Products Liability - Failure to Warn in California

What Is a Products Liability - Failure to Warn?

Required elements for strict liability based on failure to warn:

  1. that the defendant manufactured or sold the product;
  2. that the product had potentials risks that were known or knowable at the time of manufacture or sale;
  3. that the potential risks presented a substantial danger when the product is used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable way;
  4. that ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks;
  5. that defendant failed to adequately warn of the potential risks;
  6. that plaintiff was harmed; and
  7. that the lack of sufficient warnings was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.

(CACI 1205.)

Required elements for negligent failure to warn:

  1. that the defendant manufactured or sold the product;
  2. that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the product was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner; a
  3. that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that users would not realize the danger;
  4. that the defendant failed to adequately warn of the danger or instruct on the safe use of the product;
  5. that a reasonable manufacturer or seller under the same or similar circumstances would have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of the product;
  6. that the plaintiff was harmed; and
  7. that the defendant’s failure to warn or instruct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.

(CACI 1222.)

Cases Discussing Duty to Warn

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.)

Sophisticated User Defense

“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

  1. “identify the relevant risk,
  2. show that sophisticated users are already aware of the risk, and
  3. demonstrate that the plaintiff is a member of the group of sophisticated users.”

(Buckner v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 522, 535.)

Restatement Second of Torts, § 388 and the Obvious Danger Rule

“§ 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.)

Rulings for Products Liability - Failure to Warn in California

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”.

  • Name

    VEAZEY VS CINTAS CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    CVRI2202455

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Case No.

    6-12-19

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2022

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.

  • Name

    SEAN CICERO VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

  • Case No.

    18CV00017

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2018

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.

  • Name

    SILVA GHAZARIAN VS WALMART INC

  • Case No.

    BC705330

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    NAIROBI MASTROMARINO, ET AL AND HILARITA-TIBURON ECUMEN'ICAL ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    CV1701469

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Judge

    STEPHEN P, FRECCERO

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LELIA SHARPE VS. EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL

  • Case No.

    BC639641

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2017

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.

  • Name

    OBEER QAZI, ET AL. VS NBC UNIVERSAL, A BUSINESS ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV03879

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

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.

  • Name

    MANUEL AURELIO OCHOA VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

  • Case No.

    18STCV09911

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2019

Discussion Defendant demurs on Plaintiffs causes of action for willful failure to warn and dangerous condition of public property.

  • Name

    VIVIANA BAUTISTA VS PLATINUM BANQUET HALL & AUDITORIUM INC.

  • Case No.

    22STCV16449

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2022

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.

  • Name

    MARIA ELENA GAMBOA VS. KING JANITORAL EQUIPMENT SVCS

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00015151-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2017

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.

  • Name

    BONNYE BENHAM VS MARKET PLACE LONG BEACH ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC662005

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2017

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.

  • Case No.

    193201

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Case No.

    193201

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Case No.

    193201

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LITSA V. CITY OF VALLEJO

  • Case No.

    FCS049645

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

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.

  • Case No.

    FCS057645

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JUAREZ VS OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    HG21093526

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2021

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.

  • Name

    MATHISEN VS. FISHER

  • Case No.

    MCC1701183

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

Leave to amend is denied on the failure to warn and design defect counts. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Name

    XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX VS ELIZABETH LOONEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV30633

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2021

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.

  • Name

    ROBERT STRANGMAN, ET AL. VS AERON MARINE SHIPPING COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV41615

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    CHAD CRITTENDEN VS EXCEL HOTEL GROUP, INC.

  • Case No.

    18STCV03496

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2019

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.

  • Name

    FIDELINA DIAZ-ORELLANA VS FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARK ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    23GDCV00393

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KATHLEEN MERRICK VS PRISM HOSPIALITY LP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC680096

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

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.

  • Name

    JUSTIN ARMSTRONG VS VK UNION CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV33786

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2022

Leave to amend is denied on the failure to warn and design defect counts. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Name

    XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX VS ELIZABETH LOONEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV30633

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2021

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.

