Ultrahazardous Activities in California

What Are Ultrahazardous Activities?

“The theory of imposition of strict liability for ultrahazardous activity is that the danger cannot be eliminated through the use of care . . . Where the activity is dangerous only if insufficient care is exercised, ordinary rules of fault are sufficient for allocation of the risk. There is no need for liability without proof of fault, because definitionally if there is damage it will have resulted from negligence and will be compensable.” (Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 987.)

Elements

Strict liability may be imposed on one who:

  1. carries on ultrahazardous activity that
  2. proximately causes damage to another.

(Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 983.)

Factors for Determining “Ultrahazardous”

“An activity is ultrahazardous if it

  1. necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land or chattels of others which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care, and
  2. is not a matter of common usage.”

(Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 983.)

Factors bearing on whether an activity is ultrahazardous are:

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

(Edwards, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 985.)

An activity is a matter of “common usage” if customarily carried on by the great mass of mankind or by many people in the community. (Ahrens v. Superior Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1134, 1143.)

Examples of ultrahazardous activities include using hydrocyanic acid gas in fumigating commercial buildings (Luthringer, supra, 31 Cal.2d at p. 498), test-firing a large, solid-fuel rocket motor (Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co. (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 774, 785), oil well drilling (Green v. General Petroleum Corp. (1928) 205 Cal. 328), and using explosives in the vicinity of a residential area (Balding v. D.B. Stutsman, Inc. (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 559, 564).

Whether an activity is “ultrahazardous” for strict liability purposes is a question of law for the court to decide. (Luthringer v. Moore (1948) 31 Cal.2d 489, 496.)

Rulings for Ultrahazardous Activities in California

In fact, classification of an activity as ultrahazardous does not automatically subject one engaged in it to strict liability without regard to place or circumstances. Thus, while blasting in a developed area calls for strict liability, (Citations), blasting in an isolated area may not. (Citation.)” (Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co. (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 774, 786 [emphasis added].)

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    PSC2002747

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

Plaintiff Leonardo Gonzalez alleges claims for premises liability, negligence, and strict liability based on ultrahazardous activity. Plaintiff Mariana Gonzalez asserts a claim for loss of consortium. Defendants seek summary adjudication on the claims for strict liability and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    18STCV00162

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

Skydive Santa Barbara�s Demurrer: Defendant Skydive Santa Barbara, LLC (�Skydive�) demurs to the first and third causes of action because as a matter of law, skydiving is not an activity subject to strict liability and res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule, not a cause of action. 1. First Cause of Action for Strict Liability: Skydive contends that it was not involved in an ultrahazardous activity.

  • Name

    DANIEL CERVANTES ET AL VS SKYDIVE SANTA BARBARA LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1440054

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2014

On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for strict liability, general negligence, negligence per se, strict liability causes by domestic animal with dangerous propensities, ultrahazardous activity, trespass to property, and negligent infliction of emotional distress to a bystander. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint for general negligence, strict liability causes by domestic animal with dangerous propensities, and trespass to property.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    20STCV44843

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2021

Fourth Cause of Action – Strict Liability Defendants demur to the fourth cause of action for strict liability. Strict liability may be imposed on one who carries on ultrahazardous activity that proximately causes damage to another. (Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 983.)

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19STCV11102

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2019

Motion: Defendant moves to strike the allegations regarding ultrahazardous activity, strict liability and res ipsa loquitur. The motion to strike is moot in light of the ruling on demurrer. In the event plaintiffs decide to file an amended complaint for general negligence only, the court would strike the ultrahazardous activity and strict liability allegations as those do not belong in a general negligence cause of action.

  • Name

    DANIEL CERVANTES ET AL VS SKYDIVE SANTA BARBARA LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1440054

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2014

Fifth Cause of Action – Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity Defendant demurs because there is no ultrahazardous activity alleged. “An activity is ultrahazardous if it (a) necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land or chattels of others which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care....” (Luthringer v. Moore (1948) 31 Cal.2d 489, 498; see also Edwards v.

  • Name

    SAMI HABBAS, ET AL. VS WARNER MEDIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV16065

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

Third Cause of Action – Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activities) (Against Santa Fe-Firestone, LLC) The doctrine of ultrahazardous activity imposes strict liability for damages proximately caused by one who carries on an ultrahazardous activity.

  • Name

    THOMAS O'BRIEN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET

  • Case No.

