Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
A person is strictly liable for harm that results from abnormally dangerous activities. (Goodwin v. Reilley (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 86, 90.) A variety of factors are used in determining whether a certain activity is abnormally dangerous. (See Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 984.)
“Using the term ‘abnormally dangerous’ rather than ‘ultrahazardous,’ the Restatement sets forth six factors which are to be considered. They are:
(Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 985)
“As explained in comment (f) to § 520, the several factors are to be considered together; establishment of one factor alone is usually not sufficient to categorize an activity; several factors will ordinarily be required.” (Id.)
"Strict liability is essentially defined as 'liability imposed without regard to the defendant's negligence or intent to harm. [S]trict liability signifies liability without fault, or at least without any proof of fault." (Cox v. City of Dallas, Tex., 256 F.3d 281, 290 n. 16 (5th Cir.2001)
In Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 473, the court applied the economic loss rule in the strict liability context: “[R]ecovery under the doctrine of strict liability is limited solely to "physical harm to person or property.” (Id. at 482 citing Seely v. White Motor Co.(1965) 63 Cal.2d 9, 18.) “Damages available under strict products liability do not include economic loss, which includes 'damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product or consequent loss of profits -- without any claim of personal injury or damages to other property...” (Id.)
“A common law strict liability cause of action may [] be maintained if the owner of a domestic animal that bites or injures another person knew or had reason to know of the animal’s vicious propensities.” (Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1115.) The harm must be caused by the vicious propensity the owner knew of or had reason to know of. (Hillman v. Garcia-Ruby (1955) 44 Cal.2d 625, 626.)
Civil Code §3342(a) provides, “(a) 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. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.”
Pathway contends Plaintiff’s complaint alleges Pathway “possessed and harbored” the dog, but does not allege Pathway “owned” the dog; Pathway therefore concludes the complaint fails to state a cause of action for strict liability. Plaintiff, in opposition to the demurrer, contends the strict liability cause of action does not sound under §3342, but instead under common law strict liability.
LUISINA BLANDO VS PATHWAY PARTNERS VET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
19STCV14031
Dec 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiffs seek to hold ABI liable in both strict liability and negligence.
6-12-19
May 15, 2022
San Mateo County, CA
Furthermore, the court finds Haroni’s argument that the law bars strict liability against a landlord unavailing. In support of its argument, Haroni first cites to Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185. However, Peterson did not deal with a strict liability based on a dog bite incident, rather, it dealt with strict liability based on products liability.
MICHAEL PITTS VS DEBBIE WELLS ET AL
BC650097
Jun 20, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff also fails to cite to any authority allowing for the imposition of strict liability in such circumstances. The court finds Plaintiff fails to establish triable issues of material fact as to the strict liability causes of action. The court summarily adjudicates the Strict Liability – Manufacturing Defect, Strict Liability – Design Defect and Strict Liability – Failure to Warn causes of action in favor of Harbor.
SADOWSKI VS. VOLVO CAR USA LLC
37-2018-00031698-CU-PA-CTL
Jul 18, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
On February 24, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiffs causes of action for NIED and strict liability, and Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages. On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed her causes of action for NIED and strict liability. 2. Discussion Plaintiff has now dismissed her causes of action for NIED and strict liability, which were the subject of Defendants Motion.
HALLIE WALTUCH VS ROTEM NULL EYLOR
21STCV14223
May 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
However, Amazon does not dispute Cross-Complainants may seek indemnity, but that Cross-Complainants have not and cannot allege stand-alone causes of action based on strict liability in the absence of incurred damages. Gem Developers did not involve this issue. The Court agrees Cross-Complainants have alleged duplicative causes of action as the indemnity they seek is based on strict liability such that there is no need for separate stand-alone causes of action based on strict liability.
VIRREY VS MARTINEZ JR
37-2019-00042366-CU-PO-CTL
Aug 12, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Strict liability “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.” (Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 915, 921.) The common law strict liability applies to any person, not necessarily an owner, who keeps or harbors the dog. (Buffington v. Nicholson (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 37, 42; see also CACI 462.)
OLSON VS ALLRED
CVRI2105086
Apr 27, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Preliminarily, the Court disagrees with Defendant Rental Guys’ (hereinafter Defendant) contention that the amended complaint alleges strict liability against itunder a design theory. Rather, the amended complaint appears to allege strict liability against Defendant under a theory that Defendant leased the product. As Plaintiff notes, Price v.
GUTHRIE, SAMUEL VS. DH SLATER & SON, INC ET AL
21CV02619
Dec 07, 2022
Butte County, CA
Here, the Court finds the FAC sufficiently pleaded facts to support claims for, and allegations in support of, punitive damages in connection to the FAC’s second cause of action for strict liability, third cause of action for strict liability (based on common law) and fifth cause of action for IIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).)
VANESSA WHEELER, ET AL. VS MANUEL MENDOZA, ET AL.