  • Name

    ELIZABETH VALENZUELA VS EQUINOX HOLDING, INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV14205

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ABIKHZER VS OWENS

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00488480-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2018

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.

  • Name

    MARIA GALVEZ VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

  • Case No.

    18CV01636

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    JAMES SHAW, ET AL. VS WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV36986

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JEANETTE RIVERA VS AVIS CAR RENTAL

  • Case No.

    BC580599

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2016

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).

  • Name

    JOHN T BALL VS. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.

  • Case No.

    CGC11275775

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2013

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.

  • Name

    CYNTHIA GAREY, ET AL. VS ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV27376

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    HOWARD PARKER V. CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES

  • Case No.

    19CVP-0162

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

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.

  • Name

    DANNY CLAYTON LAMBERT, , ET AL. VS 3M COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV17939

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MIA MOORE, ET AL. VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.

  • Case No.

    18STCV00818

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2019

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).

  • Name

    ROBENSIN VS CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00042458-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2019

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.

  • Name

    ALEN VARTANIAN VS CITY OF GLENDALE

  • Case No.

    22STCV00603

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ALBERTO SIORDIA VS ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    22STCV12268

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ALLEN G SHAW ET AL VS ASHLAND LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC695379

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2019

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.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS ODED TERMEHI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22VECV01943

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    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.

  • Case No.

    21STCV00562

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2022

  • County

    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

  • Name

    JENNIFER PARKER VS DEFENDANT DOE 1 SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    22PSCV02768

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BEVIN GRAHAM VS POWER WINDOWS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC673299

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

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)).

  • Name

    KAI KOPP VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC16551183

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2018

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.

  • Name

    JUSTIN MARKOWITZ VS. RORY KRAMER

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00452007-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2014

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.

  • Name

    ROSE MAHOLSKI VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

  • Case No.

    1380791

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2011

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)

  • Name

    JOHNSON VS ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC)*

  • Case No.

    CGC99306874

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2001

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.

  • Name

    NEISY OLIVERA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS X-SPINE SYSTEMS, INC., UNKNOWN ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV22400

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    MITRIONE VS BREG INC

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00027996-CU-PL-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

FAILURE TO WARN CONTROLLED BY SAME PRINCIPLES SEE MOSS VS. OUTBOARD MARINE CORP. 915 F.SUPP. 183, 186 (1996). (PB)

  • Name

    SHRAYBER VS. HOLIDAY HARBOR, INC.

  • Case No.

    CGC01323518

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2002

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.

  • Name

    HAROLD KOEPKE ET AL VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC13276217

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2014

Plaintiff fails to allege the existence of a defect (design, manufacturing or a failure to warn).

  • Name

    DAVID W MANN VS WESTWOOD OPEN MRI LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC673447

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2018

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.

  • Name

    WATTS VS ASHBY LUMBER COMPANY

  • Case No.

    RG19035791

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2021

  • Judge

    Jo-Lynne Lee

  • County

    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)

  • Name

    RONALD HENRY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC) ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC01402718

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2004

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.

  • Name

    CHARLOTTE MAY VS CITY OF ENCINITAS

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00018885-CU-PO-NC

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

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.

  • Name

    COLLINS VS. VANATTA

  • Case No.

    MSC18-01958

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Judge

    Steve K. Austin

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LOUISE BELLAMY VS CITY OF LONG BEACH

  • Case No.

    21STCV14423

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2023

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.)

  • Name

    SKYLAR R., ET AL. VS MARUCHAN INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV03297

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HEUNG YEOL YOO VS KOREAN SHOPPING CENTER, INC.

  • Case No.

    22STCV06577

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BIG F COMPANY INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL VS TRI CAL INC A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    18CV00437

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2018

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.

  • Name

    WAY VS. HARBOR CENTER PARTNERS, L.P.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00913165-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2017

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.

  • Name

    IRENE QUIMIRO VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC637878

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2017

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.

  • Name

    MILLER VS. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01121146

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

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.

