What is strict liability?

Useful Rulings on Strict Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Liability

KIAN MORADZADEH VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

The City demurs to the negligence and strict liability causes of action arguing that Plaintiff improperly seeks to hold the City liable for negligence under common law tort principles. “A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person” except as provided by statute. (Gov. Code, § 815(a).)

  • Hearing

CHUCKRID HUTAYANA VS YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on January 02, 2018, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in: (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; (3) Strict Products Liability (Design Defect); (4) Strict Liability (Failure to Warn); and (5) Products Liability (Negligence). PRESENTATION: The instant motion was received by the Court on March 13, 2020, the opposition was received on March 24, 2020, and the reply was received on March 30, 2020.

  • Hearing

MOHAMMAD MEHDI-MOLLANOURI SHAMSI VS SUSAN GANS, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges statutory strict liability, common law strict liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from a dog bite that occurred on June 10, 2018. On July 15, 2020, Defendant Gans filed a cross-complaint against Defendant Horwitz seeking indemnification, apportionment, and declaratory relief. On July 24, 2020, the Court dismissed Defendant Horwitz from the complaint with prejudice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SEVAK MNATSAKANYAN VS OMAR MERIDA

Plaintiff alleges negligence, premises liability, and strict liability in the complaint arising from a dog attack that occurred on August 2, 2018. On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, Richard Kahanowitch, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1362. Trial is set for April 21, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Richard Kahanowitch asks the Court to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff because Plaintiff has been unresponsive.

  • Hearing

PRICE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO.

As to the third cause of action for strict liability is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that this moving defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity that caused the Plaintiffs to be harmed. As to the fourth cause of action for res ipsa loquitor negligence is overruled.

  • Hearing

JEREMY M STAGE ET AL VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

entire responsibility and liability for, and shall defend, indemnify and forever hold harmless Contractor [H&M] and its agents, servants and employees and Principal [SCE] from and against all claims, damages, losses, costs and expenses (including attorney’s fees), fines and penalties and without regard to the cause or causes therefore, including the negligence of [sic] (active or passive) of any party or parties, including the joint or concurrent negligence of Contractor and including claims under any theory of strict

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DELGADILLO VS DELGADILLO

Conversion is a strict liability tort; it does not require bad faith, knowledge, or even negligence, but requires only that the defendant have intentionally done the act depriving the plaintiff of his or her rightful possession. (Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1141, 1150.)

  • Hearing

NIR FERTIG, ET AL. VS CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD

When Fertig voluntary chose to furnish the qualifying experience for the Company on October 29, 2014, he assumed strict liability for its activities. During that time, the Company committed multiple violations in the San Mateo Project. Whatever understandings he may have had with other Company officers, Fertig became responsible to the Board for the corporation’s construction operations until the date of his disassociation. §7068.2.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MARQUEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERIC

It pointed out, however, that the cases invoked for a duty to disclose safety defects related to strict-liability personal injury torts rather than to fraudulent concealment. (7 Cal.App.5th at 312.) The other cases plaintiff cites for the safety exception actually hold against the plaintiffs because they presented no safety-concern allegations. (Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824; Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1255.) Nor is Falk v.

  • Hearing

SARAH SLAYTON VS JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges strict liability based on a failure to warn and a design defect, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, deceit by concealment, and fraud arising from the use of products that caused ovarian cancer. On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, Jennifer Lenze, Esq. and Amanda McGee, Esq., filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1362.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

WILLIAM DWIGHT TOUCHBERRY ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 250

On February 13, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Does 1-250 for: C/A 1: By William against Defendants for Negligence C/A 2: By William against Defendants for Strict Liability (Failure to Warn) C/A 3: By William against Defendants for Strict Liability (Design Defect) C/A 4: By William against Defendants for Fraudulent Concealment C/A 5: By William against Defendants for Breach of Implied Warranties C/A 6: By Laurie against Defendants for Loss of Consortium On August 27, 2020 Defendant Rust-Oleum

  • Hearing

SABRINA BUGARIN VS MATTHEW ALTSHULE

Plaintiff alleges negligence, strict liability, and a violation of Civil Code section 3342 in the complaint arising from a dog attack that occurred on February 16, 2019. On July 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to, in part, name Defendant Jesse DeLuna (“Defendant DeLuna”). On May 22, 2020, Defendant Altshule filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NIR FERTIG, ET AL. VS CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD

Fertig had responsibilities and cannot claim a lack of knowledge to escape his strict liability under sections 7068.1 and 7122.5. The weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that discipline under section 7121.5 was appropriate.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GARCIA VS. GENERAL MOTORS

It pointed out, however, that the cases invoked for a duty to disclose safety defects related to strict-liability personal injury torts rather than to fraudulent concealment. (7 Cal.App.5th at 312.) The other cases plaintiff cites for the safety exception actually hold against the plaintiffs because they presented no safety-concern allegations. (Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824; Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1255.) Nor is Falk v.

