Strict Liability in California

What Is Strict Liability?

Definition for Strict Liability

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:

  1. existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others;
  2. likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great;
  3. inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;
  4. extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;
  5. inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and
  6. extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes. (Rest.2d Torts, § 520.)”

(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)

Recovery Under Strict Liability

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.)

For Example, Strict Liability and Dog Bites

“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.”

Rulings for Strict Liability in California

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.

  • Name

    LUISINA BLANDO VS PATHWAY PARTNERS VET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV14031

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

Plaintiffs seek to hold ABI liable in both strict liability and negligence.

  • Case No.

    6-12-19

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2022

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.

  • Name

    MICHAEL PITTS VS DEBBIE WELLS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC650097

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2017

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.

  • Name

    SADOWSKI VS. VOLVO CAR USA LLC

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00031698-CU-PA-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

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.

  • Name

    HALLIE WALTUCH VS ROTEM NULL EYLOR

  • Case No.

    21STCV14223

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.)

  • Name

    OLSON VS ALLRED

  • Case No.

    CVRI2105086

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2022

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.

  • Name

    VIRREY VS MARTINEZ JR

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00042366-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2021

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.

  • Name

    GUTHRIE, SAMUEL VS. DH SLATER & SON, INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    21CV02619

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2022

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

    VANESSA WHEELER, ET AL. VS MANUEL MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20AVCV00107

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MARCELLA ANDERSON V. KENNETH GOLDBERG, DMD

  • Case No.

    20CV-0062

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

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.

  • Name

    OWENSWALKER VS BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    RIC1712445

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2018

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.

  • Name

    PATRICK KOURY VS DUNCAN C MAHONE TRUST

  • Case No.

    BC644114

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2017

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.

  • Name

    LENI HARRIS, ET AL. VS SUNNY DAY ACRES, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV33560

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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.

  • Name

    ERICKSON VS APRIL HEALTHCARE, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00841718-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2016

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.

  • Name

    VELASQUEZ, DANIEL VS 301 THE PARK

  • Case No.

    15K12861

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

There is a common law version of “strictliability 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.

  • Name

    HEINTZELMAN VS ALAM

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01078874

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

(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.

  • Name

    RITA DERSARKISSIAN ET AL VS WESTFIELD TOPANGA ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC628963

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MATA V. JOHNSTONE CONTRACTING, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18CECG02218

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

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.

  • Name

    PANKEY VS. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES INC

  • Case No.

    37-2014-00004156-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2016

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.

  • Name

    ELAINE PERCY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC09275431

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2013

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.

  • Name

    ZARTAR KIRAKOSYAN VS ALIREZA DAVOODIFAR ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC665937

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ELLIOTT THOMPSON VS. DANIEL JOSEPH RYAN

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00462903-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2015

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.

  • Name

    MORRIS BROWN VS EATALIAN CAFE

  • Case No.

    20STCV09318

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

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.

  • Name

    MARISOL GARCIA, ET AL. VS OLIVER CAJINA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV44843

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2021

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.

  • Name

    ELMO DAVILLIER VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC15276391

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2015

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.

  • Name

    MICHAEL CUELLAR VS VALMONT COMPOSITE STRUCTURES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC695600

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2018

liability.

  • Name

    MATHIS VS PERKINS & MARIE CALLENDER’S LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00824878-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2017

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.

  • Name

    LEON V. MEDINA

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01004129

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2020

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.

  • Name

    GRICELLI MONGE, ET AL. VS TWEEDY MEDICAL GROUP, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV29027

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    VALENTIN PEREZ CHACON VS HELEN HSIEN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV02618

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

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.

  • Name

    PANKEY VS. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES INC

  • Case No.

    37-2014-00004156-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2016

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.

  • Name

    RACKOW VS. DISCOVERY SCIENCE FOUNDATION

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01042664-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

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.

  • Name

    BELLASIS, ET AL. V. FRESNO LAND COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    16CECG03219

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2018

“[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.

  • Name

    CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE V. ROHL, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00893210-CU-PL-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2018

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.

  • Name

    BRIAN MARKHAM VS. SEGWAY OF SF BAY ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC13535779

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2015

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.].)

  • Name

    CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT V CALIFORNIA RESOURCES

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00505457-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2018

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.

  • Name

    KIMBERLY FUENTES ET AL VS ARMANDO TREJO

  • Case No.

    BC653192

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2018

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.

  • Name

    JUSTIN ARMSTRONG VS VK UNION CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV33786

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2022

(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.

  • Name

    PEDRO HERNANDEZ VS JC FOODSERVICE INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC667222

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JOEL GAYNER VS BURT BACHARACH ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC655370

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2018

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].)

  • Name

    PADILLA VS MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF LESLIE PADILLA BY MARRIOTT RESORTS HOSPITALITY CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    PSC2002747

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

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).

  • Name

    STEELE VS. BELL-CARTER FOODS

  • Case No.

    MSC15-00757

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2016

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.

  • Name

    DAVID MARTINEZ VS THE ADLEN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC616314

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ENRIQUE PEREZ VS MAKSIM BASYRO ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC657495

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2018

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    18STCV02276

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

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.

  • Name

    ANTRANIK BAGHASARIAN VS EL POLLO LOCO, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV04625

  • Hearing

    May 27, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    CANTABRANA VS YONUTAS

  • Case No.

    CVPS2303807

  • Hearing

    Dec 27, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BRAYDER NAVARRETE ET AL VS MAYWOOD PLAZA MEAT MARKET ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC590310

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2016

“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.

  • Name

    BELLASIS, ET AL. V. FRESNO LAND COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    16CECG03219

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2018

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.

  • Name

    FRANCES GUNDLACH VS FRANK FLORES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22PSCV01744

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LAURIE ANN HUMBERD VS SAV-ON DRUGS ET AL

  • Case No.

