What is strict liability?

Useful Resources for Strict Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Liability

51-75 of 1795 results

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

QING QING LEI, ET AL. VS ARCADIA SUPERMARKET

The First Amended Complaint includes the following causes of action: 1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fit for Human Consumption; 2) Strict Liability; 3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 4) Unfair Business Practice under Business and Professions Code section 17200. The Defendant has now filed a motion to strike the claim for punitive damages in the First Amended Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 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 07, 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 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VALENTIN PEREZ CHACON VS HELEN HSIEN, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges negligence, a failure to obtain workers’ compensation, premises liability, negligence per se, strict liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress for injuries sustained while excavating property on January 18, 2017. On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amendment to Plaintiff’s complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Winton Construction Pacific.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

CHARLES TIMOTHY DAVIS VS SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendant Magic Mountain, LLC moves to strike the claim for punitive damages alleged in conjunction with the strict liability claim. Defendant contends the complaint lacks sufficient articulation of facts supporting the claim, including facts against the corporate entity. Plaintiff counters that paragraph 45 of the complaint sufficiently articulates an “unreasonable risk of harm” and “failed to warn patrons of the dangerous condition.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANGEL CABRAL VS HASTINGS RANCH INVESTMENT CO

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: STRICT LIABILITY With respect to the seventh cause of action for strict liability asserted by plaintiff Angel Cabral, plaintiff does not allege which variation of strict liability he asserts against defendant Ortiz. In the opposition, plaintiff cites CACI 1201 (manufacturing defect), 1203 and 1204 (design defect), and 1205 (failure to warn).

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

PIERRE HAUSS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS PAUL MIALLOVICH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) Strict liability under Civil Code section 3342, and (2) Negligence. Now, Defendants demur to both causes of action, which Plaintiff opposes. The demurrer is overruled. LEGAL STANDARD “It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LOHMANN VS. SAFEWAY INC., ET A

Plaintiffs filed this action alleging causes of action for premises liability, Negligence, Products Liability, Loss of Consortium, Strict Liability, and Breach of Express and Implied Warranty.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

LOHMANN VS. SAFEWAY INC., ET A

Strict liability has never been, and is not now, absolute liability…. under strict liability the manufacturer does not thereby become the insurer of the safety of the product's user.” (Sanchez v. Hitachi Koki, Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 948, 956, internal quotation marks omitted.) Defendant argues Mr. Lohmann cannot even identify which cart allegedly malfunctioned.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

BARBARA SANCHEZ V. DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s 24-page FAC names NuSil as a supplier and/or manufacturer of certain described products; asserts five different causes of action for 1) negligence, 2) strict liability-failure to warn, 3) strict liability-design defect, 4) fraudulent concealment, and 5) breach of implied warranties.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

LA LASER CENTER, PC, A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION, ET AL. VS CROSS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The complaint alleged causes of action for negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and declaratory relief. Id. The Court of Appeal found that the action was a local action because the essence of the action was for injuries to real property. Foundation Engineers, Inc., supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 112. In making such a finding, the Court of Appeal discussed and distinguished Peiser v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

CGA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. V. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Economic Loss Rule Although the economic loss rule may apply in certain strict liability and negligence cases, courts have recognized that there are a number of situations where tort damages are recoverable in contract cases, including where the breach causes physical injury, where the fraud led to exposure to additional harm, where the contract was fraudulently induced, or where the conduct amounting to a breach of contract also violates an independent duty arising from principles of tort law.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

VALLEY HONEY, INC. ET AL. VS EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

Despite intentionally remaining ignorant of the flood risk and water releases and notifications available, any property owner could make a claim and essentially stick EBMUD with strict liability for any damage occasioned by water releases, regardless of the larger danger such releases might avert. Such reasoning makes no sense and would create limitless liability for Defendant. Fifth, policy considerations for preventing future harm do not support the finding of a duty.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

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

    Nov 25, 2020

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

    Nov 25, 2020

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

    Nov 24, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 24, 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.