  • Hearing

NIV V. DAVIDOVICH VS DM & C STEEL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

DM&C alleges that any damages alleged by Davidovich were caused by Landmark and Laniado’s negligence, conduct, and/or strict liability. (Id., ¶40.) In the 5th cause of action, DM&C alleges that it is not responsible for Davidovich’s damages, and that Landmark and Laniado are responsible. (XC, ¶¶47-48.) It alleges that it is entitled to partial or full indemnity by Cross-Defendants. (Id., ¶48.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LISA STERN VS DOUGLAS EMMETT 2014 LLC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendant argues that the questions were inappropriate because they tend to suggest that the appropriate standard of care is the “safest possible option” and thus attempt to convert the negligence standard into a strict liability one. Even if this were an appropriate description of the questions -- which description the court does not agree -- this is not an appropriate basis for limiting questions at a deposition. The questions are clearly relevant to the subject matter of the litigation.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BOBBY GEANI STELLS VS CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMEN

The third amended complaint alleges claims for: (1) dangerous condition of public property — Government Code section 835 against California Employment and (2) strict liability against Pacific. Pacific has been dismissed from the case without prejudice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IRMA LORENA VIZCARRA ET AL VS TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC

Strict liability has been invoked for three types of defects—manufacturing defects, design defects, and inadequate warnings, and failures to warn. (Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995.) The phrase “strict liability” is somewhat of a misnomer because although it relieves the plaintiff from having to prove negligence in appropriate cases, it does not eliminate the doctrine of superseding causation. (Vermeulen v. Superior Court (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1202.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOHN DAUPHINEE V. BRADLEY DRATNOL

The complaint alleges (1) wrongful death, (2) strict liability for defective design; (3) negligent design; (4) negligent hiring-retention; and (5) loss of consortium. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging the same causes of action on June 11, 2020.

  • Hearing

CLAUS VS CLARK

This is a common law strict liability claim and not the statutory strict liability under Civil Code (CC) §3342. CC §3342 states in pertinent part: “The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.”

  • Hearing

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY VS TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION SOUTH, INC.

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) trespass; (4) permanent private nuisance; (5) permanent public nuisance; (6) continuing private nuisance; (7) continuing public nuisance; (8) unfair competition; and (9) strict liability for ultrahazardous materials. Prospective Intervenor moves the Court to intervene and for a stay to file a Complaint against Defendant. Defendant opposes the motion. The Court has considered the motion and opposition.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CORZINE V. RIEMANN

Hanley (2015), 61 Cal. 4th 1225, 1240. “”’Conversion is a strict liability tort. The foundation of the action rests neither in the knowledge nor the intent of the defendant. Instead, the tort consists in the breach of an absolute duty; the act of conversion itself is tortious. . . The basis of a conversion action “ ‘rests upon the unwarranted interference by defendant with the dominion over the property of the plaintiff from which injury to the latter results.

  • Hearing

DAVID LIGHT VS HOLLYWOOD ANIMALS, INC.

Plaintiff alleges negligence and strict liability for a dog attack that occurred on May 5, 2018. On November 1, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Hollywood Animals, Inc. filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Type 55 Films LLC, Lesley Charles Fonville, Jr. and Clinton Trucks alleging breach of contract and seeking express indemnity, equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARVIN TARNOL, ET AL. VS UNITED FABRICARE SUPPLY, INC.

The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) states six causes of action for: 1) negligence; 2) strict liability – failure to warn; 3) strict liability – design defect; 4) fraudulent concealment; 5) breach of implied warranties; and 6) loss of consortium. The SAC alleges that Marvin worked at dry cleaning facilities from 1950 through 1980. Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2017.

  • Hearing

HUBBARD VS. CANINE ADOPTION

(5) "California has long followed the common law rule of strict liability for harm done by a domestic animal with known vicious or dangerous propensities abnormal to its class.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 69     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.