    BC586440

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Co. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 83, 98, specifically held that the act of applying nutrient supplements and fungicides to crop land is not so inherently dangerous as to trigger strict liability. However, the Marin court was discussing application of the strict liability doctrine to subterranean tunneling, not spraying nutrient supplements and fungicides to crops.

  • Name

    NANCY OAXACA VS. DAVIS VINEYARDS INC

  • Case No.

    21CECG03554

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activities RULING : The demurrer is sustained with 60 days leave to amend. This is an insurance subrogation action.

  • Name

    FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, A CALIFORNIA INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS ARAM ABGARYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00705

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Third Cause of Action – Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activities) (Against Santa Fe-Firestone, LLC) The doctrine of ultrahazardous activity imposes strict liability for damages proximately caused by one who carries on an ultrahazardous activity.

  • Name

    THOMAS O'BRIEN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET

  • Case No.

    BC586440

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PARTIES REQUESTS Campbell asks the Court to sustain the demurrer to Plaintiffs claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and strict liability for ultrahazardous activity and grant the motion to strike Plaintiffs' punitive damage claim. Plaintiffs asks the Court to grant leave to amend the complaint. LEGAL STANDARD A.

  • Name

    STEVEN FRIEDMAN, ET AL. VS DANIEL ALLEN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV11587

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Third Cause of Action: Strict LiabilityUltrahazardous Activity Defendants demur to the third cause of action for strict liability based on ultrahazardous activity for failure to plead sufficient facts and uncertainty. Defendants contend their farming operations do not support a cause of action for strict liability based on ultrahazardous activity because family is not an ultrahazardous activity.

  • Name

    NORMA ALVARADO ET AL VS WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS LLC E

  • Case No.

    BC632250

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2017

Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 985) The theory of imposition of strict liability for ultrahazardous activity is that the danger cannot be eliminated through the use of care. Since the activity is in some sense beneficial, useful or necessary to society, the actor is not deemed negligent simply for engaging in it. Damage resulting to others, however, is taxed to the actor because he is the person who most logically should bear the cost.

  • Name

    REGALADO DELOS ANGELES VS. SHARP HEALTHCARE

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00025155-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2017

Strict Liability Ultrahazardous Strict liability is imposed for damage proximately caused by one who carries on an ultrahazardous activity. Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 983. Whether an activity is ultrahazardous is a question of law, but the nature of the decision is related to weighing facts.

  • Name

    ANDY KIERNAN, ET AL. VS ANDREW C. GEORGE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23SMCV01316

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Exhibit 2 is a court record of an unpublished ruling for which the court will take judicial notice. (2) Ultrahazardous Activity Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is for strict liability based upon ultrahazardous activity.

  • Name

    SANTA BARBARA ADVENTURE COMPANY INC VS PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE LP ET AL

  • Case No.

    17CV00551

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2017

Defendants the 1991 Lipman Family Trust, Julie Bernard, Citibrokers Real Estate Co., and Abraham Uziel's Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiff Danny Hom and Jennifer Tjon's claims for strict liability for ultrahazardous activity and breach of the warranty of habitability is GRANTED as a matter of law. Plaintiffs gave failed to meet their burden in rebuttal. = (501/RAK) - (Late Tentative)

  • Name

    DANNY HOM ET AL VS. ALLEN LEE PLUMBING CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC12520385

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2014

Fourth Cause of Action: Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activities Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action for Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activities on grounds that the complaint fails to allege an ultrahazardous activity. An activity is ultrahazardous if it (1) necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to others that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of due care; and (2) is not a matter of common usage. (See, e.g., Edwards v.

  • Name

    CHARMAINE HEADSPETH VS STAR HOOKAH LOUNGE, INC.

  • Case No.

    18STCV02009

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

Defendant Pieco, Inc.’s (“Pieco”) motion for judgment on the pleadings for Plaintiff Armstrong Oil, Inc.’s first cause of action for strict liability, is denied. Pieco’s request for judicial notice of Exhibit A (copy of Permit issued by the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources) is granted.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00881376-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2018

Defendants challenge plaintiffs’ first cause of action for strict liability based upon ultrahazardous activity.

