The elements of a cause of action for negligence include:
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.
See also Prosser, Law of Torts, 2d ed. 1955, p. 250. De La Forest v. Yandle (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 59, 60-61.
The statute of limitations provides three years for a negligent repair claim. Code of Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(1).
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.
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).)
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.
Demurrer to Complaint by Mercedes-Benz of Anaheim, Mercedes-Benz USA LLC; Defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz of Anaheim seek an order from the Court sustaining their Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Negligent Repair. Defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz of Anaheim’s Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Negligent Repair in the Complaint is OVERRULED. The Complaint adequately alleges facts to support a cause of action for negligent repair.
Jan 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
Negligent Repair (3 rd COA) The limitations period for Plaintiffs’ negligent repair claim is three years. (C.C.P. §338(c)(1).) Plaintiffs’ negligent repair claim is barred on the face of the complaint.
Sep 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Instead, the negligent repair claim is based on allegations that Ventura Ford negligently repaired the vehicle under warranty. (FAC, ¶¶ 9, 56-59.) In the FAC, Plaintiff seems to only seek damages for the cost of the repair to the subject vehicle. (Id., Prayer for Relief appears to indicate this.) The claim for negligent repair is barred because Plaintiff's claim is based solely on the defective product itself (the nonconforming vehicle.)
Jul 23, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle developed further defects because of Defendant’s negligent repair. Defendant has filed this opposed demurrer to Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action (Negligent Repair).
Aug 19, 2021
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the negligent repair claims against Hemet are barred by the economic loss rule. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted with leave to amend.
Oct 25, 2022
Riverside County, CA
All elements of a negligent repair cause of action have been alleged. Defendant Dodge argues that a claim for negligent repair must establish proximate cause, that is, that defendants negligent repair in some way contributed to the injury, and that the FAC fails to make this showing. The pleading expressly alleges that defendants negligent breaches were the proximate cause of plaintiffs damages. [FAC, para. 85].
Feb 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action for negligent repair is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend. Moving party to give notice.
Oct 30, 2019
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
This is particularly important given that the consumer claims have been dismissed, and only negligent repair remains.
Aug 27, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff’s negligent repair claim is barred by the economic loss rule and accordingly, his damages claim is not properly pled. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is Granted, with ten day’s leave to amend.
Nov 16, 2022
Riverside County, CA
On February 5, 2021, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the second and fourth causes of action for breach of the implied warranty and fraud with leave to amend and overruled the demurrer to the third cause of action for negligent repair. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 16, 2021. The parties settled on March 11, 2021.
Apr 29, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
