What is strict liability?

Useful Resources for Strict Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Liability

126-150 of 1793 results

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

Accordingly, even if the prospect of Balfour Beatty's ultimate success on its strict liability claims may be remote, the court is unwilling to say at the pleading stage that the possibility is merely speculative. ProSpectra must file and serve an answer to the cross-complaint by October 26, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

Accordingly, even if the prospect of Balfour Beatty's ultimate success on its strict liability claims may be remote, the court is unwilling to say at the pleading stage that the possibility is merely speculative. ProSpectra must file and serve an answer to the cross-complaint by October 26, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STANLEY W. COOK VS ALBINO CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

The negligence requirement under CC §936 does not apply to common law claims for strict liability. Plaintiff cannot hold Defendant liable under CC §936, because the standards of the RRA do not apply to the construction of 6315 Tantalus Drive, Malibu, CA 90265 under Civil Code §§896, 911 and 938. The material facts are undisputed. Plaintiff is the owner of real property at 6315 Tantalus Drive, Malibu, CA 90265. See Defendant’s SSUMF No. 4; Plaintiff’s Response to SSUMF No. 4.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NELLARI VS BMW CONCORD

Here, in the 3rd Cause of Action for Strict Liability, Plaintiff alleges Defendant designed, manufactured, and assembled the vehicle. The vehicle was defective and unsafe for its intended purpose. The defects in the suspension or its component parts was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

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

    Oct 07, 2020

ATZIM MENDEZ ET AL VS PINES ENGINEERING CO INC ET AL

Defendant also contends the FAC does not state facts sufficient to support a strict liability claim. However, courts generally do not consider the validity of proposed amendments to a pleading. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (Marker, U.S.A. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) The better method is to allow the amendment and permit the opposing party to demurrer or file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2006) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SUSANNA KHACHATRYAN VS SALVADOR BAUTISTA

Strict Liability Civil code section 3342 imposes strict liability on an owner of a dog who bites a plaintiff, regardless whether the owner knows that the dog is vicious. Here, the undisputed evidence establishes that Salvador Bautista Sr. did not own the dog and thus cannot be held liable under section 3342. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COLLINS V. CPV SENTINEL ENGERGY CENTER HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF DENISE COLLINS BY DIAMOND GENERATING CORPORATION

As to the third cause of action for strict liability, this is on its face not related to products liability and the Court rejects the argument that it is deficient to the extent that is what Diamond Generating contends. The third cause of action is also not insufficiently pleaded on any other ground asserted by Diamond Generating, including those premised on disputed factual issues as to whether the activity here was ultra-hazardous.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

DU VS. JOHN MUIR HEALTH

Sixth Cause of Action, Product Liability: Plaintiff attaches a Judicial Council form attachment for a cause of action for “Products Liability,” alleging two of the three counts provided in the form: negligence and breach of express warranty, but not strict liability. In the case that John Muir cites in support of its demurrer, Silverhart v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

ERIC GONZALEZ VS CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, ET AL.

The Complaint for Survival and Wrongful Death from Toxic Injuries asserts causes of action for: Negligence; Strict Liability – Warning Defect; Strict Liability – Design Defect; Fraudulent Concealment; and Breach of Implied Warranties. On June 26, 2020, a Notice of Death was filed indicating that on June 17, 2020, Plaintiff died of injuries which are the subject of this action. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion which seeks an order deeming Erik B.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

ROGER JAMES SAYEGH VS LEONID KAMENETSKY, ET AL.

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. (Citations omitted.) (Burlesci v. Peterson (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066 [bold emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

KESTER V. COUNTY OF FRESNO

However, as argued by the Haley Plaintiffs, the Court finds here that the “reasonableness” standard that applies to flood control projects is the wrong standard to apply here, rather, a strict liability standard applies. (Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 550, 570 [inverse condemnation generally strict liability, with exceptions for exercise of police power and flood control]; see also Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

LEONARDO GONZALEZ, ET AL. VS ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff Leonardo Gonzalez alleges claims for premises liability, negligence, and strict liability based on ultrahazardous activity. Plaintiff Mariana Gonzalez asserts a claim for loss of consortium. Defendants seek summary adjudication on the claims for strict liability and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

JONES VS. TZEN-WEN

Likewise, plaintiffs must prove that defendants were at least negligent to establish liability for nuisance, unless the nuisance was caused by an ultrahazardous activity or some other circumstance that supports strict liability. (See Lussier v. San Lorzenzo Valley Water Dist. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 92, 100.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JOSE CARDOS SOBERANIS, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 200, INCLUSIVE

The Complaint asserts 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 Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows Jose and Elia are husband and wife. From 1989 through 2018, Jose worked as a welder for various companies throughout Los Angeles.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

EMILIANO CHACON VS WALNUT PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ET AL

Plaintiff alleges strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability in the complaint in relation to a defective mini mill causing Plaintiff injuries on December 7, 2015. On May 13, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for leave to augment its expert witness list pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.610. On May 14, 2020, the Court scheduled the hearing on Defendant’s motion for September 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

JOSE MIRELES VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges 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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

JAIMIE VALENZUELA, ET AL. VS MARTIN ANDALUZ ABARCA, ET AL.

On September 24, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-500 for: Negligence/Reckless Conduct Products Liability—Negligence Products Liability—Failure to Warn Products Liability—Strict Liability Products Liability—Breach of Warranties Products Liability—Misrepresentation & Concealment Survival Action Declaratory Relief On October 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed three “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Grand Supercenter Inc. was

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

On June 12, 2019, Sanchez filed her complaint in this action asserting five causes of action against Does 1 through 100: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability—failure to warn; (3) strict liability—design defect; (4) fraudulent concealment; and (5) breach of implied warranties. On January 21, 2020, Sanchez filed her amendment to the complaint identifying defendant NuSil Technology, LLC (NuSil) as “Doe 1.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

IDUVINA ARTEAGA VS 1 THROUGH 100 DOES

Plaintiff alleges negligence, a violation of Civil Code section 3342, and strict liability based on a dog bite that occurred on June 26, 2018 and August 10, 2019. On January 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Chien Lai (“Defendant”). On May 7, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b).

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANN MARIE STREIBICH VS MARK SHINNICK

Trespass is a strict liability tort. “The essence of the cause of action for trespass is an ‘unauthorized entry’ onto the land of another. Such invasions are characterized as intentional torts, regardless of the actor's motivation. Where there is a consensual entry, there is no tort, because lack of consent is an element of the [theory underlying the tort]. ‘A peaceable entry on land by consent is not actionable.’ (4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) § 351, p. 2612.)” (Civic Western Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

EVITT JAUREGUI VS ARTURO MARTINEZ ET AL

Plaintiff alleges negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, and common law strict liability in the complaint based on a dog bite incident that occurred on September 29, 2015. Defendants Arturo and Martha Martinez never answered the complaint. Defendant Jose answered filed an answer on October 11, 2017. Upon Plaintiff’s motion, on March 27, 2019, the Court ordered Defendant Jose’s answer stricken and entered default against Defendant Jose.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HEINTZELMAN VS ALAM

Defendant moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages, as well as the 3rd cause of action for common law strict liability. Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages - Denied Pursuant to Civil Code §3340, “for wrongful injuries to animals being subjects of property, committed willfully or by gross negligence, in disregard of humanity, exemplary damages may be given.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

SUSANNA KHACHATRYAN VS SALVADOR BAUTISTA

Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, premises liability, negligence per se, strict liability and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition. Defendant has served four separate deposition notices for Plaintiff to appear beginning May 23, 2019. (Declaration of Jason Cohen, Exhibits A-E.) However, Plaintiff has not yet appeared for deposition. (Declaration of Jason Cohen, ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « 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.