  • Name

    SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. V. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CV02224

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2018

Treat the motion for summary adjudication as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Cause of Action for Strict Liability (ultrahazardous activity), and GRANT that Motion without leave to amend. Hosting a nightclub event, even one that includes performers who may be associated with gangs, does not constitute an ultrahazardous activity.(See Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. ((1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 984.) Hosting such an event does not ensure a likelihood of great harm.

  • Name

    VENEGAS VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2205454

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging an additional cause of action for Strict Liability of an Ultrahazardous Activity. Defendant moves for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication as to the claims of the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant has replied.

  • Name

    DAVID MARTINEZ VS THE ADLEN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC616314

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2018

CACI 460 provides the essential elements for a strict liability cause of action for ultrahazardous activates: (1) defendant was engaged in an ultrahazardous activity; (2) plaintiff was harmed; (3) plaintiff’s harm was the kind of harm that would be anticipated as a result of the risk created by the ultrahazardous activity; and (4) defendant’s ultrahazardous activity was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.

  • Name

    LUIS ANTONIO ARRENDONDO CURIEL VS. BEVMO HOLDING LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    EC067504

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2018

James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter (collectively, Defendants) demur to the second cause of action. Defendants also move to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ¿ ( Hahn v.

  • Name

    NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter (collectively, Defendants) demur to the second cause of action. Defendants also move to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ¿ ( Hahn v.

  • Name

    NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter (collectively, Defendants) demur to the second cause of action. Defendants also move to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ¿ ( Hahn v.

  • Name

    NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter (collectively, Defendants) demur to the second cause of action. Defendants also move to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ¿ ( Hahn v.

  • Name

    NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter (collectively, Defendants) demur to the second cause of action. Defendants also move to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ¿ ( Hahn v.

  • Name

    NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The parties did not reach an agreement regarding the issues raised within the demurrer and motion to strike Demurrer Defendant argues that there is no cause of action for strict liability because Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity. Defendant further argues that it is unclear whether it should respond to a strict liability claim or a negligence claim. This argument is not persuasive.

  • Name

    SCHARNELL HENDY VS REINS INTERNATIONAL CALIFORNIA, INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV15808

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2021

(Goldberg & Zipurksy, The Strict Liability in Fault and the Fault in Strict Liability (2016) 85 Fordham L. Rev. 743, 761.) Strict liability disregards the notions of fault (i.e., duty and breach) central to a negligence action. In the case of strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, liability does not arise from a plaintiffs irresponsibility for engaging in such behavior. In fact, ultrahazardous activity, used as a term of art, is not unlawful and cannot be abated . . . . (See 6 Witkin Summary Cal.

  • Name

    MICHAEL LAGUERRE, ET AL. VS MANHATTAN LOFT, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV11954

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The demurrer to the 2nd cause of action for strict liability is OVERRULED. For purposes of a demurrer, Defendant has failed to establish as a matter of law that the facts alleged are insufficient to establish an ultrahazardous activity. The demurrer to the 3rd cause of action for trespass is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend, but without prejudice if discovery reveals that the plaintiff had exclusive possession of the property. A trespass is an invasion of the interest in the exclusive possession of land.

  • Name

    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY VS. DUTRA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00919990-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2017

Strict Liability DENIED on this ground. Defendants argue that there are three main theories which would support a claim for strict liability -- wild animals, domestic animals with a propensity for violence, or ultrahazardous activities. First, in Opposition, Plaintiff argues correctly that there are triable issues of fact as to whether Merlin Z was a domestic animal or wild animal, for purposes of this doctrine of liability.

  • Name

    HEBERT VS. ADAMS

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00922018-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

On August 4, 2023, Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Westchester) filed a complaint in Case No. 23BBCV01790 against UAC, GXAerospace, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Motion & Flow Control Products, Inc., Norton Sales, Inc., Triad, and Nino for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; (3) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; (4) breach of warranties; and (5) breach of contract. Westchester alleges that NTS was insured by Westchester.

  • Name

    JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV31797

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(Warner) demurs solely to the 4th cause of action for strict liability (ultrahazardous activity) in Sami and Sandi Habbas’ 3rd Amended Complaint. Sami is an attorney who represents both himself (in pro per) and Plaintiff Sandi. Warner concurrently moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages and associated allegations of willful misconduct, conscious disregard, malice, oppression etc.

