Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/products-liability-negligent-products-liability-194
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 03:43:44
Document Index: 357721810

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 447', '§ 430', '§436', '§ 437', '§ 360', '§ 437']

Negligence in Products Liability Actions in California are governed by principles of Common Law and the Judicial Council of California’s Jury Instructions (“CACI”).
CACI 1220. Negligence — Essential Factual Elements
To establish a claim for “a manufacturing or design defect under a negligence theory...”
Inspected; or
The product that caused the harm (“the product”);
Even absent privity between the Plaintiff and Defendant;
“[S]ellers, lessors, donors, or lenders...whether the [product] is made by them or by a third person;”
Repair professionals who return the product in a defective manner they undertook to repair; and
Defendant was legally negligent in
Repairing; or
Renting the product;
Retrofit (CACI 1223 “Recall/Retrofit”);
Defendant’s Duty of Care - Defendant owes plaintiff a duty of care if the product is of the type that can endanger others when made negligently. See, e.g., Ky. Fried Chicken of California v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal.4th 814.
Basic Standard of Care (CACI 1221 “Negligence”) – Generally, a Defendant is negligent if that party fails to use the amount of care:
That a reasonably careful party would in
In similar circumstances;
To avoid exposing others to a foreseeable risk of harm;
Extending to “all persons within the range of potential danger.” Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp.
Designing the product so that “it can be safely used as intended.” Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135);
Includes Defendant’s Duty to Warn (CACI 1222), wherein:
Sold the product; and
Knew; or
Reasonably should have known that:
The Product was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when:
In a reasonably foreseeable manner; and
Reasonably should have known;
That users would not realize the danger; and
Defendant failed to adequately:
Warn of the Product’s danger; or
Instruct on the Product’s safe use; and
In prescription drug cases: The warning of or instructions to avoid the Product’s danger must:
Be given to the prescribing physician;
With a continuing duty as long as the product is in use; and
Include the potential risks or side effects that may follow the foreseeable use of the product; and
That a reasonable Manufacturer, Distributor or Seller under:
Similar circumstances;
Warned of the Product’s danger; or
Instructed on the Product’s safe use; and
That Defendant’s failure to warn or instruct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
Balancing Test – In assessing a reasonable standard of care, the fact-finder should balance:
What the Defendant:
“[K]new; or
Should have known about:
Severity of potential harm from the product”;
Against the burden of taking safety measures to reduce or avoid the harm.
Defendant’s negligence “was a substantial factor in causing” Plaintiff’s harm.
Renters of Property (CACI No. 1224)
A person who rents products to others for money is negligent if they:
Fails to use reasonable care to:
Inspect the products for defects;
Make them safe for their intended use; and
Adequately warn of any known dangers.
“Here, as in Howard, Plaintiffs are pursuing theories of negligence and design defect against Defendant. As a result, evidence of industry customs or standards is admissible. While Howard assesses the admissibility of such evidence in the summary judgment context, it cites to Hernandez v. Badger Construction Equipment Co. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 1791, 1830-1831 – as noted above – for the proposition that compliance with regulations, directives or trade custom does not necessarily eliminate negligence but instead simply constitutes evidence for jury consideration with other facts and circumstances.” Qer Lee Vs. Cobbs Bus Service LL, 34-2009-00035502-CU-PA-GDS (1/22/18) (https://trellis.law/ruling/34-2009-00035502-CU-PA-GDS/qer-lee-vs-cobbs-bus-service-llc/20180122679928).
Compare to Strict Liability
In contrast to a strict liability theory, a plaintiff alleging negligence by the defendant must also prove...that the defect in the product was due to Defendant’s negligence.
Both negligence and strict liability theories may be alleged in a single action. See, e.g., Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379.
A Defendant can be negligent even after purchasing defective parts from another. See, e.g., Sheward v. Virtue (1942) 20 Cal.2d 410.
Plaintiff shifts the initial burden of proof to Defendant by producing produce evidence of:
Plaintiff’s Harm;
While using the product in its intended or reasonably foreseeable manner;
Sophisticated User -- (CACI No. 1244)
A Defendant can disclaim liability:
Based on a failure to warn
Because Plaintiff is a sophisticated user of the product if Defendant can prove:
At the time of the injury;
Plaintiff, because of Plaintiff’s particular
Of the Product’s
Product Misuse or Modification (CACI No. 1245)
Defendant can disclaim liability for Plaintiff’s claimed harm by proving:
The Product was;
Misused; or
After it left Defendant’s possession; and
The misuse; or
Was so highly extraordinary that it was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant;
And should be considered as the sole cause of Plaintiff’s harm.
