What is strict liability?

Useful Resources for Strict Liability

Recent Rulings on Strict Liability

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EX REL. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD VS NOIL ENERGY GROUP, INC.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Defendant for: (1) Health and Safety Code section 43027(c) – Strict Liability; (2) Health and Safety Code section 43027(b) – Negligence; (3) Health and Safety Code section 43027(a) – Intentional Conduct; and (4) Health and Safety Code section 43027(d) – Failure to Keep Required Documents. On December 22, 2020, Defendant filed the instant demurrer to the complaint. ANALYSIS: I. Demurrer A.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

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

Demurring Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to satisfy the elements of the common law strict liability cause of action. Demurring Defendants 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

SIMONE FEE VS MALIBU WINES

BACKGROUND On February 8, 2018, Plaintiff Simone Fee filed a complaint against Defendant Malibu Wines and Does 1 to 25 for (1) strict liability and (2) negligence. The complaint alleges Plaintiff was present on Defendants’ property where the animals were maintained as part of a wine/safari tour and was injured when a water buffalo rammed Plaintiff with its head as Plaintiff attempted to touch the water buffalo’s head at the tour guide’s encouragement.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIMBERLY THOMPSON VS. RICK J MARTINEZ

. ____________________ TENTATIVE RULING Defendants demur to two causes of action as asserted by Plaintiffs Kimberly Thompson and Benjamin Candeleria only: the first cause of action for strict liability for a dog bite under Civil Code section 3342 and the second cause of action for negligence. The Court intends to SUSTAIN the demurrer to the first cause of action as to these two Plaintiffs without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DU VS JOHN MUIR HEALTH

Merely calling the cause of action “Products Liability” does not make it a claim for strict liability, as the Judicial Council Form clearly shows.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

TRACY DURONSLET, ET AL. VS JOYCOOK KOREA, ET AL.

“Regardless of the theory which liability is predicated upon, whether negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability in tort, or other grounds, it is obvious that to hold a producer, manufacturer, or seller liable for injury caused by a particular product, there must first be proof that the defendant produced, manufactured, sold, or was in some way responsible for the product.” (Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 868, 874, internal quotations and citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges these 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. Defendants CRC Industries, Inc. and Coburn Technologies, Inc. separately move for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes both motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies both motions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TRAN VS. CHOLULA

(“Plaintiff”), or in the alternative, summary adjudication on (1) the 1st cause of action for strict liability (Civ. Code § 3342), (2) the 2nd cause of action for general negligence, and (3) the 3rd cause of action for premises liability.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JENNIFER CAMPOS VS CHINTU SHAH, ET AL.

Strict Liability (Civil Code § 3342 and Common Law) Civil Code §3342 imposes strict liability on the owner of a dog who attacks another person. Plaintiff does not allege Dume owns the dogs; Plaintiff alleges Shah owns the dogs. (Compl., ¶ 11.) In opposition, Plaintiff makes no claim about Dume owning the dogs. Dume’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action for strict liability based on section 3342 is SUSTAINED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

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

    Jan 13, 2021

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

    Jan 13, 2021

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

The sophisticated user defense is applicable to both negligence and strict liability causes of action based on failure to warn. Id. at 71. The sophisticated user defense does not apply to strict liability or negligence claims based on a design defect. See Johnson v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS SLB CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL.

On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm General Insurance Company filed a complaint against SLB Corporation, individually, and DBA Hose Assemblies and Winzeler Stamping Co. asserting causes of action for (1) Negligence; and (2) Strict Liability. On February 18, 2020, default was entered against Cross-Defendant SLB Corporation Corporation dba Hose Assemblies. The parties entered a stipulation to set aside the default on May 6, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.