  • Name

    SAMI HABBAS, ET AL. VS WARNER MEDIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV16065

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for Strict Liability Fails as a Matter of Law The Greenes argue that Plaintiff’s third cause of action for strict liability for ultrahazardous activity fails as a matter of law for two reasons. First, in order to state such a cause of action, the defendant must be the party engaged in the ultrahazardous activity, whereas here, Plaintiff was injured when she herself shot the crossbow. (CACI 460.)

  • Name

    TAMARA ELMORE V. JEFF GREENE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18CV-0551

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

Strict Liability For Ultrahazardous Activity Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for strict liability for an ultrahazardous activity because crude oil production is not only an activity that constitutes “common usage,” but crude oil production can be undertaken in a safe manner. An activity is ultrahazardous if it (1) necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to others that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of due care; and (2) is not a matter of common usage.

  • Name

    NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Second Cause of Action To establish strict liability for ultrahazardous activities, Plaintiffs must show: 1. That [ name of defendant ] was engaged in [ insert ultrahazardous activity ]; 2. That [ name of plaintiff ] was harmed; 3. That [ name of plaintiff ]s harm was the kind of harm that would be anticipated as a result of the risk created by [ insert ultrahazardous activity ]; and 4.

  • Name

    MONIQUE ALVAREZ, ET AL. VS PROLOGIS, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV38929

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On August 4, 2023, Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Westchester) filed a complaint in Case No. 23BBCV01790 against UAC, GXAerospace, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Motion & Flow Control Products, Inc., Norton Sales, Inc., Triad, and Nino for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; (3) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; (4) breach of warranties; and (5) breach of contract. Westchester alleges that NTS was insured by Westchester.

  • Name

    JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV31797

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Further, there are no allegations that NTS purchased the MAFFS part or that it was the intended recipient of the MAFFS; rather, NTS alleges that it provided the testing chamber/space for UAC to test whether the MAFFS part worked. [1] UAC also argues that the MAFFS was not a product for the purposes of strict liability. Th e basis of strict liability is the furnishing of defective goods. ( Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1624.)

  • Name

    JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV31797

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to add a cause of action for strict liability for abnormally dangerous condition (“ultrahazardous activity”). Defendants filed an opposition on August 10, 2017, and Plaintiff filed a reply on August 16, 2017. Discussion Per CCP §473(a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (CCP §473(a)(1).)

  • Name

    MATIAS RAMOS VS LKQ CORPORATION INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC592798

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2017

Here, SC Gas demurs to the fourth cause of action for strict liability for ultrahazardous activity for failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. SC Gas argues that the fourth cause of action fails as a matter of law because natural gas distribution is not recognized as an ultrahazardous activity. In response, Plaintiffs assent to the demurrer and stipulate to voluntarily dismiss the fourth cause of action against Defendants.

  • Name

    ANA VASQUEZ, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV28986

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Second Cause of Action, Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity Defendants demur to the second cause of action, contending Plaintiffs failed to allege Defendants have ever engaged in any ultrahazardous activity. Defendants argument is that storing or releasing toxic chemicals on a property does not constitute ultrahazardous activity.

  • Name

    TODD BERTRANG, ET AL. VS IVORY HOLDINGS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV42736

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activity LADWP argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts because the operation of a water main system is not an ultra-hazardous activity as a matter of law. In Luthringer v.

  • Name

    WINNETKA VADEN VS LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER

  • Case No.

    BC713115

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activity LADWP argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts because the operation of a water main system is not an ultra-hazardous activity as a matter of law. In Luthringer v.

  • Name

    WINNETKA VADEN VS LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER

  • Case No.

    BC713115

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Clifford E. Peter Alllens deposition. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions totaling $1,985.00. Discussion Plaintiff argues that Defendants have refused to provide deposition dates for Defendant Allen.

  • Name

    NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(“TXI”) Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following three causes of action against all defendants: (1) ultrahazardous activity-strict liability, (2) premises liability, (3) negligence. On March 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint. (“FAC”) The FAC alleges three causes of action as follows: (1) ultrahazardous activity – strict liability, (2) premises liability, (3) negligence.

  • Name

    ZACHARY EMFINGER VS CALPORTLAND COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV21807

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

The modern rule of strict liability without fault for injuries resulting from an ultrahazardous activity was adopted in this state by the decision in Luthringer v. Moore (1948) 31 Cal.2d 489 [190 P.2d 1].

