Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“The doctrine of strict products liability imposes strict liability in tort on the manufacturer of a defective product and others in the product’s chain of distribution.” Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 173, 181-82. In a products liability case, a plaintiff may seek recovery on a theory of strict liability or negligence. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 478.
“‘The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are
Nelson v. Super. Ct. (2006)144 Cal.App.4th 689, 695 citing County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.
“[T]here are three ways to hold a manufacturer strictly liable for injuries caused by its product:
Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1208.
Manufacturing defects arise where a flaw in the manufacturing process creates a product that differs from what the manufacturer intended. Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1057; Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 173, 190 (“a product has a manufacturing defect if the product as manufactured does not conform to the manufacturer’s design.”).
The elements of a products liability claim based on a manufacturing defect are:
See CACI 1201.
A manufacturing defect is the legal cause of injury only if the defect was a substantial factor in producing the injury. Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572.
“A product is defective in design if:
Garrett, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at 182.
The elements of a products liability claim based on design defect are:
See CACI 1203.
A manufacturer of prescription drugs cannot be strictly liable for a design defect and that the appropriate test for determining a prescription drug manufacturer’s liability for a design defect involves an application of the ordinary negligence standard. Brown v. Super. Ct. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1061, 1069. Under the negligence standard as reflected in comment k to Section 402A on page 353 of the Restatement Second of Torts, adopted in Brown, a manufacturer is liable for a design defect only if it failed to warn of a defect that it either knew or should have known existed. Brown, supra, at 1059.
Brown explained that the consumer expectations test is inappropriate for prescription drugs because an ordinary consumer would have no safety expectations with respect to a prescription drug apart from the information provided by his or her physician. Brown, supra, 44 Cal.3d at 1061-1062. A prescription drug manufacturer that has provided appropriate warnings to the physician cannot be liable for the physician’s failure to convey those warnings to the patient, and cannot be liable if the patient relies on information provided by others as to the side effects of the drug. Id. at 1062.
“The duty to warn is measured by what is generally known or should have been known to the class of sophisticated users, rather than by the individual plaintiff’s subjective knowledge.” Johnson v. Amer. Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 65-66. “California law... recognizes the obvious danger rule, which provides that there is no need to warn of known risks under either a negligence or strict liability theory.” Id. at 67.
A product may be dangerous where it lacks adequate warnings or instructions. Brown, supra, at 1057. Generally, manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers of the hazards inherent in the products of which consumers are unaware. Id. In California, liability for failure to warn is conditioned on the manufacturer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the risk. Anderson v. Owens-Cornring Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 1000. The duty to warn applies to all entities in a product’s chain of distribution. Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564, 575.
The elements of a products liability claim based on failure to warn are:
CACI 1205.
Product misuse, an affirmative defense, is a superseding cause of injury that absolves a tortfeasor of his or her own wrongful conduct only when the misuse was “so highly extraordinary as to be unforeseeable.” Perez v. VAS S.p.A. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 658, 685, 115; Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1302; see generally CACI No. 1245.
Because it is an affirmative defense, it is incumbent upon the defendant to present evidence supporting each essential element thereof. Huynh v. Ingersoll-Rand (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 825, 830-32. To establish this particular affirmative defense, a defendant must first present evidence showing the plaintiff or a third party misused the product in an unforeseeable manner. Huynh, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at 832-33. The defendant must also show the misuse caused the plaintiff’s injury. Id.
“Foreseeability is a question for the jury unless undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion.” Torres v. Xomox Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1, 19, 56; Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal. App. 4th 1283, 1308.
“California law... recognizes the obvious danger rule, which provides that there is no need to warn of known risks under either a negligence or strict liability theory.” Johnson v. Amer. Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 67.
The sophisticated user defense exempts manufacturers from their typical obligation to provide product users with warnings about the products’ potential hazards. Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 56, 65 citing In re Asbestos, 543 F.Supp. at 1151. The defense is considered an exception to the manufacturer’s general duty to warn consumers, and therefore, in most jurisdictions, if successfully argued, acts as an affirmative defense to negate the manufacturer’s duty to warn. Id.
The FAC fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for strict products liability/failure to warn and the FAC is uncertain. 3rd Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability-Design Defect Again, Plaintiff fails to articulate any clear factual basis for a proper design defect claim and mixes elements of a negligence claim with the product liability claim.
VEAZEY VS CINTAS CORPORATION
CVRI2202455
Feb 01, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiff may pursue a strict products liability claim on companion theories of negligence (second cause of action) and breach of warranty (third cause of action). (Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 547, 561 (“[a] plaintiff may pursue strict products liability on companion theories of negligence or breach of warranty”).) And the allegations are sufficient to support a breach of warranty claim. (FAC ¶¶44 and 46.)
GODINEZ VS SPRINGFIELD, INC.
CVSW2300215
Feb 21, 2024
Riverside County, CA
General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 560 [doctrine of strict products liability applies to all persons in the chain of distribution of a defective product, including manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers].) The California Supreme Court has specifically held that a claim for strict products liability does not lie against a hotel proprietor and that strict products liability should be imposed only on those entities responsible for placing the defective product into the stream of commerce.
