What is strict liability?

Useful Resources for Strict Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Liability

201-225 of 1790 results

FRANTZ CLEANERS INC ET AL VS ESTATE OF CHARLES O KILM3ER ET

Contribution Equitable Indemnity Continuing Trespass Continuing Nuisance Declaratory Relief Strict Liability Based on Defective Design Strict Liability Based on Failure to Warn Negligence On May 9, 2019, a “Joint Stipulation and Order Substituting Successor-in-Interest Helen Kay Richards for Deceased Plaintiff Frank P. Richards and Granting Plaintiffs Leave to File First Amended Complaint” was filed. On September 6, 2019, Chem was dismissed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on February 7, 2017, and a FAC on December 24, 2019, alleging six causes of action: Negligence Strict Liability — Failure to Warn Strict Liability — Design Defect Fraudulent Concealment Breach of Implied Warranties Loss of Consortium On December 5, 2019, this Court sustained Defendant Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC, successor-in-interest to Sasol North America Inc. (Doe 3) (“Sasol”)’s Demurrer to the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

ROBERT CLARK VS CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY ET AL

The complaint alleges strict liability, negligence, breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of express warranty. The complaint arises from an incident where Plaintiff became infected, poisoned, and contaminated after consuming a can of soup on February 23, 2016.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RUSYNIAK V. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764, but as Defendant points out it held that: [I]n actions arising from the sale or purchase of a defective product, plaintiffs seeking economic losses must be able to demonstrate that either physical damage to property (other than the defective product itself) or personal injury accompanied such losses; if they cannot, then they would be precluded from any tort recovery in strict liability or negligence.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

SHIRLEY DEARCE VS KONE INC ET AL

In order to establish liability for a products liability claim based on strict liability, a plaintiff must prove that a product distributed, manufactured or sold by the defendant contained a manufacturing defect; was defectively designed; or failed to contain sufficient warning of a safety hazard. Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 987, 995; CACI 1200.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

PATRICK J JONES VS GEOFF VERNON, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges negligence, strict liability, and removal of the dog under California Civil Code section 3342.5. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages. Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations and the reference to Penal Code section 399(a). Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 435 (b)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BARBARA PIETROWSKI VALDEZ ET AL VS SMITH & NEPHEW INC ET AL

Second Cause of Action – Strict Liability for Failure to Warn Strict liability for failure to warn requires: (1) the manufacture of a product; (2) that was defective; (3) and a cause of injury to the plaintiff; and (4) plaintiff’s injury resulted from a use of the product that was reasonably foreseeable. (Fortman v. Hemco, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 241, 255.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

SUZANA AREZINA VS WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC ET AL

“As with an action asserted under a strict liability theory, under a negligence theory the plaintiff must prove a defect caused injury. [Citation] However, ‘[u]nder a negligence theory, a plaintiff must also prove ‘an additional element, namely, that the defect in the product was due to negligence of the defendant.’’

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

JOSEPH SORIA VS MILLERCOORS, LLC, ET AL.

Those not engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, leasing or otherwise supplying products cannot be reached on a strict liability theory. “Isolated” or “occasional” transactions are not part of the “overall producing and marketing enterprise” that justifies imposition of struct liability. (Garcia v. Becker Bros. Steel Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 474, 482; Ortiz v. HPM Corp. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 178, 187-191.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

MARVIN TARNOL, ET AL. VS UNITED FABRICARE SUPPLY, INC.

The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) states 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. The SAC alleges that Marvin worked at dry cleaning facilities from 1950 through 1980. Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

ANTHONY J. UGLIANO VS ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., ET AL.

because (3) California’s strict-liability doctrine does not recognize a post-sale duty to warn.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

KAYVAN FATHI VS AARON KOHUT, ET AL.

DISCUSSION Strict Liability Civil Code section 3442 imposes strict liability on the owner of a dog who bites someone even if the animal has never bitten before and the owner did nothing wrong. It is undisputed that Defendant did not own the dog. Therefore, Defendant has successfully shown that Plaintiff cannot establish his claim for strict liability under Civil Code section 3442.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

“To be liable in California, even under a strict liability theory, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing his or her injury. The natural corollary to this requirement is that a defendant is not liable to a plaintiff if the injury would have occurred even if the defendant had issued adequate warnings.” (Huitt v. Southern California Gas Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1586, 1604.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

ELLE ESTRADA VS ROSEMARY FOURZANS, ET AL.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: (1) Negligence, (2) Premises liability, (3) Negligence per se, (4) Strict liability based upon common law, (5) Strict liability based upon “dog bite statute,” and (6) Negligent infliction of emotional distress. Now, Defendant moves for summary judgment. As a general matter, Defendant argues that she did not know, and had no reason to know, that the dog had vicious tendencies.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TERESO FRIAS ET AL VS BASF CORPORATION ET AL

The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed on 5/10/17 and asserts claims for 1) negligence; 2) strict liability—failure to warn; 3) strict liability—design defect; 4) breach of implied warranties; 5) fraudulent concealment; and 6) breach of implied warranties.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

JOSE MIRELES VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

Plaintiffs 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. On November 20, 2019, Lyondell filed a demurrer with a motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

VINCENT ANTHONY CORDOVA VS LONG XIA ZHAO ET AL

He asserts claims for negligence, strict liability and premises liability. Plaintiff seeks leave to file a first amended complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff seeks to allege that the dog had previously attacked two other people and had been declared “potentially dangerous” and “vicious” by the Animal Control Board. Further, Defendants failed to take the protective measures they had been ordered to take by the Animal Control Board.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

VINCENT ANTHONY CORDOVA VS LONG XIA ZHAO ET AL

He asserts claims for negligence, strict liability and premises liability. Plaintiff seeks leave to file a first amended complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff seeks to allege that the dog had previously attacked two other people and had been declared “potentially dangerous” and “vicious” by the Animal Control Board. Further, Defendants failed to take the protective measures they had been ordered to take by the Animal Control Board.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

ELISEO PLACIDO-LOPEZ VS SAN MIGUEL AUTO REPAIR, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

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

  « 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.