  • Name

    TRI-STAR DYEING & FINISHING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS BRENNTAG PACIFIC, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    23STCV00357

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court finds sufficient facts have been alleged to state a cause of action for strict liability based on Defendants Sony’s, Topanga’s, and Bernard’s engagement in an ultrahazardous activity. Defendants Sony, Topanga, and Bernard do not present authority stating Plaintiff Kenneth Johnson has to plead specific facts as to causation. Accordingly, the demurrer must be overruled as to Plaintiff Kenneth Johnson’s ultrahazardous activity cause of action.

  • Name

    KENNETH JOHNSON, AN INDIVIDUAL,, ET AL. VS SONY PICTURES TELEVISION, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV26270

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of Defendants Clifford E. Peter Allen and Timothy James Parker (collectively, Defendants). Discussion Plaintiff argues that a motion to compel is necessary because Defendants have refused good faith participation in their depositions.

  • Name

    NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

B. 4th Cause of Action for Strict Liability Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rouhani engaged in the ultrahazardous activity of “installing and providing the zip line rides at a home party.” (UMF 4.) Whether an activity is considered ultrahazardous is question for law for the court to decide. (Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 983.)

  • Name

    GUILLORY, ASHLEY VS NEJAT, NIMA

  • Case No.

    16K10688

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

[The Court notes it appears Plaintiff is alleging a cause of action for negligence per se based on Defendant’s violation of the BSA; however, Plaintiff has captioned the cause of action as one for strict liability. Strict liability is recognized in the realm of products liability and certain ultrahazardous activities; however, Plaintiff fails to cite to authority in which strict liability applies to claims involving banking transactions.]

  • Name

    JOHN ARMOUR VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

  • Case No.

    20STCV30555

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

Strict Liability and Absolute Liability Santa Clarita challenges absolute liability as a non-existent cause of action, and lack of facts supporting a claim for strict liability. Santana seeks to allege a claim for strict liability based on alleged ultrahazardous activity thereby causing property damage. Neither party addresses the standard of ultrahazardous activity.

  • Name

    MANUEL SANTANA, AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE OF AND ON BEHALF OF, THE MANUEL SANTANA FAMILY TRUST OF 1992 VS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

  • Case No.

    19STCV01865

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The complaint alleged five causes of action: (1) Civil Code § 1714.9, (2) Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activity), (3) Negligence, (4) Premises Liability, and (5) Punitive Damages. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, a firefighter, sustained severe injuries while on duty at a building fire, which resulted in a massive explosion. The complaint alleges that the Defendants stored hazardous and explosive materials in an illegal and unsafe manner.

  • Case No.

    22STCV16122

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The complaint alleged five causes of action: (1) Civil Code § 1714.9, (2) Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activity), (3) Negligence, (4) Premises Liability, and (5) Punitive Damages. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, a firefighter, sustained severe injuries while on duty at a building fire, which resulted in a massive explosion. The complaint alleges that the Defendants stored hazardous and explosive materials in an illegal and unsafe manner.

  • Name

    STEPHEN OSTERBERG VS STEVE SUNGHO LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV12786

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parkers, and Clifford E. Peter Allen (collectively, Defendants) move to bifurcate trial.

  • Name

    NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As to the third cause of action for strict liability is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that this moving defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity that caused the Plaintiffs to be harmed. As to the fourth cause of action for res ipsa loquitor negligence is overruled.

  • Name

    LACEY T PRICE ET AL VS. NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    TCU20-7641

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2020

As to the third cause of action for strict liability, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that this moving defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity that caused the Plaintiffs to be harmed. As to the fourth cause of action for res ipsa loquitor negligence, the demurrer is overruled.

  • Name

    LACEY T PRICE ET AL VS. NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    TCU20-7641

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

As to the third cause of action for strict liability is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that this moving defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity that caused the Plaintiffs to be harmed. As to the fourth cause of action for res ipsa loquitor negligence is overruled.

  • Name

    LACEY T PRICE ET AL VS. NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    TCU20-7641

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2020

In the opposition, Plaintiffs argued that triable issues of material fact precluded the granting of the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication on the cause of action for strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Plaintiff-in-Intervention, Insurance Company of the West (“Intervenor”), filed its own opposition and separate statement that largely mirrored Plaintiffs’ opposition, also on July 20, 2017.

  • Name

    CALDERON V. BIG VALLEY LABOR, INC.

