant demurs to Plaintiffs first cause of action for premises liability, count two, for willful failure to warn. Additionally, Defendant moves to strike from the Complaint the language as follows: Premises Liability, Prem.L-3. Count Two Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code § 846]. (Complaint, p. 4.). Plaintiff opposes the demurrer and motion to strike. Defendant replies.
HEUNG YEOL YOO VS KOREAN SHOPPING CENTER, INC.
22STCV06577
Nov 30, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The failure to warn “was a substantial factor in causing” the harm to the fields. Under the doctrine of strict liability, liability may be premised upon a theory of design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn. (Anderson v. Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995.) Here, the complaint contains claims for design and warning defects.
BIG F COMPANY INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL VS TRI CAL INC A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL
18CV00437
May 15, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
Count Two – Willful Failure to Warn (CC §846). Defendant is ordered to file and serve their Answer within (10) days of notice of the hearing. Prevailing party to give notice.
WAY VS. HARBOR CENTER PARTNERS, L.P.
30-2017-00913165-CU-PA-CJC
Aug 07, 2017
Orange County, CA
Code § 846 is misplaced, as it neither creates nor prohibits a cause of action for failure to warn against public entities. Rather, both counts of plaintiff’s second cause of action—the count for failure to warn and the count for dangerous condition on public property—are subject to Gov. Code § 835, and the related immunity provision in Gov. Code § 831.4.
IRENE QUIMIRO VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC637878
Oct 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Pleading Causation for Failure to Warn Again, all five causes of action at issue sound in failure to warn. As noted above, under California law, Corcept’s duty to warn runs to Plaintiff’s doctor, not to Plaintiff herself. Corcept argues that in order to state a cause of action sounding in failure to warn, Plaintiff must plead that her doctor would not have prescribed Korlym had Corcept given a proper warning. Corcept is correct.
MILLER VS. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC.
30-2019-01121146
Dec 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
Defendant Sandstone demurs as to the second cause of action, Willful Failure to Warn, asserting that Plaintiff has failed to state sufficient facts to support the cause of action. a.
CAROLYN MARTIN VS 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL.
21STCV13603
Aug 12, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs have also alleged that the failure to warn was a contributing factor in causing their injuries. FAC ¶43. Accordingly, the first cause of action properly alleges facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for strict product liability – failure to warn. Demurrer of JLG JLG demurs to the first, second, eighth, and ninth causes of action. As to the first cause of action, JLG makes a similar argument to All Access.
HAROLD FIGUEROA ET AL VS AT&T CORPORATION ET AL
BC701989
Feb 20, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Nevro demurs to the 2 nd cause of action, arguing that it is time-barred, fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, the alleged misrepresentations are nonactionable as they involve future programming, and the Court has already dismissed the failure to warn claim in Nevros demurrer to the FAC such that Plaintiffs failure to warn claim is impermissibly asserted.
JASPER ROSE VS RAYMOND G. TATEVOSSIAN, ET AL.
20STCV31521
Jun 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Issue # 3 - Failure to warn. This is a passive negligence issue (as opposed to the active negligence of design immunity). Caltrans has not established design immunity. In view of that, this (failure to warn) will not get Caltrans out of the lawsuit. Issues 4 and 5 - These are not opposed, and will be granted. .
2019-00531134
Apr 18, 2022
Ventura County, CA
The first amended complaint sufficiently pleads causes of action for fraud/failure to warn, conspiracy to defraud/failure to warn and negligent hiring and negligent exercise of retained control. Assuming without deciding that this Court can entertain Intervenor's motion as it relates to plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, the first amended complaint sufficiently pleads facts supporting a claim for punitive damages.
HAROLD KOEPKE ET AL VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL
CGC13276217
Jul 10, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s second cause of action, for premises liability, includes three counts, for negligence, willful failure to warn, and dangerous condition of public property. Defendant moves to strike the second and third counts. On August 3, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to defendant’s motion to strike. Defendant’s motion to strike is therefore GRANTED.
