The elements of a cause of action for negligence include:

1. a legal duty,
2. breach of a legal duty,
3. causation, and
4. damages

Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.

In order to state a cause of action under this theory plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary reasonable care or skill.

Note that the Economic Loss rule precludes recovery of tort damages in a breach of contract case when the wrongdoing does not involve independent tort damages such as a consumer who is personally injured or sustained injury to other property. Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 979, 988.

Third-Party Liability

1. “Where a person has supplied to another a chattel which because of the supplier's negligence or other fault is dangerously defective for the use for which it is supplied and both have become liable in tort to a third person injured by such use, the supplier is under a duty to indemnify the other for expenditures properly made in discharge of the claim of the third person, if the other used or disposed of the chattel in reliance upon the supplier's care and if, as between the two, such reliance was justifiable.”
2. “The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies where a person has negligently made repairs or improvements upon the land or chattels of another whereby both become liable in tort to a third person.”

See also Prosser, Law of Torts, 2d ed. 1955, p. 250. De La Forest v. Yandle (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 59, 60-61.

Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations provides three years for a negligent repair claim. Code of Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(1).

Examples

Auto Repair

An auto repair facility, “has [the] duty to perform auto repair services in a good and workmanlike manner.” Civ. Code Sec. 1796.5.

However, the scope of a repairer’s duty was addressed in Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1193. Although the issue there had to do with third-parties, and not those directly in privity with the repairer, the following excerpt (at 1205) is informative: “Any duty of the repairer arises out of its contract with the owner to repair the equipment for a specified fee and no justification exists to extend that contractual duty beyond the intent of the contracting parties … The cost of simple repairs would increase significantly, as every repairer would factor into the charge for a service call the additional cost of inspection, advisement, insurance, and liability. An automobile mechanic could not perform a simple oil change without a complete inspection for any design defect of the automobile and the preparation of a complete advisement of defects to the owner.” Id.

Sidewalk and Property Repair

An independent contractor may be held liable for negligence if his repair work on an owner’s property directly and proximately causes affirmative harm. Srithong v. Total Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 672, 724 (landlord of commercial mall hired contactor to repair roof and contractor’s employees allowed hot tar to seep through ceiling, burning and scarring arm of Plaintiff who leased mall space and operated a restaurant thereupon).

Independent contractors hired to repair a sidewalk may be held liable for a dangerous condition if their negligence affirmatively created that dangerous condition. (Katz v. Helbing (1932) 215 Cal. 449, 452 (contractor left box of lime on sidewalk and street unguarded with no watchman or warning signs, so that two boys threw it at passing street car causing injuries to passengers); McNeill v. A. Teichert & Son Inc. (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 5 (contractor which installed storm sewer for city may be sued for negligently failing to erect a substantial barrier or walk which might have prevented young child from falling into excavation).

And the owner of an item of property being repaired may still be held liable for its negligent repair, even if the owner hired a contractor to conduct the repair, because the duty to maintain and repair the item of property is nondelegable. Koepnick v. Kashiwa Fudosan America Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 32 (property owner that hired company to service elevator still liable to plaintiff for negligent servicing by repair company).)

Medical Negligent Repair

In Johnson v. Chiu, the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim alleged the dermatologist “negligently and carelessly examined, cared for, followed up on, and treated” the patient, and the general negligence cause of action alleged the dermatologist’s negligent repair and maintenance of a laser machine proximately caused the patient’s hearing loss and vertigo when machine emitted loud sound during treatment. Johnson v. Chiu (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 775, 781.