  • Case No.

    15CECG03579

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2017

On October 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Premises Liability; (4) Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity; and (5) Punitive Damages. On 1/10/19, the Court heard a demurrer to Plaintiff’s causes of action for IIED, strict liability, and punitive damages.

  • Name

    CHARMAINE HEADSPETH VS STAR HOOKAH LOUNGE, INC.

  • Case No.

    18STCV02009

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2019

TR: DENY, except the unopposed motion for summary adjudication of strict liabilityultrahazardous activity. INTRODUCTION Defendant LBUSD moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of all causes of action.

  • Name

    MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC

  • Case No.

    NC060708

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

None of these facts raise a triable issue of material facts as to Big Valley’s motion concerning the strict liability for hazardous activity cause of action, and the loss of consortium cause of action. It is not disputed that welding is considered an ultrahazardous activity. As noted by Big Valley, the Garcia v. Estate of Norton (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 413, 416-418, case, held that it was.

  • Name

    CALDERON V. BIG VALLEY LABOR, INC.

  • Case No.

    15CECG03579

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2017

A plaintiff may seek recovery in a products liability case on theories of both negligence and strict liability. (Johnson v. United States Steel Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 30.) To state a cause of action for negligence a plaintiff must allege: (1) duty; (2) breach of duty; (3) legal cause; and (4) damages. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 454, 463.)

  • Name

    GAMEZ VS SEMPRA ENERGY

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00049056-CU-PL-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2024

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

Plaintiffs allege claims for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, and (4) breach of Carrier Terminal Access Agreement. On 4/2/21, the court deemed 21STCV10733 Jose Martinez, et al. v. David James Manning Trucking, Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminal, LLC (“the Martinez action” filed 3/19/21) related to this action (‘the Kinder Action.”).

  • Name

    KINDER MORGAN LIQUIDS TERMINAL LLC, ET AL. VS DAVID JAMES MANNING, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CMCV00331

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2021

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

The complaint alleged fix causes of action: (1) Civil Code § 1714.9, (2) Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activity), (3) Negligence, (4) Premises Liability, and (5) Punitive Damages. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs, firefighters, sustained severe injuries while on duty at a building fire, which resulted in a massive explosion. The complaint alleges that the Defendants stored hazardous and explosive materials in an illegal and unsafe manner.

  • Name

    KENNETH FRASER, ET AL. VS STEVE SUNGHO LEE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV15019

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Whether an activity is ultrahazardous for strict liability is a question of law. ( Luthringer v. Moore (1948) 31 Cal.2d 489, 496.)

  • Name

    VICTOR AGUIRRE, ET AL. VS STEVE SUNGHO LEE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV34010

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (RCALA) moves to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer, such as words, phrases, and prayers for damages. ( See Code Civ Proc., §§ 435-437.)

  • Case No.

    21STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049 [strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, and joint and several liability versus several liability]; Carlin v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4 th 1104 [strict liability and breach of warranty]; Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413 [strict liability]; Pierce v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 68 [strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, and breach of implied warranty]; Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.

  • Name

    JUUL LABS PRODUCT CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP5052

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The complaint in the OCSC Case alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; and (3) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities. (See Mot. at OCSC Case Complaint.) In support of the motion, Zurich and Interstate provide the declaration of their counsel Barrett Kiernan. Mr.

  • Name

    JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV31797

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The complaint alleged fix causes of action: (1) Civil Code § 1714.9, (2) Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activity), (3) Negligence, (4) Premises Liability, and (5) Punitive Damages. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, a firefighter, sustained severe injuries while on duty at a building fire, which resulted in a massive explosion. The complaint alleges that the Defendants stored hazardous and explosive materials in an illegal and unsafe manner.

  • Name

    STEPHEN OSTERBERG VS STEVE SUNGHO LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV12786

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter Allen (collectively, Moving Defendants) move for a stay of proceedings, pending the outcome of the ongoing parallel criminal matter.

  • Name

    NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Occasion On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Trespass, Private Nuisance Continuing, Public Nuisance Continuing, Negligence, Inverse Condemnation, Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Fraudulent Concealment. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On July 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their 261 paragraph second amended complaint. On January 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint.