20AVCV00107
Jul 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Keystone responds that Plaintiff mistakenly believes paragraphs L-4.a. through L-4.c. of the Judicial Council form identifies the grounds for strict liability rather than identifies the parties. Keystone cites to CACI No. 1200 which sets forth the essential elements for stating a strict liability claim and identifies the following three different grounds for imposing strict liability: (a) a manufacturing defect; (b) a design defect; or (c) warning defects. (Anderson v.
MARCELLA ANDERSON V. KENNETH GOLDBERG, DMD
20CV-0062
Aug 26, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Strict liability will not lie against a pharmacy. (Murphy v. E.R. Squibb & Sons (1985) 40 Cal.3d 672, 679 - 81.) The California Supreme Court did not carve out an exception for cases of strict liability based upon a failure to warn theory. In fact, Murphy is based, in large part, upon the distinction between a pharmacy, which primarily provides a service, and a retailer, which sells goods.
OWENSWALKER VS BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION
RIC1712445
Apr 30, 2018
Riverside County, CA
On 7/6/17, the court sustained demurrer only to the 2nd cause of action for strict liability on grounds Defendant was not the owner of the dog. See Continued Demurrer filed on 6/20/17, 5:8-10. The court’s ruling allowed 20 days leave to amend the 2nd cause of action for strict liability in order to cure the defect. Plaintiff ostensibly chose not to amend the strict liability claim, leaving the remaining cause of action for negligence, to which demurrer was not made.
PATRICK KOURY VS DUNCAN C MAHONE TRUST
BC644114
Sep 19, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant claims that it is immune because it is purportedly immune from strict liability. Shepard v. Alexian Brothers Hosp. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 606, 615, said that "the liability imposed by strict liability in tort and breach of express and implied warranties is virtually the same, i.e., a form of liability without fault." That strict liability can be like a warranty is not the same as saying that a warranty is always like strict liability.
ERICKSON VS APRIL HEALTHCARE, LLC
30-2016-00841718-CU-PO-CJC
Oct 28, 2016
Orange County, CA
On April 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed their first amended complaint for strict liability (Civil Code section 3342), negligence, and property damage. On April 16, 2021, Plaintiffs dismissed Pamela Jean Rosch, PJ Rosch, and Steve McClain. On May 12, 2021, the court entered the stipulation for leave to file the second amended complaint for strict liability (Civil Code section 3342), negligence, and property damage.
LENI HARRIS, ET AL. VS SUNNY DAY ACRES, INC., ET AL.
20STCV33560
May 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
(1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 711, 725 [“ under the stream-of-commerce approach to strict liability[,] no precise legal relationship to the member of the enterprise causing the defect to be manufactured or to the member most closely connected with the customer is required before the courts will impose strict liability.
RITA DERSARKISSIAN ET AL VS WESTFIELD TOPANGA ET AL
BC628963
Aug 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Eichler Homes, Inc., supra, 269 Cal.App.2d 224 did not support the imposition of strict liability on one who engaged in the occasional construction and sale of residences. Similarly, there is a reluctance to impose strict liability in the commercial context. In Becker v. IRM Corp. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 454, the California Supreme Court expanded the applicability of strict liability as enunciated in Greenman v.
MATA V. JOHNSTONE CONTRACTING, INC., ET AL.
18CECG02218
Sep 12, 2018
Fresno County, CA
As to the third and fourth causes of action for strict liability and statutory strict liability, the demurrer is sustained on the grounds that insufficient facts are alleged to constitute a cause of action. CCP § 430.10(e). Strict liability for injuries cause by dangerous animals is limited to an owner or keeper of an animal.
VELASQUEZ, DANIEL VS 301 THE PARK
15K12861
Jan 10, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
There is a common law version of “strict” liability for injuries caused by animals with known dangerous propensities. This common law rule has nothing to do with the statutory strict liability rule. They are distinct. Because this common law rule still requires proof that the animal in question had dangerous propensities and that the owner knew about it, this common law rule is sort of a hybrid between ordinary negligence and statutory strict liability.
HEINTZELMAN VS ALAM
30-2019-01078874
Jan 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
s ("Petco") motion for summary adjudication on the strict liability cause of action in plaintiffs Andrew Pankey and Vanessa Sauer's complaint is denied based upon the complaint and the facts as presented by plaintiffs. Petco asserts that it is a question of law whether a live animal is not a "product" for the purposes of strict liability law. However, the court declines to rule so expansively and limits its ruling to pet rats under the allegations in the complaint.
PANKEY VS. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES INC
37-2014-00004156-CU-PO-CTL
Oct 27, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
As to the strict liability causes of action, defendant failed to sustain its initial burden under either prong of Aguilar. Defendant failed to present evidence negating an essential element of plaintiffs? strict liability causes of action. Defendant also failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support their strict liability causes of action.
ELAINE PERCY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL
CGC09275431
Mar 05, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
ORDER RE: DEEFNDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MOTION DENIED On June 21, 2017, Plaintiff Zartar Kirakosyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Alireza Davoodifar and Golnaz Davoodifar (collectively, “Defendants”) for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability at common law, and strict liability at statute relating to an August 28, 2015 dog bite.