Inherently Unsafe Consumer Product (CACI No. 1248)
A defendant can disclaim liability for Plaintiff’s claimed harm by proving:
The product is a common consumer product intended for personal consumption; and
The product is inherently unsafe;
But [product] is no more dangerous than what:
An ordinary consumer of the product
Common to the community
Affirmative Defenses For Government Contractors
Against Design Defect (CACI No. 1246)
Defendant may disclaim liability for design about the Product’s dangers by proving:
Defendant contracted with the U.S. government to provide the Product for military use;
The U.S. approved reasonably precise specifications on the Defendant for the product;
The product conformed to those specifications; and
Defendant warned the U.S. about the dangers in the use of the product that were known to Defendant but not to the U.S.
Against Failure to Warn (CACI No. 1247)
Defendant may disclaim liability for failure to warn about the Product’s dangers by proving:
The U.S. imposed reasonably precise specifications on the Defendant regarding the provision of the product’s warnings;
The product conformed to those warning specifications; and
“Misuse of a product, such as to defeat strict products liability, is an affirmative defense: Product misuse, an affirmative defense, is a superseding cause of injury that absolves a tortfeasor of his or her own wrongful conduct only when the misuse was “ 'so highly extraordinary as to be unforeseeable.' ” (Perez v. VAS S.p.A. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 658, 685, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 590; see Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 573, fn. 9, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 882 P.2d 298 [complete defense of superseding cause appropriate when “an independent event intervenes in the chain of causation, producing harm of a kind and degree so far beyond the risk the original tortfeasor should have foreseen that the law deems it unfair to hold him responsible”]; see generally CACI No. 1245 [“Affirmative Defense—Product Misuse or Modification”].) “However, foreseeability is a question for the jury unless undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion.” (Torres v. Xomox Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1, 19, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 455.) Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal. App. 4th 1283, 1308.
“The elements of a products liability claim based on failure to warn are: (1) defendant manufactured, distributed, and/or sold the product; (2) the product had potential risks, side effects, and/or allergic reactions that were known at the time of manufacture, distribution, and/or sale; (3) the potential risks, side effects, and/or allergic reactions presented a substantial danger to users of the product; (4) ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks, side effects, allergic reactions; (5) defendant failed to adequately warn or instruct of the potential risks, side effects, and/or allergic reactions; (6) plaintiff used the product in a reasonably foreseeable way; ; (7) the lack of sufficient instructions or warnings was a substantial factor in causing name of plaintiff's harm. CACI 1205.
“Another affirmative defense, specific to failure to warn, is that of sophisticated user. “The sophisticated user defense exempts manufacturers from their typical obligation to provide product users with warnings about the products' potential hazards. (In re Asbestos, supra, 543 F.Supp. at p. 1151.) The defense is considered an exception to the manufacturer's general duty to warn consumers, and therefore, in most jurisdictions, if successfully argued, acts as an affirmative defense to negate the manufacturer's duty to warn. (Ibid.)” Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 56, 65. A manufacturer is not liable to a sophisticated user of its product for failure to warn of a risk, harm, or danger, if the sophisticated user knew or should have known of that risk, harm, or danger. It would be nearly impossible for a manufacturer to predict or determine whether a given user or member of the sophisticated group actually has knowledge of the dangers because of the infinite number of user idiosyncrasies. For example, given users may have misread their training manuals, failed to study the information in those manuals, or simply forgotten what they were taught. However, individuals who represent that they are trained or are members of a sophisticated group of users are saying to the world that they possess the level of knowledge and skill associated with that class. If they do not actually possess that knowledge and skill, that fact should not give rise to liability on the part of the manufacturer. Id., 43 Cal. 4th at 71.
“Although California law recognizes the differences between negligence and strict liability causes of action, the sophisticated user defense is applicable to both. 43 Cal. 4th at 71. The elements of negligence are: (1) defendant’s legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct to protect the plaintiff; (2) defendant failed to meet this standard of conduct; (3) causation; (4) damages. Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917.