RICHMOND VS PATEL
MCC2000984
Jun 21, 2022
Riverside County, CA
The SAC pleads sufficient facts to state a cause of action for strict products liability against Does 31 to 60 as well in ¶¶56-60. The loss of consortium count is sufficient as it is based on the prior allegations. 3. Unlike the indemnity claims based on contract and comparative fault raised by National Gas Systems Inc.'
LATHAM VS. NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS
56-2010-00379881-CU-PP-SIM
Feb 16, 2012
Ventura County, CA
Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for negligence and strict products liability. Both causes of action are pled against Frogurt and Does 1-50. At this time, Frogurt moves for judgment on the pleadings on the second cause of action for strict products liability. Frogurt correctly notes that the complaint, at ¶7, alleges Does 21-50 designed, manufactured, sold, and/or introduced the subject chair into the stream of commerce.
ANDREA VIGLIETTA-PICHLER VS FROGURT EMPIRE INC
BC619381
Jan 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order.
BRAYDER NAVARRETE ET AL VS MAYWOOD PLAZA MEAT MARKET ET AL
BC590310
Oct 24, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant’s general demurrer to the third cause of action for strict products liability on the ground that the product for was safe for its intended use is OVERRULED. The complaint alleges sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for strict products liability. Whether the chicken in question contained a defect rendering it hazardous and unfit for human consumption is a question of fact not appropriate for determination by demurrer.
LANCE ROSCOE VS. FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, ET AL.
15CV-02771
Mar 16, 2018
Merced County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The motion for summary adjudication of the strict products liability theory, therefore, is also denied.
LUIS TISNADO VS HYTROL CONVEYOR COMPANY INC ET AL
BC569315
Jan 09, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
TENTATIVE RULING: CROSS-DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM LLC'S DEMURRER TO FOURTH AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION FOR STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE IN SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT ("SACC") is SUSTAINED. Cross-Defendant Amazon.com, LLC asserts ("Amazon") the fourth and fifth causes of action (Strict Products Liability and Products Liability - Negligence) of the SACC by Defendants/Cross-Complainants JAIME MARTINEZ, JR, and AMY MARTINEZ ("Cross-Complainants") are insufficiently pled.
VIRREY VS MARTINEZ JR
37-2019-00042366-CU-PO-CTL
Aug 12, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Grand Canyon Dories (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 248, 258 [rafting company not liable in strict products liability because was raft was incidental to rafting services]; Hennigan v.
POLANCO VS. LYFT, INC.
30-2019-01065850
May 13, 2021
Orange County, CA
When OCEAN CRYSTAL asked Plaintiff to identify all documents supporting his claim for strict products liability, Plaintiff stated discovery and investigation were continuing and failed to identify any responsive documents. (See Response to Sp. Rog No. 10.)
BATTIKHI VS. NOBU NEWPORT BEACH
30-2019-01098971
Jun 29, 2021
Orange County, CA
On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Concealment, Aiding and Abetting, Negligence Per Se, Premises Liability, Strict Products Liability Failure to Warn, Strict Products Liability Design Defect, Strict Products Liability Manufacturing, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
ANA MELARA VS SAM'S WEST, INC., ET AL.
21STCV35574
Mar 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Analysis Cruz relies on three theories of liability in the third cause of action, namely strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Each theory is addressed in turn. A. Strict Products Liability “The doctrine of strict products liability imposes strict liability in tort on the manufacturer of a defective product and others in the product’s chain of distribution.” (Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 173, 181-82.)
BENJAMIN CRUZ V. GREAT NORTHERN EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTING, INC., ET AL.
16CV297872
Jul 12, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Under California strict products liability law, a defendant cannot be liable for products it did not manufacture, design, or supply. (O’Neil v. Crane Co.(2012) 53 Cal.4th 335.) Courts have repeatedly refused to extend the strict products liability doctrine to those who merely provide services. (Pena v. Sita World Travel, Inc. (1978) 88 Cal.App.3d 642, 644; see e.g. Monte Vista Develop. Corp., 226 Cal.App.3d 1681; see e.g. Endicott v.
CHASE HOLLOWAY ET AL VS MARUICHI AMERICAN CORPORATION
BC681620
Aug 25, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Strict products liability extends to anyone involved in an “integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise.” Arriaga v. CitiCapital Commercial Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1527, 1534. The theory also applies if a nonmanufacturing party plays an integral role in the producing and marketing enterprise of the produce and profits from placing the product into the stream of commerce. Arriaga at 1535.
BARBARA LOUGHLIN VS SANTA CATALINA ISLAND RESORT SERVICES IN
BC536280
Sep 27, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs causes of action were strict products liability- design defect, strict products liability- manufacturing defect, strict products liability- failure to warn, negligence- products liability, and medical negligence. On April 22, 2021, Defendants LivaNova Deutschland GmbH and LivaNova Holding USA filed applications for Delmar R. Ehrich and Joseph Winebrenner to appear as counsel pro hac vice. No oppositions have been filed. Trial is set for January 14, 2022.
PEGGY KOGA, ET AL. VS LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND, GMBH, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV28954
Nov 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Laurie Forsythe, filed his complaint alleging the following causes of action: 1) Strict Products Liability – Design Defect; 2) Strict Products Liability – Manufacturing Defect; 3) Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn; 4) Medical Malpractice; 5) Hospital Negligence; 6) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 7) Negligence; 8) Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et.