ZARTAR KIRAKOSYAN VS ALIREZA DAVOODIFAR ET AL
BC665937
Mar 07, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
On 2/27/20, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability, and (3) strict liability in tort. Defendant now demurs to the FAC arguing the second cause of action for breach of implied warranty of habitability and third cause of action for strict liability in tort fail to state sufficient facts to constitute a claim against it.
MORRIS BROWN VS EATALIAN CAFE
20STCV09318
Aug 27, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has not plead the type of facts set forth above in Peterson or Vaerst to support a cause of action for strict liability. As such, the demurrer is sustained to cause of action 2, strict liability, with leave to amend within 20 days.
ELLIOTT THOMPSON VS. DANIEL JOSEPH RYAN
56-2015-00462903-CU-PO-VTA
Jun 16, 2015
Ventura County, CA
On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for strict liability, general negligence, negligence per se, strict liability causes by domestic animal with dangerous propensities, ultrahazardous activity, trespass to property, and negligent infliction of emotional distress to a bystander. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint for general negligence, strict liability causes by domestic animal with dangerous propensities, and trespass to property.
MARISOL GARCIA, ET AL. VS OLIVER CAJINA, ET AL.
20STCV44843
Aug 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Of Plaintiffs Strict Liability Cause Of Action On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, October 8, 2015 in Department 503, Line 4. Defendant J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc.'s motion for summary adjudication of plaintiff's strict liability cause of action is denied. Defendant failed to sustain its initial burden under either prong of Aguilar.
ELMO DAVILLIER VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL
CGC15276391
Oct 08, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
This action was filed by Plaintiff MICHAEL CUELLAR on February 23, 2018 for (1) negligence, (2) strict liability – design and manufacturing defect, (3) strict liability – failure to warn, (4) breach of express warranty, and (5) breach of implied warranty. Defendant demurs to the second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action under CCP §430.10(e). Second Cause of Action – Strict Liability – Design and Manufacturing Defect The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED.
MICHAEL CUELLAR VS VALMONT COMPOSITE STRUCTURES INC ET AL
BC695600
Sep 13, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
liability.
MATHIS VS PERKINS & MARIE CALLENDER’S LLC
30-2015-00824878-CU-PO-CJC
Jan 06, 2017
Orange County, CA
Ct . (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, CSI argues that Plaintiffs third claim for strict liability is barred because California law does not allow strict liability design defect claims against prescription medical device manufacturers. In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that Brown does not apply because the medical device at issue in this case was not implantable. In Hufft v.
GRICELLI MONGE, ET AL. VS TWEEDY MEDICAL GROUP, ET AL.
21STCV29027
Jun 16, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
This is a sufficient allegation for strict liability based on an abnormally dangerous activity. Accordingly, Plaintiff has stated sufficient facts for this cause of action. Defendant argues next that the strict liability cause of action incorporates previously stated allegations of negligence, rendering this cause of action uncertain. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s incorporation of prior allegations into the strict liability cause of action does not make the complaint unintelligible.
VALENTIN PEREZ CHACON VS HELEN HSIEN, ET AL.
19STCV02618
Jun 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The TAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for common law strict liability. (See CACI 462 [elements]; see also Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1115–1116 [common law strict liability where the “owner of a domestic animal that bites or injures another person knew or had reason to know of the animal's vicious propensities”].) Merely using the word “attack” instead of “incident” is insufficient. The issue is not with plaintiff’s characterization.
LEON V. MEDINA
30-2018-01004129
Jun 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
s ("Petco") motion for summary adjudication is denied plaintiffs Andrew Pankey and Vanessa Sauer's complaint based upon the theory of strict liability. Petco asserts that it is a question of law whether a live animal is not a "product" for the purposes of strict liability law. Based upon the law, public policy and the arguments based upon the facts presented to the court, the court finds that the sale of pet rats by Petco in a diseased condition may implicate strict liability principles.
PANKEY VS. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES INC
37-2014-00004156-CU-PO-CTL
Nov 03, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
These were strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty. Plaintiff demurred to the strict liability and breach of warranty portions of the cause of action, but not the negligence portion. “As with an action asserted under a strict liability theory, under a negligence theory the plaintiff must prove a defect caused injury.” Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1304–1305. Demurrer to Part of Cause of Action: “A demurrer does not lie to a portion of a cause of action.” PH II, Inc. v.
RACKOW VS. DISCOVERY SCIENCE FOUNDATION
30-2019-01042664-CU-PO-CJC
Aug 05, 2019
Orange County, CA
“[U]nder the stream-of-commerce approach to strict liability[,] no precise legal relationship to the member of the enterprise causing the defect to be manufactured or to the member most closely connected with the customer is required before the courts will impose strict liability.
CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE V. ROHL, LLC
30-2016-00893210-CU-PL-CJC
May 31, 2018
Orange County, CA
Steel Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 474, 482 [occasional seller not subject to strict liability for sale of defective product]; Oliver v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 86, 89 [strict liability appropriate only to mass produced homes]; Hyman v. Gordon (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 769, 773–774 [strict liability doctrine applies to seller engaged in business of selling such a product, rather than occasional seller who is not engaged in that activity as part of its business]; Kriegler v.