  • Name

    KATARINA FORD, ET AL. VS FIVE POINT HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV44809

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(“TXI”) Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following three causes of action against all defendants: (1) ultrahazardous activity-strict liability, (2) premises liability, (3) negligence. Calportland now moves to strike punitive damages from Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

  • Name

    ZACHARY EMFINGER VS CALPORTLAND COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV21807

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

On October 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Premises Liability; (4) Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity; and (5) Punitive Damages.

  • Name

    CHARMAINE HEADSPETH VS STAR HOOKAH LOUNGE, INC.

  • Case No.

    18STCV02009

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2019

LBUSD contends that it cannot be liable for under a theory of strict liability/ultrahazardous activities because it is a government entity. Government liability is only allowed via express statutory provisions. (Gov’t Code §815) “Strict products liability is a unique, court-fashioned doctrine. In an action based on the doctrine, negligence or culpability is not a necessary ingredient; the plaintiff may recover on proof that the product was defective.

  • Name

    MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC

  • Case No.

    NC060708

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2019

The causes of action in the complaint are: 1) premises liability, 2) general negligence, 3) products liability (strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied and express warranties; and 4) negligence per se. Kaufman has since added former “Doe” defendants Rockber Partners, LLC (later dismissed); Daketta Los Carneros, LLC; Hurst Enterprises, Inc.; Meridian Group Real Estate Management, Inc.; Beyond Heating and Air, Inc.

  • Name

    RYAN KAUFMAN VS APEEL TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    17CV03060

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2018

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) trespass; (4) permanent private nuisance; (5) permanent public nuisance; (6) continuing private nuisance; (7) continuing public nuisance; (8) unfair competition; and (9) strict liability for ultrahazardous materials. Prospective Intervenor moves the Court to intervene and for a stay to file a Complaint against Defendant. Defendant opposes the motion. The Court has considered the motion and opposition.

  • Name

    NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY VS TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION SOUTH, INC.

  • Case No.

    19STCV15408

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Based on the foregoing, on 8/30/22, Plaintiff filed its complaint for equitable subrogation for damages to property alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) gross negligence and (4) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.

  • Name

    FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, A CALIFORNIA INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS ARAM ABGARYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00705

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendants base their demurrer as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity exclusively on a respondent superior theory, alleging that because the plaintiffs failed to identify the individual employee who was responsible for the negligent spraying of Vulcan pesticide, that they have inadequately pled a cause of action for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity.

  • Name

    GRUENBACHER V. PATTERSON ENTERPRISES LP

  • Case No.

    VCU 275009

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2019

The complaint, filed on September 28, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; (3) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; (4) breach of warranties; (5) breach of contract; (6) right of survivorship; and (7) punitive damages. On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Doe 1 as JCC California Properties, LLC (JCC CP). On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice Defendant ETCR, Inc.

  • Name

    JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV31797

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

.; and (5) Strict Liability Ultrahazardous Activity against Defendants, American Dark Fiber, LLC, HP Communications, Inc., S&B Construction Services, Inc., Steven Anstead, and DOES 1 through 100. On February 14, 2023, S&B propounded written discovery on Plaintiff comprised of Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. S&B notes that Plaintiffs responses were initially due on March 20, 2023.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH

  • Case No.

    22TRCV00467

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BACKGROUND On April 5, 2022, Plaintiffs Steven Friedman and Janis Friedman filed this action against Defendants Daniel Allen (Allen), Dana Campbell, 21st Century Company, and Does 1-100 for negligence (including negligence per se), infliction of emotional distress, strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, and declaratory relief.

  • Name

    STEVEN FRIEDMAN, ET AL. VS DANIEL ALLEN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV11587

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Trespass, Private Nuisance Continuing, Public Nuisance Continuing, Negligence, Inverse Condemnation, Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Fraudulent Concealment. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On July 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their 261 paragraph second amended complaint.

  • Name

    KATARINA FORD, ET AL. VS FIVE POINT HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV44809

  • Hearing

    May 27, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Trespass, Private Nuisance Continuing, Public Nuisance Continuing, Negligence, Inverse Condemnation, Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Fraudulent Concealment. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On July 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their 261 paragraph second amended complaint. On January 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint.

  • Name

    KATARINA FORD, ET AL. VS FIVE POINT HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV44809

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Well-Pict's Request for Summary Judgment is Denied Plaintiff's Complaint asserts four causes of action against Defendant Well-Pict: the first cause of action for negligence, the third cause of action for strict liability based on ultrahazardous activity, the fifth cause of action for willful misconduct, and the seventh cause of action for premises liability.