“Here, JLG’s motion is premised on the contention that Plaintiff unlatched the mid-rail chain. Each of its arguments stem from here: the unlatched chain (among other actions) was unforeseeable misuse, the chain wasn’t defective it just wasn’t used, no defect in the chain caused the fall given that the chain was unlatched and out of position, the chain didn’t fail to meet the consumer expectation test since it wasn’t used, no warning failure caused the accident when Plaintiff knew he was supposed to latch the chain but did not.
“But whether the mid-chain was unlatched is not an undisputed fact. There is circumstantial evidence on both sides that would permit the trier of fact to draw conflicting inferences. [Gillette Depo. 105-08, 11-31; Evans Depo. at 99-101, 145-47, 150, 221-24, 227-28, 232, 33 and exs. 5 and 12; Gillette Depo. at 86, 103-04; Figueroa Depo. at 171.]
“The sophisticated user defense is an affirmative defense that must be separately pleaded and proved as to factual elements that are in addition to the strict liability or negligence claim itself. CACI 1244. The defendant must plead and prove that the plaintiff, because of his position training, experience, knowledge or skill, knew or should have known of the product’s risk or danger. Id...
“It is less clear whether ‘open and obvious danger’ is an affirmative defense (which a defendant must plead and prove) or part of the denial that a given defendant had a duty to warn (which the plaintiff must plead and prove). Also, while JLG does not allege an affirmative defense called ‘open and obvious,’ arguably – and JLG argues it on reply -- the allegations under ‘assumption of the risk’ are sufficient.
“Whether the danger Plaintiff succumbed to was open and obvious depends at least in part on what danger he succumbed to – that is, how did he fall? Again, however, this is not a matter of undisputed fact. Moreover, whether the set of facts surrounding the lift and the accident reflect an open and obvious danger should be a matter weighed and decided by the jury. See Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1308 (‘’foreseeability is a question for the jury unless undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion.’ (Torres v. Xomox Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1, 19, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 455.)”); Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 180 (‘Reasonable reliance depends on all attendant circumstances and is typically a question of fact for the jury.’). Camacho Vs. JLG Industries, Inc., 30-2017-00902499-CU-PO-CJC (11/14/2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/30-2017-00902499-CU-PO-CJC/camacho-vs-jlg-industries-inc/20191114b4b00f).
Evidence that a Misuse or Modification of a Product contributed substantially to the Plaintiff’s harm can be considered in a negligence case as in Strict Liability;
CACI No. 1207A, Strict Liability—Comparative Fault of Plaintiff; and
CACI No. 1207B, Strict Liability—Comparative Fault of Third Person
“Otis argues that both these indemnity clauses are “Type III” and that under MacDonald & Kruse, Inc. v. San Jose Steel Co. (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 413, 420 any negligence by Sierra (indemnitee) or a third party would bar indemnification by Otis (indemnitor). This all or nothing rule has not been applied strictly in later indemnity cases. (See, e.g., Hernandez v. Badger Construction Equipment Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1791.) As Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc. (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 622, explained, the active-passive negligence dichotomy was not dispositive, and instead “whether an indemnity agreement covers a given case turns primarily on contractual interpretation, and it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the agreement that should control.” (Id. at 632-33.)” Zapotoczny vs. Schindler Elevator, MSC14-01279 (8/29/2017) (https://trellis.law/ruling/MSC14-01279/zapotoczny-vs-schindler-elevator/201709292f832e).
“Defendant argues the warning on the product was adequate and bars Plaintiff’s claims. “An adequate warning is a sufficient defense to a strict liability action,” and it “would also negate any negligence or willful misconduct.” (Temple v. Velcro USA, Inc. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 1090, 1094.) Interpretation of a warning in a written document is a question of law for the trial court to determine. (Id. at p. 1095.) While an adequate warning is not “invariably ‘a sufficient defense to a strict liability action’” (Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1557), it may be where there is evidence of “conscious, deliberate disregard of a safety notice or measure.” (Id. at p. 1560.)
“Here, the warning stated “Sunburn Alert,” that the use of the product could increase the possibility of sunburn, and that the user should use sunscreen. Plaintiff testified she read the box about being susceptible to sunburn when using the product. Defendant argues Plaintiff was exposed to sun outside and when driving with the car window down. Plaintiff testified that she was in and out of the car during the day delivering packages and drove with the window down at times. Plaintiff’s daughter testifed Plaintiff would drive with the windows down if there was a breeze. Defendant points out the blisters occurred only on Plaintiff’s left side of the neck and shoulder and back of the neck. Plaintiff testified the blisters occurred where the sun was shining in the window of her car.
