Defendant Olympic Town, LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED as to the first cause of action, without leave to amend, and OVERRULED as to the second cause of action.
Defendant demurs to each cause of action in the Complaint
Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitor (First Cause of Action)
Defendant argues that the first cause of action should be dismissed because res ipsa loquitor is an evidentiary doctrine, rather than an independent cause of action. As noted by Defendant, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is codified in Evidence Code Section 646(b). “Res ipsa loquitur is a rule concerning the presentation of evidence; it is not an independent ground of liability. Thus, appellants could not invoke the doctrine as their theory of recovery.” (Gicking v. Kimberlin (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 73, 78 (internal citations omitted); Dorswitt v. Wilson (1942) 51 Cal.App.2d 623, 625 (“That is only a rule of evidence raising an inference of negligence from proved facts and not an independent
Hearing Date
September 14, 2016
Type
Other Intentional Tort-notPI/WD/PD (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendant Olympic Town, LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED as to the first cause of action, without leave to amend, and OVERRULED as to the second cause of action.
Defendant demurs to each cause of action in the Complaint
Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitor (First Cause of Action)
Defendant argues that the first cause of action should be dismissed because res ipsa loquitor is an evidentiary doctrine, rather than an independent cause of action. As noted by Defendant, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is codified in Evidence Code Section 646(b). “Res ipsa loquitur is a rule concerning the presentation of evidence; it is not an independent ground of liability. Thus, appellants could not invoke the doctrine as their theory of recovery.” (Gicking v. Kimberlin (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 73, 78 (internal citations omitted); Dorswitt v. Wilson (1942) 51 Cal.App.2d 623, 625 (“That is only a rule of evidence raising an inference of negligence from proved facts and not an independent