BELLASIS, ET AL. V. FRESNO LAND COMPANY, ET AL.
16CECG03219
Jun 06, 2018
Fresno County, CA
App. 1995), aff'd as modified, 552 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 1996) ["Absent a statute imposing strict liability, we hold that the 'responsible corporate officer' doctrine does not apply in this case."; State by Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc. (Minn. App. 1995) 532 N.W.2d 610, 612-14 [The "responsible corporate officer doctrine" is not applicable where the statute at issue does not impose strict liability.].)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT V CALIFORNIA RESOURCES
56-2017-00505457-CU-PO-VTA
Oct 30, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Defendant Segway SF Bay's Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiff Brian Markham's claims for strict liability and breach of implied warranty is granted. Defendant satisfied its initial burden and plaintiff has not presented any facts establishing a triable issue as to either claim. Strict liability is inapplicable to a party such as defendant who is outside the stream of commerce for the product for which strict liability is asserted.
BRIAN MARKHAM VS. SEGWAY OF SF BAY ET AL
CGC13535779
Oct 08, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
BACKGROUND On March 9, 2017, plaintiff Kimberly Fuentes, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Joanna Fuentes, filed a complaint against defendant Armando Trejo for (1) strict liability based on Civil Code 3342, (2) negligence, (3) strict liability (animal with known dangerous propensity), and (4) leash law—strict liability—Los Angeles Muni Codes 10.32.010 and 10.37.180.
KIMBERLY FUENTES ET AL VS ARMANDO TREJO
BC653192
Jun 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
First and Second Causes of Action: Strict Liability Failure to Warn & Strict Liability Design Defect Defendants argue Plaintiffs First and Second causes of action are alleged in the caption to be Strict Liability Failure To Warn and Strict Liability Design Defect. Defendants argue that, however, in the body of the Complaint Plaintiffs First cause of action is entitled Strict Products Liability dropping off the Failure to Warn.
JUSTIN ARMSTRONG VS VK UNION CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV33786
May 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(1969) 247 Cal.App.2d 424, recognized that breach of warranty is largely superseded by strict liability. JC contends that Plaintiffs breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty claims fail for the same reasons his strict liability claim fails. However, as triable issues exist regarding Issue 1, triable issues also exist regarding Issues 3-4. Summary adjudication of Issues 3-4 is DENIED.
PEDRO HERNANDEZ VS JC FOODSERVICE INC ET AL
BC667222
Dec 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Bacharach”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for strict liability (Civ. Code, § 3342), strict liability (common law), negligence, and premises liability relating to a July 1, 2016 dog bite.
JOEL GAYNER VS BURT BACHARACH ET AL
BC655370
Feb 28, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
In fact, classification of an activity as ultrahazardous does not automatically subject one engaged in it to strict liability without regard to place or circumstances. Thus, while blasting in a developed area calls for strict liability, (Citations), blasting in an isolated area may not. (Citation.)” (Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co. (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 774, 786 [emphasis added].)
PADILLA VS MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF LESLIE PADILLA BY MARRIOTT RESORTS HOSPITALITY CORPORATION
PSC2002747
Sep 15, 2020
Riverside County, CA
As a result, she argued, the trial court’s refusal to permit recovery under either a strict liability or warranty theory was error. Relying on Mexicali Rose, the Ford Court rejected that contention: “Mexicali Rose departs from the foreign-natural rule only to the extent it bars a negligence claim, not to the extent it precludes actions for strict liability and breach of warranty.” Id. at p. 1201 (emphasis in original).
STEELE VS. BELL-CARTER FOODS
MSC15-00757
May 25, 2016
Contra Costa County, CA
Additionally, although strict liability was not necessarily a topic of discussion cited in the deposition notice for the PMK, this does not mean that such facts could not be discovered from the topics discussed by counsel and the PMK during the deposition. Finally, to the extent that Defendants are arguing that this proposed third cause of action for strict liability lacks merit, this argument is better suited for a dispositive motion on the merits of the cause of action.
DAVID MARTINEZ VS THE ADLEN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL
BC616314
Jan 08, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant demurs to the second cause of action for res ipsa loquitur and third cause of action for strict liability in Plaintiffs first amended complaint. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.
ANTRANIK BAGHASARIAN VS EL POLLO LOCO, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV04625
May 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action for Strict Liability in Violation of Civil Code § 3342 and Third Cause of Action for Common Law Strict Liability Civil Code § 3342 imposes strict liability on the owner of a dog who attacks another person. Defendants contend they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this cause of action because they did not own the dog in question.
ELISEO PLACIDO-LOPEZ VS SAN MIGUEL AUTO REPAIR, ET AL.
18STCV02276
Jul 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action: Strict Liability Basyro first argues that the strict liability cause of action fails because Plaintiff fails to identify the statutory basis of the claim and because Plaintiff fails to state that he is within the class protected by the said statute. The opposition does not address these arguments.
ENRIQUE PEREZ VS MAKSIM BASYRO ET AL
BC657495
Feb 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer on Complaint as to First Cause CVPS2303807 CANTABRANA vs YONUTAS of Action for Strict Liability by JOSHUA ALEXANDER YONUTAS Tentative Ruling: Sustain with 30 days’ leave to amend. No opposition was filed. Defendant demurrers to the first cause of action in the Complaint for strict liability.
CANTABRANA VS YONUTAS
CVPS2303807
Dec 27, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for Strict Liability. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s cause of action for Strict Liability does not state sufficient facts to support the elements of Strict Products Liability. In Opposition, Plaintiff states that he does not oppose Defendant’s demurrer. Conclusion Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action for Strict Products Liability.
BRAYDER NAVARRETE ET AL VS MAYWOOD PLAZA MEAT MARKET ET AL
BC590310
Oct 24, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
“The imposition of strict liability depends on whether the facts establish a sufficient causative relationship or connection between the defendant and the product so as to establish that the policies underlying the strict liability doctrine are satisfied.
BELLASIS, ET AL. V. FRESNO LAND COMPANY, ET AL.
16CECG03219
Jun 26, 2018
Fresno County, CA
First Cause of Action Strict Liability Defendants demur to the First Cause of Action for strict liability on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action. More specifically, Defendants contend there is no California strict liability law that creates strict liability for all pet owners as Plaintiff alleges. (See FAC, ¶ 11.) The Court disagrees.
FRANCES GUNDLACH VS FRANK FLORES, ET AL.
22PSCV01744
Jan 03, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, the strict liability claim fails as a matter of law. Based upon this analysis the Motion to Strike is moot.
LAURIE ANN HUMBERD VS SAV-ON DRUGS ET AL
18CV02449
Mar 05, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
The FAC asserts: (1) strict liability (manufacturing defect); (2) strict liability (design defect); (3) strict liability(failure to warn); (4) strict liability(negligence); (5) negligence/gross negligence; and (6) unfair competition. Defendants move to strike punitive damages as there is no malice, fraud, or oppression, and ratification.
GEWARGIS VS KE'ELELENA INC
CVRI2000686
Aug 14, 2021
Riverside County, CA
The FAC asserts: (1) strict liability (manufacturing defect); (2) strict liability (design defect); (3) strict liability(failure to warn); (4) strict liability(negligence); (5) negligence/gross negligence; and (6) unfair competition. Defendants move to strike punitive damages as there is no malice, fraud, or oppression, and ratification.
GEWARGIS VS KE'ELELENA INC
CVRI2000686
Aug 15, 2021
Riverside County, CA
The FAC asserts: (1) strict liability (manufacturing defect); (2) strict liability (design defect); (3) strict liability(failure to warn); (4) strict liability(negligence); (5) negligence/gross negligence; and (6) unfair competition. Defendants move to strike punitive damages as there is no malice, fraud, or oppression, and ratification.
GEWARGIS VS KE'ELELENA INC
CVRI2000686
Aug 16, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiff’s first cause of action is for strict liability. One who harbors or keeps a wild animal or domestic animal with known dangerous tendencies is strictly liable for the harm it causes. (Smith v. Royer (1919) 181 Cal. 165, 168; see also Rest.2d Torts § 514.)
JAY RICHMOND, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ANDREA MESSINA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
19STCV25625
Oct 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
DISCUSSION Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s second cause of action for strict liability must fail because it is a qualified healthcare provider. In Hector v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center ( 1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 493, 504 , the court of appeals rejected a claim of strict liability asserted against a hospital arising from a defective pacemaker.
STEFANIE GABLER VS PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
19STCV30425
Aug 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
AND SHERWIN-WILLIAMS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION BACKGROUND On December 28, 2018, Jose Cardos Soberanis (“Plaintiff”) and Elia Santiago de Cardos filed a complaint 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. Plaintiff Mr.
JOSE CARDOS SOBERANIS, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 200, INCLUSIVE
18STCV09968
Aug 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
[The Court notes it appears Plaintiff is alleging a cause of action for negligence per se based on Defendant’s violation of the BSA; however, Plaintiff has captioned the cause of action as one for strict liability. Strict liability is recognized in the realm of products liability and certain ultrahazardous activities; however, Plaintiff fails to cite to authority in which strict liability applies to claims involving banking transactions.]
JOHN ARMOUR VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
20STCV30555
Mar 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.
19STCV17793
Jun 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant's special demurrers to the fifth (negligence-wrongful death), sixth (strict liability-wrongful death) and seventh (premises owner/contractor liability) causes of action are sustained with leave to amend. Defendant's special demurrers to the first (negligence-survival) and second (strict liability-survival) causes of action are off calendar because plaintiffs have dismissed them.
CASEY, PATRICIA AS WRONGFUL DEATH HEIR, AND AS ET AL VS. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC. ET AL
CGC11275879
Nov 30, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
Demurring Defendant s also argue that Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to satisfy the elements of the common law strict liability cause of action. Demurring Defendant s also argue that Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to show that Demurring Defendants owned the dog in question to satisfy an element of the statutory strict liability cause of action.
DAPHNE HELAIRE, ET AL. VS G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV36460
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Otherwise, the motion for summary adjudication of the strict liability cause of action is GRANTED. The moving party is to give notice.