FORSYTHE VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, INC.
CVRI2200570
Feb 01, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Strict Products Liability The elements of a cause of action for strict products liability are (1) a defect in the manufacture or design of the product or failure to warn, (2) causation, and (3) injury. Plaintiff must also show that (1) the product is placed on the market, (2) there is knowledge that it will be used without inspection for defect, (3) the product proves to be defective, and (4) the defect causes injury. (Nelson v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 689, 695.)
JOSE VILLANUEVA VS LKQ BEST AUTOMOTIVE CORP
BC710166
Feb 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Second Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability- Design Defect There are two alternative criteria in ascertaining a design defect for purposes of strict products liability.
CV2101710
Aug 01, 2023
Marin County, CA
Second Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability- Design Defect There are two alternative criteria in ascertaining a design defect for purposes of strict products liability.
CV2101710
Jul 29, 2023
Marin County, CA
Strict products liability: "Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443, sets forth the two tests for strict products liability in California. "[A] product may be found defective in design, so as to subject a manufacturer to strict liability for resulting injuries, under either of two alternative tests.
WILLIAM FRULLANI VS. SAN NUTRITION
56-2015-00471501-CU-PL-VTA
Mar 02, 2016
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Plaintiffs’ FAC, filed on November 13, 2018, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Gross Negligence; (3) Strict Products Liability – Design Defect; (4) Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn; (5) Strict Products Liability – Breach of Express Warranty; (6) Strict Products Liability – Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (7) Strict Products Liability – Negligent Misrepresentation; (8) Wrongful Death; and (9) Loss of Consortium.
JORGE RUIZ ET AL VS BRYAN ROJAS ET AL
BC698517
Jan 31, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Strict Products Liability Design Defect; 3. Strict Products Liability Manufacturing Defect; 4. Strict Products Liability Failure to Warn; and 5. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. Plaintiffs dismissed CGI, Inc. on May 5, 2021. Plaintiffs named Jack Access Control, Inc. and Telecom Network Technologies Inc. as Doe Defendants. Both Jack Access and Telecom filed cross-complaints. On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs dismissed Jack Access Control.
JEREMY LOPEZ, ET AL. VS ADOBE COMMUNITIES, ET AL.
20STCV36588
Aug 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Manufacturing Defect The essential elements of a claim for strict products liability – manufacturing defect are: 1) that the defendant manufactured/distributed/sold the product; 2) that the product contained a manufacturing defect when it left the defendant’s possession; 3) that plaintiff was harmed; and 4) that the product’s defect was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. (CACI 1201; see also Collins v. Navistar, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1500.)
HERRERA VS *HYSTER-YALE GROUP INC.
CVRI2300502
Apr 24, 2024
Riverside County, CA
AND SANCTIONS AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION Background Plaintiff Earl Douberley (Plaintiff) filed this action on April 16, 2020 against Defendant Alexander Andrew, Inc. d/b/a FallTech, alleging causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) strict products liability design defect, (3) strict products liability manufacture defect, (4) strict products liability failure to warn, (5) breach of express warranty, (6) breach of implied warranty, and (7) negligent misrepresentation.
EARL DOUBERLEY VS ALEXANDER ANDREW, INC. (D/B/A FALLTECH) , ET AL.
20STCV14748
Dec 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
In light of this new evidence, Plaintiff moves the court to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for strict products liability against Sears Roebuck and add Sears Roebuck as an additional defendant. No opposition has been filed. Plaintiff alleges claims for: 1. General Negligence 2.
KARLA WALTERS VS JACKLYN CATHERIN BROWN
BC620606
Feb 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
CASE NO: BC647266 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff, Cynthia and Janet Preiss filed this action against Defendants, Nortek Security & Control, LLC and Critical Signal Technologies, Inc. for damages arising out of negligence and strict products liability. Plaintiffs allege they purchased a personal emergency response system from Defendants, but it did not work inside their home.
CYNTHIA PREISS ET AL VS NORTEK SECURITY & CONTROL LLC ET AL
BC647266
Mar 21, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The court sustains Defendants' demurrer to the amended form complaint, with ten days leave to amend, to provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to state specifically the grounds upon which he asserts his strict products liability claim against C.R. Bard, Inc. and to allege facts that support a strict products liability claim based on a theory of defective manufacturing or on the theory that the defendant distributed the product without adequate warnings.
NICHOLAS LITTLE VS. DAVOL INCORPORATED ET AL
CGC13534402
Nov 13, 2015
San Francisco County, CA
On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Concealment, Aiding and Abetting, Negligence Per Se, Premises Liability, Strict Products Liability Failure to Warn, Strict Products Liability Design Defect, Strict Products Liability Manufacturing, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
ANA MELARA VS SAM'S WEST, INC., ET AL.
21STCV35574
Aug 05, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(SCPMG) and Helda Priscila Marroquin Molina (Molina) for strict products liability design defect, strict products liability manufacturing defect, strict products liability failure to warn, negligence products liability, medical negligence and survival action. On July 21, 2021, LD and LH filed an answer. On July 26, 2022, the Court dismissed KFHP, KFH and SCPMG, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs request.
