What is Strict Liability for New Construction?

Useful Rulings on Strict Liability for New Construction

Rulings on Strict Liability for New Construction

1-25 of 495 results

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

., 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.

  • Hearing

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

Defendants seek summary adjudication on the claims for strict liability and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the claim for strict liability because the undisputed evidence establishes that the activity that Plaintiff was engaged in was not ultrahazardous. The determination of whether an activity is ultrahazardous is an issue of law for the Court. (Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 982.)

  • Hearing

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

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.

  • Hearing

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

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.

  • Hearing

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

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.

  • Hearing

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

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION — MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [PLTF] HARDIMAN CONSTRUCTION/TRENCHLESS TITAN RULING Cross Defendants Hardiman Construction/Trenchless Titan, er a]. filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the second cause of action in the cross-complaint alleging strict liability against all cross-defendants. The motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    JAMES T, CHOU

  • County

    Marin County, CA

ESTATE OF ESTANISLAO JOSE RAMOS VS MOHAMED AMER ET AL

Second Cause of Action, Count 1: Strict Liability: Melchiori also seeks judgment on the pleadings with respect to the strict liability cause of action, contending that a contractor for a custom-built home cannot be strictly liable. �The doctrine of strict products liability imposes strict liability in tort on all of the participants in the chain of distribution of a defective product.� Bostick v. Flex Equipment Co., Inc., 147 Cal.App.4th 80, 88 (2007).

  • Hearing

2435 GOLDEN GATE ROAD LLC VS STORM AND STORM ETC

Plaintiff has cited no authority, and the court is aware of none, that a general contractor, like Storm, who performs only construction and installation on a residential improvement can be held strictly liable in tort for construction defects. Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for strict liability is therefore sustained. 2.

  • Hearing

MINT COLLECTION -410-418 JESSIE STREET CONDOMINIUM VS. FIFTH HISTORIC PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL

The first cause of action fails because the residential standards only apply to new or original construction and the allegations in the FAC make clear that the construction involved in this case is neither new nor original. The third cause of action fails because strict liability only applies to mass-produced homes and the construction involved in this case did not involve mass-produced homes.

  • Hearing

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

“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.

  • Hearing

DAVISREED CONSTRUCTION INC VS 1260 BB PROPERTY LLC

Cross-defendants contend that strict liability is not applicable in the context of a commercial construction project. They rely on Appalachian Ins. Co. v.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

Gentry Construction arose on summary adjudication; Kaiser arose on nonsuit. Thus, despite the strong language in Gentry Construction, the court is unable to conclude on this limited record that Balfour Beatty's strict liability claims fail as a matter of law. In particular, the extent and nature of any negotiations, the parties' relative economic strength, and their ability to allocate potential losses – all factual inquiries – are not apparent from the face of the cross-complaint or the attached exhibits.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

Gentry Construction arose on summary adjudication; Kaiser arose on nonsuit. Thus, despite the strong language in Gentry Construction, the court is unable to conclude on this limited record that Balfour Beatty's strict liability claims fail as a matter of law. In particular, the extent and nature of any negotiations, the parties' relative economic strength, and their ability to allocate potential losses – all factual inquiries – are not apparent from the face of the cross-complaint or the attached exhibits.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

Gentry Construction arose on summary adjudication; Kaiser arose on nonsuit. Thus, despite the strong language in Gentry Construction, the court is unable to conclude on this limited record that Balfour Beatty's strict liability claims fail as a matter of law. In particular, the extent and nature of any negotiations, the parties' relative economic strength, and their ability to allocate potential losses – all factual inquiries – are not apparent from the face of the cross-complaint or the attached exhibits.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRO INSTALLATIONS INC VS BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LLC

Gentry Construction arose on summary adjudication; Kaiser arose on nonsuit. Thus, despite the strong language in Gentry Construction, the court is unable to conclude on this limited record that Balfour Beatty's strict liability claims fail as a matter of law. In particular, the extent and nature of any negotiations, the parties' relative economic strength, and their ability to allocate potential losses – all factual inquiries – are not apparent from the face of the cross-complaint or the attached exhibits.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROZO, ET AL. V. REPUBLIC COMPANIES, ET AL

Eighth Cause of Action (Strict Liability) Contrary to Defendants’ contention, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the elements of a strict liability claim for defects in design and manufacturing against Republic. (CACI no. 1200.) Defendants fail to point to any authority that require strict liability claims be pled with specificity. The demurrer as to the eighth cause of action is overruled as to Republic. MOTION TO STRIKE In light of the ruling on the Demurrer, the motion to strike is moot.

  • Hearing

CARROLL CLINE ET AL VS. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Albay Construction Companys Notice Of Motion And Motion For Summary Judgement, Or In The Alternatice Summary Adjudication On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, January 15, 2014 in Department 503 at 9:30 a.m., Line 1. Defendant Albay Construction Company?s motion for summary judgment is denied and its alternate motion for summary adjudication of plaintiffs? strict liability and false representation causes of action is off calendar.

  • Hearing

IN RE THE ESTATE OF SHERRY ANN LEDFORD, DECEASED

Therefore, the court cannot find, as a matter of law, that the property sold was not “new” and the principles of strict liability, as referred to in Civil Code Sections 895, et seq., do not apply.

  • Hearing

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

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.

  • Hearing

JACK OLSON VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

Defendant Albay Construction Co.?s motion for summary judgment is denied and its alternate motion for summary adjudication is denied as to negligence and punitive damages and off calendar as to strict liability. As to negligence, defendant failed to sustain its burden of production that plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Mr. Olson was exposed to asbestos-containing products attributable to defendant. Mr. Olson?s deposition testimony and plaintiffs? responses to defendant?

  • Hearing

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT V CALIFORNIA RESOURCES

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.].)

  • Hearing

VIVI ROBYN STAFFORD VS BROADSTONE FAIRFAX, LLC, ET AL.

Strict liability is not absolute liability.” (Id.) “Strict product liability seeks to hold manufacturers (and others in the stream of commerce) accountable when there is something wrong with the product.” (Id.) “[T]he term defect as utilized in the strict liability context is neither self-defining nor susceptible to a single definition applicable in all contexts.” (Id.) “Three general types of defects have been discerned: manufacturing defects, warning defects, and design defects.” (Id. at 32.)

  • Hearing

ROBERT ROSS ET AL VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

Even if the court considers the documents related to the construction of the Sacramento Convention Center (defendant?s Exhibit M), when read in conjunction with Mr. Ross? deposition testimony, they merely create a triable issue whether defendant was present. Plaintiffs have dismissed their strict liability cause of action. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45a.m. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.

  • Hearing

TAYLOR KOROBOW VS. SUSAN HARDIN ET AL

PLAINTIFF TAYLOR KOROBOW'S Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint IS DENIED AS TO DEFENDANT DOUGLAS ROSS CONSTRUCTION ("D.R.C."). THE COURT HAS GRANTED D.R.C.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE AMENDMENT, THEREFORE, APPEARS TO BE UNTIMELY. ALSO PLAINTIFF FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN SEEKING TO AMEND. FINALLY, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A LEGAL BASIS TO HOLD A GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO STRICT LIABILITY WHERE ANOTHER PARTY IS THE ADMITTED DEVELOPER. =(302/PJM/VC)

  • Hearing

DISCOVER BANK V. SHERRY VATTUONE

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.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.