“Defendant has established a prima facie case that Plaintiff disregarded the safety notice about the possibility of sunburn on the areas of her body exposed to the sun when she was driving and out of the car. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion or dispute any of Defendant’s facts… In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.” Allison Nichols vs. Sephora USA Inc Et Al, BC689458 (10/17-2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC689458/allison-nichols-vs-sephora-usa-inc-et-al/2019101702c7cf).
“‘[T]hird party negligence which is the immediate cause of an injury may be viewed as a superseding cause when it is so highly extraordinary as to be unforeseeable.’ (Torres v. Xomox Corp., supra, 49 Cal. App. 4th at p. 18; see also Rest.2d Torts, § 447.) ‘[F]oreseeability is question for the jury unless undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion,’ and ‘[t]hus, the issue of superseding cause is generally one of fact.’ ( Torres v. Xomox Corp., supra, 49 Cal. App. 4th at p. 19; see also Ford Motor Co. v. Wagoner, supra, 192 S.W.2d at p. 845.) Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1558.” Hilario Cruz vs. Solomon Methenge, BC493949 (5/18/17) (https://trellis.law/ruling/BC493949/hilario-cruz-vs-solomon-methenge/20170518dbf3d6).
Under the judicial doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, a Plaintiff makes a prima facie case of negligence by showing:
The accident is of a nature it usually does not occur without negligence;
The accident involved a product in the exclusive control of Defendant;
The product was not:
Improperly handled; or
Changed in condition;
After leaving Defendant’s exclusive control; and
The accident was not caused in any way by Plaintiff’s
Voluntary action; or
“The court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's reliance on res ipsa loquitor as to the strict liability and warranty claims. Tresham v. Ford Motor Co. (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 403 specifically precludes application of this doctrine to either of these claims.
“Historically, strict liability in tort evolves from warranty and as in warranty it does not involve any form of negligence. (3) "The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur relates to cases involving negligence and has no application to an alleged breach of warranty. [Citations.]" (Trust v. Arden Farms Co., 50 Cal.2d 217, 223 [324 P.2d 583, 81 A.L.R.2d 332].) There is no reason in law or logic why the doctrine embedded in the instruction requested by appellants should be extended to include the type of case before this court. As stated in McCurter v. Norton Co., 263 Cal.App.2d 402, 408 [69 Cal.Rptr. 493]: "Appellant does not argue that in a strict liability case the burden of proof resting on him to show that the article was defective when it left the hands of the manufacturer, can be satisfied by invoking the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Indeed, such an attempt would be futile. (4) When a party relies on the rule of strict liability the requirement of showing a defect cannot be satisfied by reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur." Tresham, 275 Cal.App.2d at 407–408. Nor is the court persuaded by Plaintiff's reliance on Gherna on this issue because the discussion of res ipsa loquitur is in the context of the negligence cause of action, not the strict liability and warranty causes of action.” Sadowski Vs. Volvo Car USA LLC, 37-2018-00031698-CU-PA-CTL (8/12/2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/37-2018-00031698-CU-PA-CTL/sadowski-vs-volvo-car-usa-llc/20190912eac4a2).
California Evidence Code, Section 1151
Evidence of a manufacturer’s or seller’s efforts to remedy or repair a product’s defect:
Completed after the event that injured the Plaintiff;
Are inadmissible to prove negligence or liability;
Except where independently relevant to an issue other negligence.
Additional Trellis Case:
“A cause of action for negligent products liability requires a showing that the defendant negligently caused a defect in a product, the defect existed when it left the defendant’s hands, and the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries. (Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 383.) A failure to warn can constitute a defect. (Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 717). A demurrer can be sustained where one cause of action is duplicative of another cause of action. (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)
“The complaint alleges Demurring Defendant Kew owned, operated, maintained, repaired, inspected, and controlled a McDonalds where Plaintiff purchased a cup of coffee… The cup malfunctioned and caused the ultra-hot contents to spill onto Plaintiff’s body causing harm… Demurring Defendant misrepresented to the public, including Plaintiff, that the cup was safe and free from defects and the product within was safe for consumption… Demurring Defendant failed to disclose that the product was harmful… Demurring Defendant failed to disclose the harmful dangers of the product and its packaging despite said dangers being known and longstanding… Demurring Defendant concealed that individuals that ingested or consumed and/or handled the products faced a substantial risk of suffering severe and permanent negative injuries, including the risk of death...