KARLA FARROW VS BUY-LOW MARKET INC ET AL
BC647257
Aug 22, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
DISCUSSION The City demurs to the first cause of action, count 2 for “willful failure to warn” and the first cause of action, count 3 for “dangerous condition of public property” on the grounds that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and are uncertain.
JAMES HAWKINS VS DAVID KRIEGER M D ET AL
BC640014
Oct 31, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
DISCUSSION The City demurs to the first cause of action, count 2 for “willful failure to warn” and the first cause of action, count 3 for “dangerous condition of public property” on the grounds that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and are uncertain.
ELFRIEDA LUBELL CHAY VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD
BC668279
Oct 31, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Citys demurrer is sustained as to Plaintiffs causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and willful failure to warn.
APRIL ANICE MAYNARD VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV32307
Nov 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Relevant to this motion, plaintiffs’ complaint asserts causes of action against VWGOA for negligence, strict products liability, fraud/failure to warn, and conspiracy to defraud/ failure to warn, and asserts claims for punitive damages. Previously, VWGOA’s demurrer to the cause of action for conspiracy to defraud/ failure to warn had been sustained and plaintiffs failed to amend this cause of action as to VWGOA. (Order, dated July 29, 2010.)
RICHARD STEINER ET AL VS ADVANCE AUTO PARTS ET AL
1374169
Aug 16, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
Tentative Ruling: (1) To sustain the demurrer without leave to amend as to (4) negligent failure to warn, train or educate, (8) sexual harassment under Civil Code section 51.9, (10) sexual abuse and harassment in the educational environment (Education Code §220) and (11) breach of fiduciary duty; to overrule the demurrer as to 1) negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) negligent hiring/retention, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
DOE, ANNA RSA II VS. DINUBA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
VCU291174
Aug 30, 2022
Tulare County, CA
Tentative Ruling: (1) To sustain the demurrer without leave to amend as to (4) negligent failure to warn, train or educate, (8) sexual harassment under Civil Code section 51.9, (10) sexual abuse and harassment in the educational environment (Education Code §220) and (11) breach of fiduciary duty; to overrule the demurrer as to 1) negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) negligent hiring/retention, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress
DOE, ANNA RSA VS. DINUBA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
VCU290474
Aug 30, 2022
Tulare County, CA
Alternatively, if Count Two – Willful Failure to Warn is considered to be a separate cause of action, the Court sustains the demurrer to that cause of action. Under either theory, Plaintiff has 20 days to amend the complaint. Moving party is ordered to give notice.
RONALD FECIK VS LRS REALTY & MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.
19STCV41290
Oct 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Negligent Supervision/Failure To Warn 3. Negligent Hiring/Retention 4. Negligent Failure To Warn, Train, Or Educate Plaintiff 5. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress 6. Sexual Battery On May 18, 2023, Defendant filed a demurrer to the original complaint. On June 26, 2023, the court sustained in part (i.e., as to negligent COAs) and overruled in part (i.e., as to sexual battery and IIED COAs) the demurrer and granted leave to amend.
JENNIFER PARKER VS DEFENDANT DOE 1 SCHOOL DISTRICT
22PSCV02768
Sep 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
to Warn is not duplicative of the Tenth Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation, and the Demurrer to those causes of action are overruled on that ground.
DOE, JANE VS. MONTEREY PAIN TREATMENT MEDICAL CENTER, INC ET AL
20CV02179
Mar 24, 2021
Butte County, CA
On September 20, 2018, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) medical malpractice, (2) medical battery, (3) medical malpractice – lack of informed consent, (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect, (5) negligent design, (6) negligence, (7) strict products liability – failure to warn, (8) negligent products liability – failure to warn, and (9) misrepresentation.
ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL
BC707011
Jan 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
However, the Court noted that it did not have occasion to consider, and expressed no view on, “how design immunity might affect a failure to warn claim when a public entity does produce evidence that it considered whether to provide a warning.” Id. at 661. In Stufkosky v.
KROLL VS CITY OF CORONA
CVRI2301841
Mar 07, 2024
Riverside County, CA
Dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for failure to warn doctors and patients directly is hereby reaffirmed. The order will be issued by the court.
ESSURE PRODUCT CASES
JCCP004887
Apr 04, 2017
Alameda County, CA
Failure to Warn Amazon argues that the failure to warn claim fails because there is no duty to warn of known risks or obvious dangers. ( Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1304.) Amazon relies on a case where the court dismissed a failure to warn claim filed by a victim who was struck by a pellet gun because the dangers of firing a pellet gun were obvious. ( Holmes v. J. C. Penney Co. (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 216, 220.)
KYLE RICE VS DOUGLAS MEYER
21STCV18305
Jan 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Furthermore, as to the counts within the premises liability cause of action of willful failure to warn and dangerous condition of property, it is clear from the Plaintiffs’ allegations that the causes of their injuries are the acts of other participants and/or spectators, not conditions of the property. The court therefore sustains FACILITRON’s demurrer to the willful failure to warn and dangerous condition of property counts, and grants its motion to strike the punitive damage allegations.
JOHNSON V. FACILITRON CORPORATION, ET AL.
FCS053369
Jul 09, 2020
Solano County, CA
Defendant failed to satisfy its burden of production of making a prima facie case that it is entitled to prevail on its government contractor defense as to plaintiffs' claims based on failure to warn. Defendant satisfied its burden of production of making a prima facie case that it is entitled to prevail on its government contractor defense as to plaintiffs' claims based on design defect and plaintiffs failed to present evidence creating a triable issue on that topic.
OSCEOLA HEATH ET AL VS. 3M COMPANY ET AL
CGC15276452
Feb 11, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
Third Cause of Action – Strict Liability – Failure to Warn The demurrer to the third cause of action is OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage and for purposes of demurrer. Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action – Breach of Express and Implied Warranty Defendants demur to the fourth and fifth causes of action because Plaintiff has not alleged a sale or privity of contract.
MICHAEL CUELLAR VS VALMONT COMPOSITE STRUCTURES INC ET AL
BC695600
Sep 13, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
THAT CAUSE OF ACTION, AS PLED, IS NOT LIMITED TO THE FAILURE TO WARN THEORY. FAILURE TO SUSTAIN INITIAL BURDEN. (JH)
BRUFFETT VS CHEVRON USA INC
CGC98995162
Jun 28, 2002
San Francisco County, CA
"[T]here can be no liability for failure to warn where the instructions or warnings sufficiently alert the user to the possibility of danger." (Aguayo v. Crompton & Knowles Corp. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1042. Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication regarding Plaintiff's causes of action for negligent and strict liability failure to warn is GRANTED.
EVERA VS 3M COMPANY
RG19006142
Jan 27, 2020
Alameda County, CA
THE MOTION TO STRIKE AS TO THE 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION WILLFUL FAILURE TO WARN IS GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. =(302/LMG)
KIM KREIS ET AL VS. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA INC. ET AL
CGC10501102
Feb 10, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
Nevro argues that the 2 nd cause of action has 5 separate claims4 of which are negligent misrepresentation claims and 1 negligent failure-to-warn products liability claim.
JASPER ROSE VS RAYMOND G. TATEVOSSIAN, ET AL.
20STCV31521
Dec 30, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
FAILURE TO WARN PSC moves for adjudication of Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for strict products liability under a failure to warn theory. “To be liable in California, even under a strict liability theory, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing his or her injury. The natural corollary to this requirement is that a defendant is not liable to a plaintiff if the injury would have occurred even if the defendant had issued adequate warnings.”
MARK ANTHONY RAMOS ET AL VS ANZO NOBEL COATINGS INC ET AL
BC672215
Jul 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167 bars Plaintiff’s failure to warn claims; (2) even without the doctrine, Plaintiff’s failure to warn claims fail because Plaintiff cannot establish causation; (3) Plaintiff’s remaining claims fail because he has no evidence that a defect existed in the subject WLI products. Alternatively, WLI moves for summary adjudication on each of the 6 causes of action based on the same grounds.
MICHAEL SIMEON SMITH VS AMERICAN IDOL PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL
BC643000
Mar 29, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Products Liability combines various disparate theories of liability (failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, and breach of warranty), each with different legal elements, into the same cause of action. The pleading is, at best, uncertain.
DAY VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
RG20071710
Dec 16, 2021
Alameda County, CA
s motion for summary judgment and alternate motion for summary adjudication (negligent design defect, strict liability design defect, negligent failure to warn, strict liability failure to warn, and loss of consortium) are denied. As to the so-called OEM and asbestos content issues, defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Mr. Shaiffer was exposed to asbestos-containing products or materials attributable to defendant.
KENTON SHAIFFER ET AL VS. DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION
CGC11275800
Oct 10, 2012
San Francisco County, CA
The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to support the causes of action for premises liability (count one – negligence and count two – willful failure to warn (Civil Code section 846)) and general negligence. Insufficient facts are stated to support these causes of action, namely foreseeability and causation.
2022-00567884
Nov 22, 2022
Ventura County, CA
Willful Failure to Warn Defendant argues that California Civil Code section 846’s “willful failure to warn” does not apply to public entities in the absence of a “recreational purpose.” Plaintiff does not address this argument in his Opposition and omitted this claim from his proposed Fourth Amended Complaint. Dangerous Condition of Public Property This is Plaintiff’s Third attempt to plead a cause of action for premises liability against Defendant.
SMITH VS. SAN FRANCISCO B.A.R.T.
MSC15-01975
Sep 15, 2016
Contra Costa County, CA
Third and Fourth Causes of Action – Breach of Duty to Inform and Failure to Warn (as to NASSR and PIH) Defendants argue that “breach of duty to inform” and “failure to warn” sound in negligence, and therefore are subsumed into the first cause of action for negligence.
MARY ANDRENETTA ANDERSON VS PRESYBTERIAN INTERCOMMUNITY HOSP
BC715361
Apr 09, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
The 2AC alleges causes of action for: (1) intentional fraud; (2) strict liability - failure to warn; (3) negligence - failure to warn; (4) breach of contract. INTENTIONAL FRAUD (FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION) Amgen's Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for "intentional fraud" is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The order of 8/18/20 sustained the prior demurrer because it failed to adequately allege "that Amgen intended to conceal the cardiac side effect for the purpose of defrauding Plaintiff."
NJOKU VS AMGEN, INC.
HG19020607
Jan 06, 2021
Alameda County, CA
This means that a plaintiff in a failure-to-warn case must prove “that if the [defendant] had issued a warning, they would have acquired the knowledge they lacked.” (Id. at p. 1597.) The court agrees with Dow that Ramos’s testimony concerning his failure to read any Dow warnings precludes relief on the failure to warn claim. This is analogous to the case Ramirez v.
MARK ANTHONY RAMOS ET AL VS ANZO NOBEL COATINGS INC ET AL
BC672215
Sep 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
23CV423111 XINNONG DONG vs Defendant’s Motion to Strike “Count Two-Willful Failure to Warn [Civil JIAYI LU Code section 846]” is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendant served Plaintiff with notice of the hearing date for this motion by electronic mail on November 7, 2023. No opposition was filed. Failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to the motion being granted. (Cal. Rule of Court, 8.54(c).)
XINNONG DONG VS JIAYI LU
23CV423111
Dec 18, 2023
Santa Clara County, CA
23CV423111 XINNONG DONG vs Defendant’s Motion to Strike “Count Two-Willful Failure to Warn [Civil JIAYI LU Code section 846]” is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendant served Plaintiff with notice of the hearing date for this motion by electronic mail on November 7, 2023. No opposition was filed. Failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to the motion being granted. (Cal. Rule of Court, 8.54(c).)
XINNONG DONG VS JIAYI LU
23CV423111
Dec 17, 2023
Santa Clara County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.