    18CV02449

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2019

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.

  • Name

    GEWARGIS VS KE'ELELENA INC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000686

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2021

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.

  • Name

    GEWARGIS VS KE'ELELENA INC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000686

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2021

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.

  • Name

    GEWARGIS VS KE'ELELENA INC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2000686

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2021

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.

  • Name

    STEFANIE GABLER VS PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV30425

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

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.)

  • Name

    JAY RICHMOND, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ANDREA MESSINA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV25625

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

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.

  • Name

    CASEY, PATRICIA AS WRONGFUL DEATH HEIR, AND AS ET AL VS. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC. ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC11275879

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2011

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.

  • Name

    JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV17793

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    18STCV09968

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2021

  • County

    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.]

  • Name

    JOHN ARMOUR VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

  • Case No.

    20STCV30555

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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.

  • Name

    REYNALDO COLLAZOS VS CHARLES LOFGREN

  • Case No.

    BC632104

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

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.

  • Name

    LILLIAN PIEDRA VS INTERSTATE VAPE INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV06060

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    JOHN DOBROCKE ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC09275062

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2010

Otherwise, the motion for summary adjudication of the strict liability cause of action is GRANTED. The moving party is to give notice.

  • Name

    ROBERT HAYDEN BAER VS 3M COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV14744

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    DAPHNE HELAIRE, ET AL. VS G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV36460

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    ARMSTRONG OIL, INC. V. PIECO, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00881376-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2018

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.

  • Name

    WASHINGTON VS RAJA DHALLA M.D.

  • Case No.

    RIC2002591

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2021

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.

  • Name

    KEVIN DRISCOLL ET AL VS NUTRIBULLETT LLC

  • Case No.

    BC706915

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2018

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.

  • Name

    SUNCREST VILLAS MODESTO VS. PACIFICA MODESTO LLC

  • Case No.

    2022881

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

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.

  • Name

    MARLIES HAGEN VS MICHAEL MILLER

  • Case No.

    BC713374

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2019

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.

  • Name

    MATIAS RAMOS VS LKQ CORPORATION INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC592798

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2017

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).

  • Name

    BELTRAN V. FPA4 ARBOR RIDGE, LLC

  • Case No.

    16CECG03463

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2018

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.

  • Name

    BELLASIS, ET AL. V. FRESNO LAND COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    16CECG03219

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2018

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.

  • Name

    DOLORES DELGADO ET AL VS ROD DAVIS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC581582

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

“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.

  • Name

    POLANCO VS. LYFT, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01065850

  • Hearing

    May 13, 2021

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.

  • Name

    BEATRICE KEAYS ET AL VS. 50 BEALE INC. ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC15276420

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2015

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.

  • Name

    IVAR PATAO ZUNIGA, ET AL. VS AUTOZONE WEST, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV08470

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    RUSSELL ENOS ET AL VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    BC635539

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2018

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.

  • Name

    NEISY OLIVERA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS X-SPINE SYSTEMS, INC., UNKNOWN ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV22400

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

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.)

  • Name

    OBED ISAI QUINTANILLA CRUZ VS RANCHO VILLA LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV11102

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2019

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.

  • Name

    DISCOVER BANK V. SHERRY VATTUONE

  • Case No.

    17CV000772

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2018

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.

  • Name

    SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00034673-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

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.

  • Name

    SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. A FOREIGN VS. BRUCE I. GILBERT ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC17559659

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2017

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.)

  • Name

    RICK RYAN ET AL VS LUSTRE-CAL ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC544798

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2017

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.

  • Name

    WILLIE HOWARD VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC09275138

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2011

[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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19STCV13477

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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.

  • Name

    WILLIAM RAMSEY VS THE PASADENA HUMANE SOCIETY

  • Case No.

    BC707732

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HARDIMAN CONSTRUCTION/TRENCHLESS TITAN AND CHARLES J. PETKOVICH, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1902375

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Judge

    JAMES T, CHOU

  • County

    Marin 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.

  • Name

    JENNIFER BAILEY, ET AL. VS DOMETIC CORPORATION A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23CHCV00871

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    DALE SUZANNE SALMON VS CONSTANTIN PHILIPPOU

  • Case No.

    19STCV26548

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.)

  • Name

    DALE SUZANNE SALMON VS CONSTANTIN PHILIPPOU

  • Case No.

    19STCV26548

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BRIAN LANG MCDOWELL VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00866952-CU-PL-CXC

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

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.

  • Name

    SKYLAR R., ET AL. VS MARUCHAN INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV03297

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.)

  • Name

    FORSYTHE VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2200570

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2023

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.

  • Name

    ROBERT LARKIN VS TIFFANY STORY

  • Case No.

    1303476

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2009

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.

  • Name

    JOSE TORRES VS MARIA WARD

  • Case No.

    1381690

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2012

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.

  • Name

    MAUREEN DEEGAN VS SHELLEY REYNOLDS ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UPI-2022-0002521

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2023

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

[TENATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER Plaintiff Cynthia Salazar filed a complaint for general negligence and strict liability based on allegations that a dog owned by Defendants Jeremy Lacey and Elyse Lacey bit her. Defendants demur to the second cause of action on the ground it fails to state facts to constitute a cause of action for strict liability. A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)

  • Name

    CYNTHIA A SALAZAR VS JEREMY LACEY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC723173

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2019

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint to allege causes of action for strict liability and a breach of implied warranty against a new defendant. Trial is set for February 24, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff requests leave to amend the complaint to allege strict liability and breach of implied warranty against a new Defendant, Arcalight, based on newly discovered facts.

  • Name

    ARMANDO ALCALA VS PERFORMANCE TEAM LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC719558

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2019

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    18STCV00162

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope