Strict Products Liability in California

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.)

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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.

The motion for summary adjudication of the strict products liability theory, therefore, is also denied.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Liability Against Lycoming; (8) Strict Products Liability Against HBD; and (9) Negligence Products Liability Against HBD.

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.

(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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).)

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.

Strict Products Liability 2. Breach of Express and Implied Warranties 3. Negligence based on Defective Product 4. Negligence and Premises Liability 5.

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.

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.

presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.

presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.

presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.

presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.

presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.

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.

presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.

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.

presented showing that BB could be found 100% liable based on a strict products liability theory.

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.

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.

(M&F), Norton Sales, Inc., Triad, and Nino for: (1) negligence; and (2) strict products liability. D.

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.

(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.

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.

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).)

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.

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).

.¿¿ 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).

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.

(M&F), Norton Sales, Inc., Triad, and Nino for: (1) negligence; and (2) strict products liability. D.

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.

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.

The demurrer as to strict products liability is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The motion to strike is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

Strict Products Liability 2. Negligence 3. Wrongful Death and Survival Action

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.

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.

This fact – which the court must liberally construe and accept as true – is sufficient for purposes of pleading a strict products liability claim. Whether plaintiffs can produce at trial, or in response to a motion for summary judgment, evidence that will support their allegations remains to be determined. See Nast v.

The third and fourth causes of action for strict products liability and negligence do not allege facts showing an injury while using the product in the intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. Further, the purchaser of the subject vehicles was the plaintiff, not the cross-complainant. As to the fifth cause of action for declaratory relief, there are sufficient allegations that an actual controversy has arisen and exists between the parties about their respective rights, duties, and obligations.

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 .

The Court encourages Plaintiffs to plead each claim as a separate cause of action, such that there would be claims for, by way of example, “Strict Products Liability, Survival Claim, by Plaintiff, Kristin Hirai in her capacity as Decedent’s successor-in-interest” and, separately, “Strict Products Liability, Wrongful Death Claim, by Plaintiffs in their individual capacities.” Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended complaint within twenty days.