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. Defendants Ashland LLC (“Ashland”) and LTS Research Laboratories, Inc. (“LTS”) each move for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes both motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Ashland’s motion and grants LTS’s motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NOMER SANTOS ET AL VS AIR LIQUIDE ADVANCED MATERIALS INC ET

“Regardless of the theory which liability is predicated upon, whether negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability in tort, or other grounds, it is obvious that to hold a producer, manufacturer, or seller liable for injury caused by a particular product, there must first be proof that the defendant produced, manufactured, sold, or was in some way responsible for the product . . . .” (Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 868, 874.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

SIMONE FEE VS MALIBU WINES

Strict Liability Defendant Hikes argues Plaintiff’s claim for strict liability fails because water buffalo are not considered wild animals for strict liability purposes. Hikes’ argument is unavailing. Like Semler and AAI, Hikes relies on Health & Safety Code section 113795 and Los Angeles County Ordinance section 10.08.170 to support its contention.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on June 28, 2019, alleging: (1) negligence via products liability; (2) strict liability for failure to warn; (3) strict products liability for design defect: (4) fraud by intentional misrepresentation; (5) fraud by concealment; (6) fraud by negligent misrepresentation; (7) negligence; and (8) loss of consortium. Umesh Bhagia, M.D. (Bhagia) was substituted in as Doe 1 on October 24, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

MOHAMMAD MANOUCHEHRI VS AFSHIN D LEVY, ET AL.

Levy and Polaris Industries Inc. for (1) motor vehicle negligence, (2) strict liability – defective products, (3) implied warranty – fitness of use, and (4) implied warranty – reliance on merchant’s skill. Plaintiff’s voluntary request for dismissal of Defendant Levy without prejudice was entered on September 24, 2020. On December 10, 2020, Defendant Polaris Industries Inc. filed the subject motion to continue trial date and all related dates. Trial is scheduled for March 19, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

CATHOLIC MEDICAL MISSION BOARD, INC. A 501(C)(3) CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION VS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

CMMB argues that the United States Supreme Court time and again has refused to allow strict liability for protected speech—even when the statement is false. This is so because, to regulate false speech, the “statement must be a knowing or reckless falsehood.” Alvarez, supra, 567 U.S. at 719. See also Madigan, supra, 538 U.S. at 620 (“False statement alone does not subject a fundraiser to fraud liability”); Garrison v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FOOD FOR THE POOR, INC. VS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

CMMB argues that the United States Supreme Court time and again has refused to allow strict liability for protected speech—even when the statement is false. This is so because, to regulate false speech, the “statement must be a knowing or reckless falsehood.” Alvarez, supra, 567 U.S. at 719. See also Madigan, supra, 538 U.S. at 620 (“False statement alone does not subject a fundraiser to fraud liability”); Garrison v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

DUFFIN VS HARDCORE FITNESS NORTH COUNTY, LLC

Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 17, 2019 and alleged the following causes of action: (1) General Negligence (2) Products Liability --Count One: Strict Liability --Count Two: Negligence --Count Three: Breach of Warranty On September 22, 2020, the Gym filed the instant motion for summary judgment/adjudication seeking summary adjudication of five specific issues. However, since that time, both parties have withdrawn certain claims and/or arguments.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

CHRISTINE DIEP VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

Seely had held that recovery in strict liability and negligence actions is limited to damages for physical harm to person or property, and economic loss is not recoverable. (Seely, at p. 88.) Aas reaffirmed Seely. “Whatever the product, whether homes or automobiles, strict liability affords a remedy only when the defective product causes property damage or personal injury.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SHANNON PELTO VS DEBRA ANN SEANEZ, ET AL.

Defendant argues that the causes of action under the dog bite statute and common law strict liability are duplicative of Plaintiff’s first cause of action for negligence. The Court disagrees. Section 3342(a) (“dog bite statute”) imposes liability for damages suffered by anyone who is bitten by a dog regardless of prior history of viciousness. A common law strict liability claim concerning an animal with vicious propensities is a separate claim from the “dog bite statute.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LEANDRO PENA VS SPRIG PATIENT COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL.

Vandermark concerns strict liability imposed on a car dealership defendant who sold a car with a defective braking system; the California Supreme Court imposed strict liability although the defendant was not a manufacturer in part because it considered the defendant a retailer in the business of distributing cars. (Vandermark, supra, 61 Cal.2d at pp. 262-63.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL HAWKINS ET AL VS DURESSA SOLOMON ET AL

The operative First Complaint alleges three causes of action for: 1) negligence (strict liability); 2) negligence; and 3) negligent infliction of emotional distress. On October 14, 2020, Duressa, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Solomon, and Shenkute (“Defendants”) moved for summary judgment. On December 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On December 29, 2020, Defendants submitted a reply. Continuance Plaintiffs request additional time to depose Mendoza and Chumley. (CCP § 437c(h).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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.