What is failure to warn?

Useful Resources for Products Liability - Failure to Warn

Rulings on Products Liability - Failure to Warn

1-25 of 1061 results

NAIROBI MASTROMARLNO, ET AL AND HILARITA-TIBURON ECUMENICAL ASSOCIATION

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Judge

    STEPHEN P, FRECCERO

  • County

    Marin County, CA

ELKHOURY VS. SEARS ROEBUCK

And if Chamberlain could not have known of the defect at the time of the purchase, it cannot be liable under a failure to warn theory. (E.g., Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 1000.) The allegations in the 2AC are insufficient to state a cause of action for failure to warn.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

CARL CICERO V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2018

LELIA SHARPE VS. EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2017

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SILVA GHAZARIAN VS WALMART INC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MANUEL AURELIO OCHOA VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2019

BONNYE BENHAM VS MARKET PLACE LONG BEACH ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2017

BRENDA HUGHES VS. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Of Pltf'S Fraud, Failure-To-Warn, Negligence, And Loss-Of-Consortium Claims; Appendix On calendar for Tuesday, June 10, 2014, Line 4, DEFENDANTS PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. AND R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Of Pltf'S Fraud, Failure-To-Warn, Negligence, And Loss-Of-Consortium Claims; Off calendar per request of moving party. =302/EG

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2014

LITSA V. CITY OF VALLEJO

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

KATHLEEN MERRICK VS PRISM HOSPIALITY LP ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

GALVEZ V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR, CO.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2019

MARIA ELENA GAMBOA VS. KING JANITORAL EQUIPMENT SVCS

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MATHISEN VS. FISHER

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

ROBENSIN VS CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO

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).

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROBENSIN VS CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO

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).

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ABIKHZER VS OWENS

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2018

JOHN T BALL VS. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.

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).

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2013

JEANETTE RIVERA VS AVIS CAR RENTAL

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2016

ALLEN G SHAW ET AL VS ASHLAND LLC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2019

HOWARD PARKER V. CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES

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.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

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

deciding applicability of failure to warn exception)).

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2018

CHAD CRITTENDEN VS EXCEL HOTEL GROUP, INC.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2019

MILLER VS. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC.

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

ROSE MAHOLSKI VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 43     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.