  • Name

    CAROLYN MARTIN VS 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV13603

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HAROLD FIGUEROA ET AL VS AT&T CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC701989

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

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.

  • Name

    JASPER ROSE VS RAYMOND G. TATEVOSSIAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV31521

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2023

  • County

    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. .

  • Case No.

    2019-00531134

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HAROLD KOEPKE ET AL VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC13276217

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2014

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.

  • Name

    KARLA FARROW VS BUY-LOW MARKET INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC647257

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2017

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.

  • Name

    JAMES HAWKINS VS DAVID KRIEGER M D ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC640014

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2017

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.

  • Name

    ELFRIEDA LUBELL CHAY VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

  • Case No.

    BC668279

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2017

Citys demurrer is sustained as to Plaintiffs causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and willful failure to warn.

  • Name

    APRIL ANICE MAYNARD VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV32307

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2022

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.)

  • Name

    RICHARD STEINER ET AL VS ADVANCE AUTO PARTS ET AL

  • Case No.

    1374169

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2011

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.

  • Name

    DOE, ANNA RSA II VS. DINUBA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    VCU291174

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2022

  • County

    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

  • Name

    DOE, ANNA RSA VS. DINUBA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    VCU290474

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    RONALD FECIK VS LRS REALTY & MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV41290

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

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.

  • Name

    JENNIFER PARKER VS DEFENDANT DOE 1 SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    22PSCV02768

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DOE, JANE VS. MONTEREY PAIN TREATMENT MEDICAL CENTER, INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    20CV02179

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2021

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.

  • Name

    ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC707011

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KROLL VS CITY OF CORONA

  • Case No.

    CVRI2301841

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ESSURE PRODUCT CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP004887

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2017

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.)

  • Name

    KYLE RICE VS DOUGLAS MEYER

  • Case No.

    21STCV18305

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JOHNSON V. FACILITRON CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS053369

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

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.

  • Name

    OSCEOLA HEATH ET AL VS. 3M COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC15276452

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2016

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.

  • Name

    MICHAEL CUELLAR VS VALMONT COMPOSITE STRUCTURES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC695600

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2018

THAT CAUSE OF ACTION, AS PLED, IS NOT LIMITED TO THE FAILURE TO WARN THEORY. FAILURE TO SUSTAIN INITIAL BURDEN. (JH)

  • Name

    BRUFFETT VS CHEVRON USA INC

  • Case No.

    CGC98995162

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2002

"[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.

  • Name

    EVERA VS 3M COMPANY

  • Case No.

    RG19006142

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2020

THE MOTION TO STRIKE AS TO THE 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION WILLFUL FAILURE TO WARN IS GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. =(302/LMG)

  • Name

    KIM KREIS ET AL VS. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA INC. ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC10501102

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2011

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.

  • Name

    JASPER ROSE VS RAYMOND G. TATEVOSSIAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV31521

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2022

  • County

    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.”

  • Name

    MARK ANTHONY RAMOS ET AL VS ANZO NOBEL COATINGS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC672215

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

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.

  • Name

    MICHAEL SIMEON SMITH VS AMERICAN IDOL PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC643000

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2019

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.

  • Name

    DAY VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    RG20071710

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KENTON SHAIFFER ET AL VS. DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    CGC11275800

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2012

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.

  • Case No.

    2022-00567884

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2022

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.

  • Name

    SMITH VS. SAN FRANCISCO B.A.R.T.

  • Case No.

    MSC15-01975

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2016

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.

  • Name

    MARY ANDRENETTA ANDERSON VS PRESYBTERIAN INTERCOMMUNITY HOSP

  • Case No.

    BC715361

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2019

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."

  • Name

    NJOKU VS AMGEN, INC.

  • Case No.

    HG19020607

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

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.

  • Name

    MARK ANTHONY RAMOS ET AL VS ANZO NOBEL COATINGS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC672215

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

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).)

  • Name

    XINNONG DONG VS JIAYI LU

  • Case No.

    23CV423111

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2023

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

    XINNONG DONG VS JIAYI LU

  • Case No.

    23CV423111

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2023

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope