What is strict liability?

Useful Resources for Strict Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Liability

26-50 of 1787 results

ROSARIO NUNO VS SALLY VICTORIA STOKES

Plaintiff alleges that she was attacked by Defendant’s dog and asserts causes of action for general negligence, strict liability, and gross negligence and/or recklessness. Plaintiff also asserts a claim for punitive damages. Defendant moves to strike that claim, which Plaintiff opposes. The motion is denied. LEGAL STANDARD Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DANIEL WAGNER, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Plaintiffs allege claims for negligence, strict liability pursuant to Civ Code § 3342, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs Daniel Wagner and Noah Wagner, by and through their guardian ad litem Allen Wagner, move for a preferential trial setting. Daniel is 8 years old, and Noah is 12 years old. Both have a substantial interest in this litigation as a whole since Daniel was bitten, and Noah suffered emotional distress witnessing the attack.

  • Hearing

    Dec 29, 2020

JAMES SAVITS ET AL VS OSCAR SOLIS ET AL

If the Court adopted Plaintiffs’ argument, it would effectively eliminate the element that a defendant gave permission to the driver and would effectively impose strict liability on the owner of a vehicle. That is not the law. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the Court cannot resolve this issue on summary adjudication. Plaintiffs are incorrect. Absent evidence of a triable issue on the element of permission, the entire case against Defendant fails.

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2020

TRACY DURONSLET, ET AL. VS JOYCOOK KOREA, ET AL.

“Regardless of the theory which liability is predicated upon, whether negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability in tort, or other grounds, it is obvious that to hold a producer, manufacturer, or seller liable for injury caused by a particular product, there must first be proof that the defendant produced, manufactured, sold, or was in some way responsible for the product.” (Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 868, 874, internal quotations and citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

PHYLLIS NEWMAN VS EDWARD DOMBOURIAN

The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) strict liability and (2) negligence. The complaint alleges that when Plaintiff was walking her dog, Defendant’s dog attacked and bit Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s, which caused the death of Plaintiff’s dog and caused Plaintiff serious injury. The complaint includes a prayer for punitive damages. Defendant, at this time, moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages in the complaint. Defendant filed this motion on 9/30/20, setting it for hearing on 12/15/20.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMES SAVITS ET AL VS OSCAR SOLIS ET AL

If the Court adopted Plaintiffs’ argument, it would effectively eliminate the element that a defendant gave permission to the driver and would effectively impose strict liability on the owner of a vehicle. That is not the law. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the Court cannot resolve this issue on summary adjudication. Plaintiffs are incorrect. Absent evidence of a triable issue on the element of permission, the entire case against Defendant fails.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

. & Loan Co. (1939) 13 Cal.2d 144, 148, 88 P.2d 137 [conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion "over another's personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein"].) " '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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

. & Loan Co. (1939) 13 Cal.2d 144, 148, 88 P.2d 137 [conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion "over another's personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein"].) " '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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

. & Loan Co. (1939) 13 Cal.2d 144, 148, 88 P.2d 137 [conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion "over another's personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein"].) " '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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

. & Loan Co. (1939) 13 Cal.2d 144, 148, 88 P.2d 137 [conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion "over another's personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein"].) " '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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

. & Loan Co. (1939) 13 Cal.2d 144, 148, 88 P.2d 137 [conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion "over another's personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein"].) " '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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GRAND MADISON LLC VS VIKING COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION

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. Therefore, questions of the defendant's good faith, lack of knowledge, and motive are ordinarily immaterial.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

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

    Dec 17, 2020

GRAND MADISON LLC VS VIKING COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION

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. Therefore, questions of the defendant's good faith, lack of knowledge, and motive are ordinarily immaterial.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ELKHOURY VS SEARS ROEBUCK

It is unclear whether Plaintiff is advancing a strict liability theory with respect to the wireless key entry pads. Typicality of ElKhoury’s Claim: Typicality does not require that the class representative have identical interests with the class members. The class representative need only be similarly situated to the other class members. (Classen v. Weller (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 27, 46.) The class representative’s interests must align with the interests of the class.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. SUMMERLAND MARKET, INC., ET AL.

Here, the People are also seeking civil penalties (which the People’s complaint characterizes as strict liability claims) against SMI/Hanna, as “operators” of the facilities and USTs.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

ZEHONG WANG VS MARY ANN HENCKER, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges strict liability and negligence in the complaint arising from a dog bite that occurred on December 19, 2018. On May 1, 2020, the Court entered default against Defendant Mary Ann Hencker. On August 21, 2020, Defendant Ikea filed a motion for a determination of a good faith settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. Trial is set for April 13, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADELE VANNINI VS PLAYHOUSE NIGHTCLUB ET AL

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Negligence; Premises Liability; Strict Products Liability: Design Defect; Strict Liability: Failure to Warn; and Products Liability: Negligence. On December 17, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Muse Lifestyle Group, LLC without prejudice. On June 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed three Amendments to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) substituting United World Enterprise, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PRICE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO.

As to the third cause of action for strict liability, the demurrer 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, the demurrer is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

DONGWAN KIM, ET AL. VS HEE DONG HAN, ET AL.

., 7-Eleven of El Monte, 7-Eleven of Los Angeles, and Mike’s Market, asserting causes of action for strict liability and negligence. On May 30, 2019, defendants Western Oil, Inc., 7-Eleven of El Monte, 7-Eleven of Los Angeles, and Mike’s Market (collectively, “Defendants”) served on Kim their (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, (3) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and (4) Requests for Admissions, Set One. (Daniel Y.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

VINCENT ANTHONY CORDOVA VS LONG XIA ZHAO ET AL

Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability; and (3) premises liability. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on the first and third causes of action. Defendants seek to strike the claim for punitive damages. DISCUSSION To state a claim for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression or fraud. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

VALERIE JIMENEZ, ET AL. VS MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., ET AL.

., and Doe and manufacturer defendants, including: (1) violation of Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act; (2) strict liability – failure to warn; (3) breach of fiduciary duty – fraud by concealment; (4) professional negligence (medical malpractice); (5) wrongful death; and (6) unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200-17208.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IRMA CASILLAS VS SITA YANAMADALA, MD, ET AL.

(“Foster Farms”) and Ralphs Supermarket Company (“Ralphs”) for: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability; (3) restitution; and (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). Plaintiffs allege that they became sick after cooking and consuming chicken grown at Foster Farms’ farm and purchased at Ralphs.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

BILLY O. UMAR, ET AL. VS FOSTER FARMS INC, ET AL.

(“Foster Farms”) and Ralphs Supermarket Company (“Ralphs”) for: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability; (3) restitution; and (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). Plaintiffs allege that they became sick after cooking and consuming chicken grown at Foster Farms’ farm and purchased at Ralphs.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. SUMMERLAND MARKET, INC., ET AL.

The People’s complaint alleges causes of action for (1) strict liability for violations of the Hazardous Waste Control Law at Health and Safety Code Section 25189.2, (2) strict liability for violations of the Underground Storage Tank Law at Health and Safety Code Section 25299(a), (3) failure to implement a hazardous materials business plan in violation of Health and Safety Code Section 25515, and (4) violations of the Unfair Competition Law at Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 72     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.