ROBERT HAYDEN BAER VS 3M COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV14744
Sep 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion for Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff’s Strict Liability (Dog Bite) Cause of Action, filed on 8/2/18, is GRANTED. Defendant has met his burden of proving he is entitled to adjudication in his favor of the first cause of action for Strict Liability under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p(2). Cal. Civil Code § 3342 imposes liability against dog owners for injuries to any person who is bitten by the dog. There is no evidence that Defendant’s dog bit the Plaintiff.
REYNALDO COLLAZOS VS CHARLES LOFGREN
BC632104
Oct 19, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Accordingly, CACI 1200 on strict liability states: 1200.Strict Liability - Essential Factual Elements [Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was harmed by a product [distributed/manufactured/ sold ] by [name of defendant] that: [contained a manufacturing defect;] [or] [was defectively designed;] [or] [did not include sufficient [instructions] [or] [warning of potential safety hazards].] The 1 st Amended Complaint is sufficient for pleading purposes.
LILLIAN PIEDRA VS INTERSTATE VAPE INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV06060
Jan 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Motion granted as to second cause of action (strict liability), third cause of action (false representation), fourth cause of action (loss of consortium), fifth cause of action (premises liability), and punitive damages request. Motion conceded as to false representation. No triable issue of fact regarding strict liability, no evidence defendant sold or supplied asbestos containing product that defendant was exposed to.
JOHN DOBROCKE ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL
CGC09275062
Jan 08, 2010
San Francisco County, CA
Defendant Pieco, Inc.’s (“Pieco”) motion for judgment on the pleadings for Plaintiff Armstrong Oil, Inc.’s first cause of action for strict liability, is denied. Pieco’s request for judicial notice of Exhibit A (copy of Permit issued by the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources) is granted.
ARMSTRONG OIL, INC. V. PIECO, INC., ET AL.
30-2016-00881376-CU-PO-CJC
Sep 28, 2018
Orange County, CA
Analysis: The second cause of action, for strict liability, fails. “Courts have traditionally maintained a distinction between those rendering services and those selling products, holding that those providing services are not subject to strict liability but may be liable only on the basis of negligence or intentional misconduct.” (San Diego Hospital Assn. v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.
WASHINGTON VS RAJA DHALLA M.D.
RIC2002591
Apr 07, 2021
Riverside County, CA
The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) Negligence; (2) Strict Liability – Failure to Warn; (3) Strict Liability – Manufacturing Defect; (4) Strict Liability – Design Defect; (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (6) Unfair Competition; and (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. On June 13, 2018, the Honorable Kenneth Freeman, Department SS14, deemed this action complex pursuant to CRC, Rule 3.400.
KEVIN DRISCOLL ET AL VS NUTRIBULLETT LLC
BC706915
Oct 30, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Thus, their mere presence does not suggest Plaintiff was making a distinct argument for common law strict liability. Further, the strict liability cause of action specifically says “Defendant is strictly liable, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3342 (a), for the damages caused by their dogs’ attack.” (Compl., ¶ 6.) This shows Plaintiff alleged that the sole source of Defendant’s strict liability was section 3342.
MARLIES HAGEN VS MICHAEL MILLER
BC713374
Nov 27, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
On March 21, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against Allen, Campbell, 21st Century Insurance Company, and Does 1-100 for negligence (including negligence per se), infliction of emotional distress, strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, and declaratory relief. Trial is currently scheduled for March 20, 2025.
STEVEN FRIEDMAN, ET AL. VS DANIEL ALLEN, ET AL.
22STCV11587
Apr 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants’ general demurrer to the Plaintiff’s Ninth Cause of Action for Strict Liability is also OVERRULED. The state of the law on the Plaintiff’s Ninth Cause of Action appears to be evolving and therefore, the Court would prefer to resolve the issue of whether or not a cause of action for strict liability may be advanced in this matter based on more ample authority and argument than is available in a demurrer setting.
SUNCREST VILLAS MODESTO VS. PACIFICA MODESTO LLC
2022881
Sep 05, 2018
Stanislaus County, CA
Strict liability, however, was never intended to make the manufacturer or distributor of a product its insurer. From its inception, 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.” Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 987, 994 (Internal quotes and citations omitted).
BELTRAN V. FPA4 ARBOR RIDGE, LLC
16CECG03463
Jun 12, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Opp. at pp. 11 [using underlying facts about subject location to analyze strict liability claim]; Pl.’s Reply at p. for Leave to Amend at pp. 7-9 [using underlying facts about subject location to analyze strict liability claim].) The original Complaint included numerous allegations related to the subject location of the incident. (E.g., ¶¶ 9, 11-14, 16, 23.) Defendants have had ample time to conduct discovery with respect to these allegations.
MATIAS RAMOS VS LKQ CORPORATION INC ET AL
BC592798
Aug 23, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Bollinger Home Corp. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 926, 934 [defendant must be “mass producer” of homes to be subject to strict liability]; Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 224, 227 [strict liability applicable in context of builders of mass-produced homes].) A lot developer that cuts, grades, fills, and compacts sites for sale to the public as residential lots may be sued on strict liability grounds for defective lots. (Blackhawk Corp. v. Gotham Ins.