  • Name

    MORALES VS WELL-PICT

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00481672-CU-TT-VTA

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2016

Such a rule would, quite anomalously, equate natural conditions with dangerous animals, ultrahazardous activities, or defective products, for which strict liability is reserved. [Citations.] On the contrary, as we shall explain, where injury is allegedly caused by a natural condition, the imposition of liability on a nuisance theory, as a practical matter, requires a finding that there was negligence in dealing with it.”)

  • Name

    JONES VS TZEN-WEN

  • Case No.

    MSC17-01167

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2017

Twenty-sixth cause of action strict liability Defendant contends that strict liability does not apply because it is a landlord, not a manufacturer or seller of any product. In their opposition, Plaintiffs argue that they are proceeding on an ultrahazardous theory of liability through the allegations of a defective elevator.

  • Name

    MICHAEL LAGUERRE, ET AL. VS MANHATTAN LOFT, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV11954

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendant Archdiocese of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves for summary judgment of Plaintiffs Complaint.

  • Name

    NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV49421

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court granted BATO’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s claim for Strict LiabilityUltrahazardous Activity; and the Court treated BATO’s arguments pertaining to Fraudulent Concealment and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings—which was GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend.

  • Name

    THOMAS O'BRIEN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET

  • Case No.

    BC586440

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Strict Liability Ultrahazardous Activity 6. Assault 7. Battery 8. Public Nuisance 9. IIED 10. NIED The crux of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that the individual plaintiff suffered arsenic poisoning in connection with the clean-up of an LBUSD site, and the entity plaintiff incurred economic damages as a result of the toxic site. Plaintiffs’ operative complaint is the Third Amended Complaint, filed on 7/11/18.

  • Name

    MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC

  • Case No.

    NC060708

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

“It has also been indicated that liability in nuisance may result from intentional acts, from negligence, or from strict liability as a result of engagement in ultrahazardous activity.” (Tint v. Sanborn (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1225, 1228.) Here, Plaintiffs have pled this as an intentional act—not mere negligence. Thus, it is not duplicative. Even so, duplicative claims are not a basis to sustain a demurrer. (Blickman Turkus, LP v.

  • Name

    BAADE VS GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY II HOLDINGS, L.P.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2201044

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2022

“It has also been indicated that liability in nuisance may result from intentional acts, from negligence, or from strict liability as a result of engagement in ultrahazardous activity.” (Tint v. Sanborn (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1225, 1228.) Here, Plaintiffs have pled this as an intentional act—not mere negligence. Thus, it is not duplicative. Even so, duplicative claims are not a basis to sustain a demurrer. (Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 889-890.)

  • Case No.

    ['CVRI2201044', 'CVRI2201044', 'CVRI2201044', 'CVRI2201044']

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2022

Strict Liability Ultrahazardous Activity 6. Assault 7. Battery 8. Public Nuisance 9. IIED 10. NIED The crux of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that the individual plaintiff suffered arsenic poisoning in connection with the clean-up of an LBUSD site, and the entity plaintiff incurred economic damages as a result of the toxic site. Plaintiffs’ operative complaint is the Third Amended Complaint, filed on 7/11/18.

  • Name

    MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC

  • Case No.

    NC060708

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

Plaintiffs assert 10 causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; (3) continuing private nuisance; (4) permanent private nuisance; (5) continuing public nuisance; (6) permanent public nuisance; (7) inverse condemnation; (8) dangerous condition of public property; (9) fraudulent concealment; and (10) trespass. Here, LA City demurs to the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and tenth causes of action.

  • Name

    MONIQUE ALVAREZ, ET AL. VS PROLOGIS, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV38929

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jeffrey Cremeans (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Southern California Edison Company (“Defendant”) on July 16, 2018, alleging causes of action for: negligence; strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; strict products liability; and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Name

    JEFFREY CREMEANS VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC714247

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

On January 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (TAC) with additional plaintiffs totaling 161, against Defendants for (1) Trespass; (2) Private Nuisance Continuing; (3) Public Nuisance Continuing; (4) Negligence; (5) Inverse Condemnation; (6) Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activities; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (8) Fraudulent Concealment.

  • Name

    KATARINA FORD, ET AL. VS FIVE POINT HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV44809

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope