What is strict liability?

Useful Rulings on Strict Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Liability

MICHAEL GREEN ET AL VS CASA VIEJA GRILL ET AL

The complaint alleges causes of action for strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and negligence. On January 23, 2020, attorney Barry P. Goldberg (“Counsel”) filed a Notice of Change of Handling Attorney Within Firm, requesting to replace Bernard J. Thalheimer as the counsel of record for Plaintiff Atkinson. On February 11, 2020, Counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel as to Plaintiff Atkinson pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2).

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GUZMAN VS FCA US, LLC

In sum, Plaintiffs' claims in strict liability and fraudulent concealment as currently pled are precluded by the economic loss rule.” Id. at 904. Here, too, Plaintiff has alleged no affirmative misrepresentations and no injuries/damages outside of the purely economic losses based on the contract. This cause of action is therefore barred based on the economic loss rule. II. Motion to Strike FCA’s Motion to Strike (“MTS”) is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS ELI LEVI, ET AL.

Therefore, violations of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 104.15 is a strict liability offense as well. Further, in violations of Los Angeles Municipal Code sections, “where the doctrine of strict liability applies, due process does not require that notice be an element of the offense.” (Id. at p. 13.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FORD VS. CHEVRON

Ford and his wife, Pamela Thurman-Ford, both residents of Texas, filed their complaint on February 14, 2020, alleging causes of action for negligence and strict liability. They name as defendants Chevron Corporation, Valero Refining Company – California, Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Valero Energy Corporation, Harcros Chemicals, Inc., Ashland LLC, Shell Oil Company, and Exxon Mobil Corporation. Chevron Corporation and Harcros Chemicals, Inc. both filed answers to the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

THOMAS O'BRIEN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET

The Court granted BATO’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s claim for Strict Liability – Ultrahazardous Activity; and the Court treated BATO’s arguments pertaining to Fraudulent Concealment and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings—which was GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LORENA GARCIA ET AL VS JAMES WOOD PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

“Generally, it is based on a duty owed to the underlying plaintiff [citations], although vicarious liability [citation] and strict liability [citation] also may sustain application of equitable indemnity. In addition, implied contractual indemnity between the indemnitor and the indemnitee can provide a basis for equitable indemnity. [Citation.]” [*1041] (BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 848, 852 [14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721].) (Stop Loss Ins.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PATEL M.D. VS. JELD-WEN, INC.

Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 281, 294 [reversing jury verdict for strict liability in homeowner’s favor against a window manufacturer, as the only evidence of damage to property other than the defective windows was a couple of hundred dollars in damage to Sheetrock and wallpaper which was insufficient to support a tort claim for hundreds of thousands of dollars based on the damages for the defective windows themselves]) For the reasons set forth regarding the negligence cause of action, the

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

[Citation.]’ ” The statute imposes strict liability. It is not necessary to show that the defendant intended to injure anyone."' [Citation.]" South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 861, 877.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

VIVI ROBYN STAFFORD VS BROADSTONE FAIRFAX, LLC, ET AL.

Strict liability is not absolute liability.” (Id.) “Strict product liability seeks to hold manufacturers (and others in the stream of commerce) accountable when there is something wrong with the product.” (Id.) “[T]he term defect as utilized in the strict liability context is neither self-defining nor susceptible to a single definition applicable in all contexts.” (Id.) “Three general types of defects have been discerned: manufacturing defects, warning defects, and design defects.” (Id. at 32.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

MARCELLA ANDERSON V. KENNETH GOLDBERG, DMD

Strict Liability With respect to strict liability, Coastal Oral argues it cannot be held liable on a products liability claim because its primary purpose was to provide dental care and treatment, and that any product used during an implantation procedure is incidental to that care. In support, Coastal Oral cites to Hennigan v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

COURTNEY HAYES VS FERMIN VASQUEZ, ET AL.

In reply, defendant argues that plaintiff’s ratification theory of liability is legally unsupportable because Reyes was not acting within his scope of employment when he purportedly encouraged the other defendants and there is no strict liability on employers for any supervisor’s tortious misconduct.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

SEAN LUMPKIN VS JAMES BARROS

The complaint alleges premises liability, negligence, and strict liability for a dog bite that occurred on July 10, 2017. On November 29, 2018, Plaintiff amended his complaint to rename Doe 1 as Defendant Vickaid Arms Homeowners’ Association and Doe 2 as Defendant The Estate of Ernestine Barros. On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff amended his complaint to rename Doe 1 as Defendant James Barros, Sr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

CITY OF GLENDALE VS KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS INC ET AL

Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 643, the California Supreme Court held that in the area of construction defect litigation, where defective products or negligent services have caused neither property damage nor personal injury, and have merely diminished the value of the building, this loss is primarily the domain of contract and warranty law or the law of fraud, rather than of negligence or strict liability.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ZEKRIA V. MIRAMAR LABS

It alleges a strict liability design-defect claim under both the consumer expectation test and the risk/benefit test. (See Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432; see also FAC ¶¶ 42-55.) 2nd cause of action, negligent products liability. The FAC alleges facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. The FAC alleges duty, breach, and causation. (See Gonzalez v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 780, 793; see also FAC ¶¶ 58-66.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

KIMIA DAVOODI VS ORLANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

The complaint alleges strict liability and negligence for a dog bites that occurred on January 7, 2019. On April 11, 2019, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Bobby Asadi and Mehdi Seyed Movaghar filed a cross-complaint against Defendants/Cross-Defendants Orlando Hernandez and Genobel Villanueva seeking contribution, indemnity, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAMI HABBAS, ET AL. VS WARNER MEDIA, ET AL.

(Warner) demurs solely to the 4th cause of action for strict liability (ultrahazardous activity) in Sami and Sandi Habbas’ 3rd Amended Complaint. Sami is an attorney who represents both himself (in pro per) and Plaintiff Sandi. Warner concurrently moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages and associated allegations of willful misconduct, conscious disregard, malice, oppression etc.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action: (1) General Negligence; (2) Strict Liability—Warning Defect; (3) Strict Liability—Design Defect; (4) Fraudulent Concealment; and (5) Breach of Implied Warranties Defendant Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., moves to have attorney Jason Nash admitted pro hac vice. The motion is unopposed. The Court grants the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROSEMARIE BERNAL VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

The Workers’ Compensation Act imposes strict liability upon employers for workplace injuries, in exchange for making workers’ compensation benefits the employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer. Labor Code § 3602.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. V. STYLE-LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

Moreover, strict liability, like all tort liability, applies only if the allegedly defective product caused injury to persons or damage to property other than the allegedly defective product itself. (Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473.) “[E]conomic loss alone, without physical injury, does not amount to the type of damage that will cause a negligence or strict liability cause of action to accrue.” (County of Santa Clara, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 318.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

LORENA NAVA ESTACUY, ET AL. VS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

On March 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging four causes of action for: (1) negligence – wrongful death against Sosa Sisters, (2) negligence – wrongful death against Balthazar and York, (3) negligence – wrongful death against Hercules Tire and Sailun, and (4) strict liability against Hercules Tire and Sailun.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HARDIMAN CONSTRUCTION/TRENCHLESS TITAN AND CHARLES J. PETKOVICH, ET AL

Cross-Complainants fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for strict liability. Cross-Complainants point to certain allegations (eg destroyed fence posts and stairs, broken sewer line) to show that there was in fact property damage.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Judge

    JAMES T, CHOU

  • County

    Marin County, CA

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

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

Accordingly, in the discussion that follows we will deal with the rules involving strict liability in tort rather than the superseded implied warranty concept. (Id. at pp. 432–33, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) It appears from the above language that the doctrine of implied warranties is indeed superseded where the law of strict liability in tort is applicable.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

DEREK ROHAN VS JAYBELL, LLC

The McMillin plaintiff-homeowners brought an action for strict liability, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty against a builder, alleging construction defects caused property damage and economic loss. (Id. at 247.) McMillin held that the homeowners' warranty and contract claims fell outside the Act's exclusivity based on the statute’s explicit exceptions. (Id. at 259.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JEFFREY CREMEANS VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ET AL

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jeffrey Cremeans (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Southern California Edison Company (“Defendant”) on July 16, 2018, alleging causes of action for: negligence; strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; strict products liability; and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 63     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.