BELLASIS, ET AL. V. FRESNO LAND COMPANY, ET AL.
16CECG03219
Feb 06, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Strict Liability – Civil Code § 3342 Ace of Hearts contends that the strict liability cause of action fails because Ace of Hearts did not own, posses, feed or care for, control or harbor the dog that attacked Plaintiffs.
DOLORES DELGADO ET AL VS ROD DAVIS ET AL
BC581582
Jan 17, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
There does not seem to be good reason for holding, as we surely would under existing case law, that the lessor of furniture who supplies it for an empty apartment should be held to strict liability, under appropriate circumstances, but holding the landlord exempt just because he is also the owner and lessor of real property. The landlord has certain rights in respect of personal property, which he does not have as lessor of the real property.
NATALIE HARRIS VS DAVID GRIMMETT, ET AL.
23LBCV01502
Apr 04, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
“Courts have also declined to apply strict liability where the transaction’s service aspect predominates and any product sale is merely incidental to the provision of the service.” (Ibid. [providing examples of products vs. services]; Ontiveros v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2008) 169 Cal. App. 4th 424, 433-434 [on summary judgment, no strict liability because dominant purpose of membership at gym was fitness services, and fitness products were incidental]; Ferrari v.
POLANCO VS. LYFT, INC.
30-2019-01065850
May 13, 2021
Orange County, CA
Defendant's special demurrer to the Third (strict liability) cause of action is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute that cause of action.
BEATRICE KEAYS ET AL VS. 50 BEALE INC. ET AL
CGC15276420
Sep 22, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
Plaintiffs argue the exhibits are admissible to support their strict liability cause of action pursuant to Ault v. International Harvestor Company (1975) 13 Cal.3d 113 Evidence Code section 1151 states evidence of post-event remedial measures is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. In Ault , the California Supreme Court held section 1151 does not apply to strict liability cases.
IVAR PATAO ZUNIGA, ET AL. VS AUTOZONE WEST, INC., ET AL.
22STCV08470
Nov 17, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
However, based on the cases stated above, Plaintiff’s strict liability action on this ground is barred. Failure to Warn However , a plaintiff may still bring suit against the manufacturer of a medical device under a strict liability failure to warn theory. In Carlin v.
NEISY OLIVERA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS X-SPINE SYSTEMS, INC., UNKNOWN ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV22400
Jan 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
The Motion for Summary Adjudication is granted as to the 2nd Cause of Action (Strict Liability). As to the 1st Cause of Action, there are triable issues. The medical experts disagree as to whether the standard of care was met; whether decedent's infection was acquired due to the acts or omissions of the hospital staff.
RUSSELL ENOS ET AL VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER
BC635539
Jul 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action – Strict Liability Defendants demur to the fourth cause of action for strict liability. Strict liability may be imposed on one who carries on ultrahazardous activity that proximately causes damage to another. (Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 983.)
OBED ISAI QUINTANILLA CRUZ VS RANCHO VILLA LLC, ET AL.
19STCV11102
Jul 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Signum’s demurrer to the seventh cause of action for strict liability – product defect on the ground of failure to state sufficient facts is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signum correctly argues the strict liability claim does not lie against a design professional such as an architect. (See, e.g., Murphy v. E. R. Squibb & Sons (1985) 40 Cal.3d 672, 677 [strict liability does not apply to those who sell their services]; Pancoast v.
DISCOVER BANK V. SHERRY VATTUONE
17CV000772
Dec 12, 2018
Napa County, CA
Valley cannot state a cause of action for strict liability against Western For two reasons: (1) the complaint seeks nothing more than purely economic damages for cost of repair or project delay which are not recoverable under strict liability. (2) S.C. Valley cannot state a cause of action for strict liability against Western as the sale of the materials was a transaction between merchants as defined under the Uniform Commercial Code which precludes a strict liability claim.
SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY
37-2016-00034673-CU-BC-CTL
Apr 11, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First-Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for negligence and common law strict liability. On August 9, 2018, Defendant demurred to the second cause of action for common law strict liability. On September 7, 2018, the Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. On September 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Second-Amended Complaint alleging causes of action for negligence and common law strict liability.
WILLIAM RAMSEY VS THE PASADENA HUMANE SOCIETY
BC707732
Nov 09, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle
Los Angeles County, CA
[1] The notice of demurrer only addresses the third cause of action, though the introduction paragraph also references the fourth cause of action for common carrier strict liability. Given the lack of notice regarding the fourth cause of action, the court addresses the demurer to the third cause of action only.
CHARLES TIMOTHY DAVIS VS SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV13477
Dec 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Therefore, Defendant’s motion is denied as to the statutory strict liability claim. f. Analysis: Common Law Strict Liability and Negligence “A common law strict liability cause of action may also be maintained if the owner of a domestic animal that bites or injures another person knew or had reason to know of the animal's vicious propensities.” (Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1115.)