ESTATE OF MANUEL MARROQUIN, BY AND THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST MIRIAM MARROQUIN, ET AL. VS LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND, GMBH, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV18083
Sep 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(SCPMG) for strict products liability design defect, strict products liability manufacturing defect, strict products liability failure to warn, products liability negligence and medical negligence. On December 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the FAC, adding Defendants Livanova Deutschland, GMBH (LD) and Livanova Holding USA, Inc. (LH). On March 15, 2022, KFHP, KHF, and SCPMG filed an answer. On April 25, 2022, LD and LH filed an answer.
DANAE LOCATELLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO DECEDENT DORA OTRAMBO, ET AL. VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLANE, INC., A CALIFORNIA ENTITY, ET AL.
21STCV45265
Feb 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Strict Products Liability—Design Defect; 2. Strict Products Liability—Manufacturing Defect; 3. Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn; 4. Negligence Product Liability. None of the Does defendants have been specifically named and the employer’s insurer, Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, administered by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies (Redwood Fire) has filed a Notice of First Lien, based on its status as the workers’ compensation carrier for Alpha Materials, Inc., plaintiff’s employer.
NELSON VS DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE
RIC1906123
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Liability Against Lycoming; (8) Strict Products Liability Against HBD; and (9) Negligence Products Liability Against HBD.
GRACE GANGAPERSAUD, ET AL. VS ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV12593
Feb 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds merit to these arguments that NTS need not be the ultimate consumer or purchaser of the MAFFS part or that the MAFFS had to be sold in order for UAC to be subject to strict products liability. Nevertheless, there are still other issues with the strict products liability cause of action as discussed in this order, such that this cause of action is not adequately pled.
JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV31797
Jan 12, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Valley asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) strict products liability-manufacturing defect [count 1]; (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect [count 2]; (5) negligent products liability [count 1]; (6) negligent products liability [count 2]; and (7) equitable indemnity. (FAC, 8-49.) This demurrer challenges only the third and fourth causes of action. Western argues that S.C.
SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC VS WESTERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY COMPANY
37-2016-00034673-CU-BC-CTL
Apr 11, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages pursuant to his fourth cause of action for strict products liability – design defect, and fifth cause of action for strict products liability – failure to warn, both of which are asserted against non-moving defendants Two Family Enterprises, Inc., Silverco Enterprises, and Ford Motor Company. (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 78.)
WILLIAM DOUGLAS FISHER VS TWO FAMILY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.
19STCV40793
Dec 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY 5. BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES 6. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM. On 5/13/20, Plaintiff filed a partial dismissal without prejudice, as to defendant THE CRANE GUYS, LLC, for the following causes of action of the First Amended Complaint: Second cause of action for Negligent Products Liability, fourth cause of action for Strict Products Liability, and fifth cause of action for Breach of Express and Implied Warranties.
OLEG ALEXANDROV ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 100
BC657639
Nov 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
On September 20, 2018, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) medical malpractice, (2) medical battery, (3) medical malpractice – lack of informed consent, (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect, (5) negligent design, (6) negligence, (7) strict products liability – failure to warn, (8) negligent products liability – failure to warn, and (9) misrepresentation.
ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL
BC707011
Jan 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
There is law that questions whether a public entity can be sued for strict products liability at all, since negligence or culpability is not a necessary ingredient of strict products liability, and because strict products liability is a unique, court-fashioned doctrine, not statutory. (Tolan v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 980, 986-987.)
GABRIEL MENDOZA V. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
17CECG00649
Jun 27, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 08/06/15 against defendants for: (1) strict products liability; (2) strict components liability; and (3) negligence. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint which will eliminate the first and third cause of action and replace them with statutory claims in order to comply with a recent decision of the Supreme Court of California. (See Motion, p. 3:20-24.)
5601 W OLYMPIC HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION VS BURNSIDE LLC ET AL
BC590378
Feb 28, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Assuming without deciding that the court can consider the new arguments and evidence provided in plaintiffs' supplemental briefing, plaintiffs did not create a triable issue whether defendant is liable under a theory of strict products liability. Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451 is inapplicable to the strict products liability issue here. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45a.m. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.
ELAINE PERCY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL
CGC09275431
Apr 15, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
As plaintiff may not assert common law claims for negligence and strict products liability based on the allegations of the complaint, the demurrer must be sustained. Defendant asserts that plaintiff will also be unable to allege a valid statutory cause of action based on the failure to comply with prelitigation notice requirements under Civil Code section 910(a).
CSAA INS. EXCHANGE VS. LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC., ET AL
S-CV-0041357
Nov 27, 2018
Placer County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The Court finds triable issues of fact as to whether Imprimis Pharmaceuticals is a manufacturer subject to strict products liability. Further, the Court finds triable issues of fact as to whether as a manufacturer, Imprimis was negligent in development and delivery of the drug at issue.
JOHN ERICK SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO AND WRONGFUL DEATH HEIRS OF JADE ERICK VS. KIM D KELLY ND MPH
37-2018-00005222-CU-PO-CTL
Oct 29, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The FAC alleges 5 causes of action for 1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, 2) strict products liability, 3) negligence, 4) breach of contract, and 5) UCL violations. Only the 2nd (strict products liability), 3rd (negligence) and 5th (UCL violations) causes of action are alleged as to moving Defendant DSI Logistics, LLC.
ROUX VS DSI LOGISITICS, LLC
CVPS2105996
Sep 01, 2022
Riverside County, CA
First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action Plaintiffs allege against Defendant Pharmacy: (1) strict products liability – failure to warn (first cause of action); (2) strict products liability – defective product (second cause of action); (3) breach of implied warranty (fifth cause of action); and (4) breach of express warranty (sixth cause of action). A strict products liability cause of action will not lie against a pharmacy who provides a service of dispensing drugs prescribed by a physician.
Medina, et al. v. Lee, et al. 30-2015-00827361-CU-JR-CJC
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action Plaintiffs allege against Defendant Pharmacy: (1) strict products liability – failure to warn (first cause of action); (2) strict products liability – defective product (second cause of action); (3) breach of implied warranty (fifth cause of action); and (4) breach of express warranty (sixth cause of action). A strict products liability cause of action will not lie against a pharmacy who provides a service of dispensing drugs prescribed by a physician.
MEDINA, ET AL. V. LEE, ET AL.
30-2015-00827361-CU-MM-CJC
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
Morgan’s motion seeks summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of the claims for negligence, strict products liability (issues 2 through four in the separate statement seek summary adjudication to strict products liability based on different legal arguments), and breach of warranty. The second cause of action for products liability contains three separate claims – strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.
TANGER VS PALFINGER LIFTGATES LLC
RIC2001612
Dec 07, 2023
Riverside County, CA
However, Uber Defendants demur only to the strict products liability cause of action. Plaintiffs opposition does not address any of the arguments raised in the demurrer. In effect, Plaintiff concedes his strict products liability claim is defective. Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED.
PETE MARTINEZ VS BHUPENDRA SINGH VIRK, ET AL.
23STCV09795
Oct 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On 12/1/2022, Plaintiffs KBBK, LLC, Hayat Khoubian individually and as trustee of fhe Eshagh and Hayat Trust, Eshagh Khoubian, individually and as trustee of the Eshagh and Hayat Trust, and the Eshagh and Hayat Trust filed suit against 58 Defendants, alleging: (1) fraud; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) negligence; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of warranty; (6) negligence; (7) breach of contract; (8) strict products liability; (9) negligence/strict products liability; and (10) civil remedies for Penal
KBBK, LLC, ET AL. VS 12 TOWERS, INC., ET AL.
22STCV37717
Jun 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
As with the other claims in this case, Willow has also alleged all of the facts necessary to maintain causes of action for strict products liability and negligence.
PACIFIC OAKS LP ET AL VS MM MECHANICAL INC ET AL
1244762
Feb 15, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
s demurrer to the first cause of action for strict products liability on the ground that the economic loss rule precludes the claim. (C.C.P. § 430.10(e); Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988; Seely v. White Motor Co. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 9.) 2. SUSTAIN the demurrer to the second cause of action for negligence on the ground that the economic loss rule also precludes this claim. (C.C.P. § 430.10(e); Robinson Helicopter, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 988.) 3.
STATE FARM VS. MACK TRUCK
56-2009-00340212-CL-PA-SIM
Aug 26, 2009
Ventura County, CA
The court notes Plaintiff requests to file a first amended complaint to assert new causes of action against Defendants including 1) Strict Products Liability (design defect); 2) Strict Products Liability (manufacturing defect); 3) Strict Products Liability (failure to warn); 4) Negligence (design, sale, manufacturing); and 5) Negligence (failure to warn). As part of the motion, Plaintiff includes a copy of the proposed amended pleading. (CRC Rule 3.1324(a).)
MICHAEL ALLEN DENNY VS TUUYEN NGUYEN, ET AL.
19STCV15629
Oct 26, 2020
Virginia Keeny
Los Angeles County, CA
On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Elias Shokrian commenced this action against O’Gara Coach Company, LLC dba Aston Martin Beverly Hills, and Aston Martin Lagonda of North America for (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) strict products liability; (4) false representation; and (5) punitive damages.
ELIAS SHOKRIAN VS O GARA COACH COMPANY, LLC
19STCV33221
Mar 12, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Strict Products Liability 2. Breach of Express and Implied Warranties 3. Negligence based on Defective Product 4. Negligence and Premises Liability 5.
KARINA LOPEZ VS SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22NWCV00913
Sep 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for strict products liability and negligence. Defendant’s objection to the Declaration of Mrs. Boos is overruled. Defendant’s objection Nos. 1 through 4 to the Declaration of Bruce Agle are overruled. The court sustains Defendant’s objection No. 2 to the Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel, and overrules the remainder.
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O SCOTT BOOS AND CECILIA BOOS VS. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.
30-2015-00807062-CU-PL-CJC
Oct 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
Moving Defendant has met its burden under CCP 437c(o)(2) of showing that Plaintiffs cannot establish the elements of a cause of action for strict products liability, negligent products liability and/or negligence. (See Material Fact Nos. 1-24, which the court finds have been established.) By way of opposition, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of raising a triable issue of material fact. No evidence supports a defect in the manufacture of the tractor.
MARIA DE JESUS LUNA VS. LANDINI USA
56-2016-00485413-CU-PL-VTA
Feb 26, 2018
Vincent O'Neill
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.
STEPHANIE OWENS VS, BAY CLUB MARIN LLC, ET AL
CV1803711
Jul 31, 2021
Marin County, CA
presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.
STEPHANIE OWENS VS, BAY CLUB MARIN LLC, ET AL
CV1803711
Aug 02, 2021
Marin County, CA
presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.
STEPHANIE OWENS VS, BAY CLUB MARIN LLC, ET AL
CV1803711
Aug 05, 2021
Marin County, CA
presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.
STEPHANIE OWENS VS, BAY CLUB MARIN LLC, ET AL
CV1803711
Aug 01, 2021
Marin County, CA
presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.
STEPHANIE OWENS VS, BAY CLUB MARIN LLC, ET AL
CV1803711
Jul 30, 2021
Marin County, CA
presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.
STEPHANIE OWENS VS, BAY CLUB MARIN LLC, ET AL
CV1803711
Aug 04, 2021
Marin County, CA
presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.
STEPHANIE OWENS VS, BAY CLUB MARIN LLC, ET AL
CV1803711
Aug 03, 2021
Marin County, CA
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 18, 2021, alleging seven causes of action the following causes of action: 1) strict products liability design defect, 2). strict products liability manufacturing, 3) strict products liability warning defect, 4) products liability negligence, 5) products liability breach of express warranty, 6) products liability breach of implied warranty, and 7) negligence.
JOHN KIZZIAR VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.
21STCV18698
Nov 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
This is sufficient to maintain a cause of action for strict products liability. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES the demurrer as to the fourth and fifth causes of action.
WILSHIRE INC VS MARLITE INC ET AL
BC676888
Feb 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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. However, in the body of the First cause of action Plaintiff alleges failure to warn but does not allege Strict Products Liability. Finally, Plaintiffs Second cause of action is entitled Negligent Products Liability (Wrongful Death). However, this cause of action contains no factual allegation of a wrongful death anywhere in the Complaint.
JUSTIN ARMSTRONG VS VK UNION CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV33786
May 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer – Strict Products Liability The California Supreme Court has held that “a pharmacy is immune from strict [products] liability” because a pharmacist’s “conduct in filling a prescription is to be deemed a service.” (Murphy v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 672, 680.) In an attempt to counter this controlling authority, Plaintiff cites to a Supreme Court opinion involving a claim for strict products liability brought against a drug manufacturer, Brown v.
JAMES NICHOLS VS WALGREEN CO., ET AL.
19STCV07035
Oct 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
(M&F), Norton Sales, Inc., Triad, and Nino for: (1) negligence; and (2) strict products liability. D.
JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV31797
Nov 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
At issue here is whether the so-called economic loss rule precludes State Farm from recovering on a strict products liability theory. The general rule is that a plaintiff may not recover under a strict products liability theory when the only damage caused by the purported defect is to the product itself. See generally Jimenez v. Super. Ct. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473. However, a plaintiff may recover when the purported defect causes damages to other products. Id. at p. 483.
STATE FARM VS. FORD MOTOR
MSL16-01859
Apr 28, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
(SCPMG) and Helda Priscila Marroquin Molina (Molina) for strict products liability design defect, strict product s liability manufacturing defect, strict products liability failure to warn, negligence products liability, medical negligence and survival action. On July 21, 2021, LD and LH field an answer. On July 26, 2022, the Court dismissed KFHP, KFH and SCPMG were dismissed, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs request.
ESTATE OF MANUEL MARROQUIN, BY AND THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST MIRIAM MARROQUIN, ET AL. VS LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND, GMBH, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV18083
Apr 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Strict products liability has replaced the implied warranty claim where there is no privity. (See Alvarez vs. Felker Mfg. Co. (1964) 230 Cal.App. 2nd 987, 1005.) No triable issue of fact raised establishing an express warranty. Summary Adjudication granted as to issue 4, no triable issue of fact raised that defendant made a false representation to decedent. Summary Adjudication denied as to issues number 5 and 6.
TAMMIE COIT ET AL VS. ADVOCATE MINES, LTD ET AL
CGC07274476
Aug 06, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (i.e., Strict Products Liability—Design Defect and Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn, Respectively) Plaintiff has not alleged that Alltech is an entity within the stream of commerce relating to the subject sight glass or yeast storage system. Again, Plaintiff has alleged that Alltech was merely hired to “perform the yeast transfer work.” (Id., ¶13(c).)
JOSEPH SORIA VS MILLERCOORS, LLC, ET AL.
19STCV43709
Jul 28, 2020
Gloria White-Brown
Los Angeles County, CA
Courts have permitted comparative fault in certain situations in strict products liability cases. Thus, in Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, 736–737 [144 Cal. Rptr. 380, 575 P.2d 1162], the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's recovery in an action for strict products liability may be reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's comparative fault, and in Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart (1978) 21 Cal.3d [*1011] 322, 330 [146 Cal.
HILARIO CRUZ VS SOLOMON METHENGE
BC493949
May 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Here, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment only addresses the negligence cause of action, but does not address the third cause of action for strict products liability, which is also asserted against moving Defendant Bobco Metals, LLC in the operative second amended complaint (which supersedes the first amended complaint as to which this motion is directed).
EDWARD GONZALEZ ET AL VS SHOOSHANI DEVELOPERS LLC ET AL
BC600771
Jun 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
.¿¿ On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action against defendants¿ Telebrands ¿Corp. (“ Telebrands ”) ,¿ Bulbhead , Bulbhead.com, LLC (“Bulbhead.com”) , an d Polar Pooch for negligence , strict products liability (manufacturing defect), strict products liability (design defect), strict products liability (failure to warn), strict products liability (failure to adequately test), and strict products liability (breach of implied warranty).
JANET O MAUSNER VS TELEBRANDS CORP ET AL
BC710680
Dec 15, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
DISCUSSION RE LYFTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Lyft moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the 9 th cause of action for strict products liability in the TAC. The doctrine of strict products liability holds that [a] manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.
RYAN LARSON, ET AL. VS LYFT INC A DELAWARE CORPORATION
20STCV18606
Jul 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(M&F), Norton Sales, Inc., Triad, and Nino for: (1) negligence; and (2) strict products liability. D.
JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV31797
Oct 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint, filed November 9, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability design defect; (3) strict products liability failure to warn; and (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability. B. Motions on Calendar On August 8, 2023, Defendant NHI dba Lime (Defendant) filed 2 motions to compel Plaintiffs initial responses to: (1) Form and Special Interrogatories (FROG and SROG); and (2) Requests for Production of Documents (RPD).
MAURILIO FLORES, ET AL. VS SCENIC EXPRESSIONS, INC., ET AL.
23BBCV00960
Oct 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint, filed November 9, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability design defect; (3) strict products liability failure to warn; and (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability. B. Motion on Calendar On November 21, 2023, Defendant NHI dba Lime (Defendant) filed a motion for terminating sanctions. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.
ANDRIUS KANTAS VS NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL.
22BBCV00960
Jan 19, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) strict products liability; (2) strict products liability; (3) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act; (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act; (5) breach of implied warranty under California Commercial Code section 2314; (6) negligence (wrongful death and personal injuries); and (7) survival action.
MICHAEL FARHAT, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC, ET AL.
19STCV14001
Jul 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
The demurrer as to strict products liability is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The motion to strike is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
CODY EID VS CINDY PAULK, ET AL.
22STCV22631
Jun 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for Strict Products Liability: Design and Manufacturing Defect, Strict Products Liability: Failure to Warn, Negligence, Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranties and Wrongful Death against "All Defendants." Thus, Plaintiff's case in chief will necessarily involve issues of apportionment/allocation of liability against Polaris, TDZ and South Bay – the same issues at issue in TDZ/South Bay's cross-complaint against Polaris.
HILL VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC
37-2018-00016665-CU-PL-CTL
Apr 18, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 24, 2015, alleges causes of action against defendants for (1) negligence, (2) violation of Labor Code Section 3706, (3) premises liability, (4) strict products liability – design defect, (5) strict products liability – manufacturing defect, (6) strict products liability – failure to warn, and (7) breach of implied warranty. Cross-complaints for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief have been filed by all of the defendants.
BRANDON RIVERA VS HILLPOINTE CONSTRUCTION, INC. ET AL
15CV02132
Jun 08, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiffs SAC alleges three causes of action for (1) strict products liability, (2) negligence, and (3) loss of consortium against defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Advanced Surgical Devices, Inc., William Zurowski, and Frank Velazco. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Wright Medical Technology, Inc .
JAMES SHAW, ET AL. VS WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL.
19STCV36986
Apr 12, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s counsel attests the proposed First Amended Complaint adds five causes of action: (1) Strict Products Liability (design defect); (2) Strict Products Liability (manufacturing defect); (3) Strict Products Liability (failure to warn); (4) Negligence (design; sale; manufacturing); (5) Negligence (Failure to warn). As part of the motion, Plaintiff includes a copy of the proposed amended pleading. (CRC Rule 3.1324(a).) The proposed First Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit 6.
MICHAEL ALLEN DENNY VS TUUYEN NGUYEN, ET AL.
19STCV15629
Nov 23, 2020
Virginia Keeny
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants demurrer challenges the fourth cause of action (for negligence per se) and the fifth cause of action (for strict products liability). Defendants motion to strike challenges the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action and the request for punitive damages. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to either the demurrer or the motion to strike.
OKITO POLE VS NITIN KHANNA, ET AL.
23STCV01537
Aug 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges six causes of action for: (1) negligence against Defendants; (2) negligence per se against Garcia; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress against Garcia; (4) strict products liability: manufacturing defect against Recaro and Toys “R” Us; (5) strict products liability: design defect against Recaro and Toys “R” Us; and (6) strict products liability: failure to warn against Recaro and Toys “R” Us. Defendant Recaro now moves for an order admitting Ashley G.
ERIKA SALDANA ET AL VS RALPH REFUGIO GARCIA
BC605449
Mar 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel does not provide any information as to when the facts giving rise to claims of Breach of Warranty and Strict Products Liability arose, and Plaintiff’s counsel provides no explanation as to why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (CRC, Rule 3.1324.) As such, the Court declines to allow Plaintiff to amend her FAC to alleges causes of action for Breach of Warranty and Strict Products Liability against D&L.
KYRA PEARSON ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET
BC501425
Apr 19, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
DISCUSSION: Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn and Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (3rd and 4th causes of action) Vehicle Effects moves for summary adjudication on Issues 3 and 4 regarding the 3rd and 4th causes of action for strict products liability – failure to warn and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, respectively. In opposition, Plaintiff states that he does not oppose the motion on the 3rd and 4th causes of action. (Opp. at p. 2, fn. 1.)
MICHAEL HAZARD VS BURBANK AUTO PARTS ET AL
BC629772
Dec 28, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants shall file their answers, if at all, within 10 days. 1st cause of action, strict products liability. The FAC alleges facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. It alleges a strict liability design-defect claim under both the consumer expectation test and the risk/benefit test. (See Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 432; see also FAC ¶¶ 42-55.) 2nd cause of action, negligent products liability. The FAC alleges facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action.
ZEKRIA V. MIRAMAR LABS
30-2019-01075859
Jul 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
Count three fails to plead facts that a concert held on property set up as a concert venue is a product for purposes of strict products liability. Count three also fails to cite authority that a concert held on property set up as a concert venue is a product for purposes of imposing strict products liability. A concert is not a product; it is more akin to a service.
KAIMULOA VS. INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS LLC
37-2018-00031352-CU-PO-CTL
Jul 03, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Alamitos Pharmacy Group, Inc. dba Los Alamitos Pharmacy’s Demurrer to William Bertram’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 1st (Strict Products Liability – Manufacturing Defect) and 2nd (Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn) Causes of Action pursuant to CCP §430.10(e). The Demurrer is otherwise OVERRULED. See discussion.
WILLIAM BERTRAM VS AMGEN INC ET AL
BC647095
Sep 20, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Discussion Products Liability First Count for Strict Liability A strict products liability cause of action can be based on manufacturing defects, design defects, or inadequate warnings or failures to warn. (See Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995.) In order to be liable for strict products liability, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant produced, manufactured, sold, or was in some way responsible for the product. ( Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co
ISABEL CAMPOS VS 3550 GRAND OAKS, CORONA, CA, 92881
19STCV23116
Jun 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Strict Products Liability 2. Negligence 3. Wrongful Death and Survival Action
BENJAMIN ANDREWS, AN INDIVIDUAL AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CRAIG RICARDO ARTHURS, DECEASED, AND ON BEHALF OF VS SHANDONG LINGLONG TYRE CO., LTD
23PSCV02440
Mar 11, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, the Complaint alleges causes of action for: 1) Strict Products Liability: Design Defect; 2) Strict Products Liability: Manufacturing Defect; 3) Strict Products Liability: Failure to Warn; and 4) Negligence, against Defendants . On May 7, 2021, Defendant Road Bear filed the pending Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint. On May 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their opposition papers to the pending motion. In turn, Defendant Road Bear filed its reply on June 3, 2021.
ELI BACHAR, ET AL. VS THOR MOTOR COACH, INC., ET AL.
21STCV10183
Jun 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court agrees with Defendants arguments and given that Plaintiff has not offered any opposition, the Court finds that Plaintiffs claim for strict products liability as to Defendant fails as a matter of law and GRANTS Defendants motion for summary judgment as to strict products liability. Negligence To prevail in a negligence action, a plaintiff must show that there was (1) a legal duty owed to plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to plaintiff.
MARK RODRIGUEZ, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, EDDY RODRIGUEZ VS CITY OF PASADENA
20STCV15807
Oct 25, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND On May 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Alejandro Sanchez, Sr (AlejandroAl)., Emmitt Sanchez and Araceli Hernandez filed this action against Defendants Ford Motor Company, Tutor Perini Corporation, Zachry Construction Corporation, Parsons Corporation , Paccar Inc., Deudiel Juarez Ramirez (Juarez) and H&M Trucking and Equipment Rental of Dinuba (H&M) for wrongful death based on strict products liability, survival based on strict products liability, bystander liability based on strict products liability, wrongful
ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, SR., INDIVIDUALLY, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO BRIANA SANCHEZ, DECEDENT, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV15543
Jul 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) Negligence, (2) Negligence Premises Liability, (3 ) Strict Products Liability: Manufacturing Defect ; (4) Strict Products Liability: Design Defect; (5) Strict Products Liability: Failure to Warn; and (6) Loss of Consortium. This action relates to an incident that occurred on June 6, 2019, when a heavy gate fell on Plaintiff Jose Correa, hitting him on the head and body.
JOSE CORREA , ET AL. VS SO GROUP REALTY, LLC., A CALIFORNIA COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV15818
Apr 12, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the 1st through 5th COAs (strict products liability – failure to warn; strict products liability – design defect; strict products liability – negligence; breach of implied warranty; and negligence), these causes of action are sufficiently alleged for purposes of a demurrer. On a demurrer a court's function is limited to testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint. (Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 97, 113.)
YONIS VS ALBERTSONS
30-2016-00857795-CU-PA-CJC
Mar 21, 2017
Orange County, CA
Further, based on the applicable case law provided by Lyft and the lack of either any countervailing case law or explanation by Plaintiff of how the complaint may be amended to properly state a claim for strict products liability, the Court denies leave to amend. [1] CONCLUSION AND ORDER Therefore, the Court sustains Lyfts demurrer to the third cause of action in the complaint without leave to amend .
ALFREDO HUERTA-MONDRAGON VS LYFT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV07961
Jan 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.