DALE SUZANNE SALMON VS CONSTANTIN PHILIPPOU
19STCV26548
Jun 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, Defendant’s motion is denied as to the statutory strict liability claim. f. Analysis: Common Law Strict Liability and Negligence “A common law strict liability cause of action may also be maintained if the owner of a domestic animal that bites or injures another person knew or had reason to know of the animal's vicious propensities.” (Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1115.)
DALE SUZANNE SALMON VS CONSTANTIN PHILIPPOU
19STCV26548
Jun 30, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendant Recology San Francisco's demurrer to the second and third causes of action for negligence and strict liability in the second amended complaint filed by plaintiff Sentinel Insurance Company is sustained without leave to amend as to both causes of action. Once again Sentinel has failed to allege ultimate facts showing that Recology owed a duty of care to support a negligence claim and that the garbage receptacles were defective to support a strict liability claim.
SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. A FOREIGN VS. BRUCE I. GILBERT ET AL
CGC17559659
Dec 19, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
s motion for summary judgment is denied and its alternate motion for summary adjudication is taken off calendar as to issues 1, 2 and 3 (negligence, strict liability and false representation) and denied as to issue 4 (premises/contractor liability). Defendant failed to sustain its burden of production under either prong of Aguilar.
WILLIE HOWARD VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL
CGC09275138
Nov 29, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs commenced this action on 5/6/14 against several defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability (warning); and (3) strict liability (design). Plaintiffs allege that they are the children of decedent Andy Ryan. (Compl., ¶ 1.) Decedent was allegedly exposed to numerous chemicals during his employment with the California Highway Patrol which caused his toxic injuries, occupational diseases, and death. (Id., ¶¶ 22-24.)
RICK RYAN ET AL VS LUSTRE-CAL ET AL
BC544798
Jan 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
On March 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Negligence Product Liability, Strict Liability Manufacturing Defect, Strict Liability Design Defect, Strict Liability Failure to Warn. RULING : Granted Defendant Dometic Corporation moves for pro hac vice admission of attorney Zackary Rogers. Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.
JENNIFER BAILEY, ET AL. VS DOMETIC CORPORATION A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
23CHCV00871
Nov 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
HARDIMAN CONSTRUCTION/TRENCHLESS TITAN AND CHARLES J. PETKOVICH, ET AL
CV1902375
Jun 24, 2020
JAMES T, CHOU
Marin County, CA
The SAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Strict Liability Failure to Warn; (3) Strict Liability Design Defect; (4) Strict Liability Manufacturing Defect; and (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
SKYLAR R., ET AL. VS MARUCHAN INC., ET AL.
21STCV03297
Jul 28, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action for Strict liability. CDI argues that it cannot be liable on the first cause of action for strict liability because it did not manufacture, distribute or sell the car but merely provided “services”. However, under California law, entities and individuals may be liable on a strict liability claim even if they did not manufacture, distribute or sell the product. As the court explained in Arriaga v.
BRIAN LANG MCDOWELL VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
30-2016-00866952-CU-PL-CXC
Apr 19, 2019
Orange County, CA
Strict Liability “Products liability is the name currently given to the area of the law involving the liability of those who supply goods or products for the use of others to purchasers, users, and bystanders for losses of various kinds resulting from so-called defects in those products.” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465.) Strict liability is one theory of products liability. (Demara v. Raymond Corp. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 545, 553.)
FORSYTHE VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, INC.
CVRI2200570
Feb 01, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Common Law Strict Liability A common law strict liability claim may be asserted against a dog owner whose dog bites another person if the owner knew or should have known that the dog had violent propensities and failed to warn the other person. Hillman v. Garcia-Ruby (1955) 44 Cal.2d 625, 626; Northon v. Schultz (1955) 130 Cal.App.3d 488, 489. Unlike the “dog bite statute,” however, this strict liability rule only extends to dogs that have “known vicious or dangerous propensities.” Drake v.
ROBERT LARKIN VS TIFFANY STORY
1303476
Aug 25, 2009
Santa Barbara County, CA
Thus, the cause of action for strict liability is sufficiently pled. Moreover, it is certain, unambiguous and intelligible.
SHEILA ANNETTE CAMPBELL AKINLEYE VS JACQUELINE ROYAL ET AL.
STK-CV-UPI-2023-0002799
Apr 09, 2024
San Joaquin County, CA
STRICT LIABILITY There are two legal grounds for Plaintiff’s claim for strict liability: (1) California’s “dog bite statute,” Civil Code section 3342, and (2) common-law strict liability.
MAUREEN DEEGAN VS SHELLEY REYNOLDS ET AL.
STK-CV-UPI-2022-0002521
Dec 12, 2023
San Joaquin County, CA
Regarding plaintiff’s second cause of action for strict liability (common law), defendant argues that the cause of action is barred because plaintiff has also asserted a cause of action for strict liability under Civil Code Section 3342, the so-called “dog bite” statute. Defendant contends that plaintiff is attempting to recover twice for the same injury, in violation of the “primary right” rule.
JOSE TORRES VS MARIA WARD
1381690
Apr 11, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.