The Court finds Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for negligent products liability. Plaintiff’s allegations show that facts have been alleged to support each element of negligent products liability.” Yvonne Kor vs. McDonald’s 16007, 19STCV19179 (11/4/2019) (https://trellis.law/ruling/19STCV19179/yvonne-kor-vs-mcdonalds-16007-et-al/20191104472f77).
Useful Rulings on Products Liability – Negligent Products Liability
JAMES NICHOLS VS WALGREEN CO., ET AL.
Demurrer without Motion to Strike Having considered the demurring, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On March 1, 2019, Plaintiff James Nichols (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Walgreen Co. and Walgreens Family of Companies alleging negligence for a wrongful prescription of Prednisone instead of Primidone on March 2, 2017. On July 29, 2019, Pla...
..Defendant”) requests that the Court sustain its demurrer to the initially filed complaint arguing that Plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations and Moving Defendant cannot be found liable for products liability. LEGAL STANDARD Meet and Confer Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the p...
Demurrer with Motion to Strike Having considered the demurring, moving, and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply papers were filed. BACKGROUND On May 31, 2019, Plaintiff Yvonne Kor (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants McDonald’s 16007, Kew Enterprises, Inc., and L. & B. Foods, Inc. alleging strict products liability-failure to warn, strict products liability-negli...
..ons of the complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 435. Trial is set for November 30, 2020. PARTY’S REQUESTS Defendant Kew Enterprises, Inc. (“Demurring Defendant”) asks the Court to sustain its demurrer to Plaintiff’s strict products liability-negligence cause of action and fraud cause of action for failing to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. De...
MARTHA MACHADO VS HELEN GRACE CHOCOLATES LLC ET AL
# 6. Martha Machado v. Helen Grace Chocolates LLC, et al. - Case No.: BC644376 Matter on calendar for: Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication Tentative ruling: See below Background On March 29, 2018, Plaintiff Martha Machado filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Helen Grace Chocolates, LLC (“HGC”), BFC Financial Corporation (owner of HGC), Eastey Enterprises, Inc., and...
..8, this court approved a good faith settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants Helen Grace Chocolates and BFC Financial Corporation. Defendants Engage Technologies Corporation and Eastey Enterprises, Inc. now move the court for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s Complaint. Standard A “motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submi...
LIN JOON OH ET AL VS TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ET AL
OH v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA CASE NO.: BC629958 HEARING: 05/09/17 #1 TENTATIVE ORDER I. Defendants TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC., and JRT REALTY GROUP, INC.’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. C.C.P....
..t amended complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend in part, and SUSTAINED without leave to amend in part. C.C.P. § 430.10(e).) IV. Defendant SHIN-ETSU SILICONES OF AMERICA, INC.’s motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint is GRANTED with 20 days leave to amend. C.C.P. C.C.P. §436. Moving Parties to give Notice This wrongful death/products liability action was...
LUIS TISNADO VS HYTROL CONVEYOR COMPANY INC ET AL
LUIS TISNADO, Plaintiff(s), vs. HYTROL CONVEYOR COMPANY, INC., ET AL., Defendant(s).CASE NO: BC569315[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATIONBackground FactsPlaintiff, Luis Tisnado filed this action against Defendants, Hytrol Conveyor Company, Inc., Fletchline, Inc., and Florstor Engineering, Inc. for damages arising out of an incident that occurred when he reached his ha...
..he subject conveyor system. Hytrol designed and manufactured the conveyor system component parts, including the two-pulley hitch. FloStor hired Moving Defendant, Fletchline to install the conveyor system.The complaint inclu...
Recent Rulings on Products Liability – Negligent Products Liability
., 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. The FAC alleges duty, breach, and causation. (See Gonzalez v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 780, 793; see also FAC ¶¶ 58-66.) The FAC does not clearly establish the learned intermediary affirmative defense on its face. (See Stella v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc., (2017) 8 Cal.
The Complaint asserted causes of action for res ipsa loquitur, negligent products liability, and negligence against Best Buy, and contended that the flex line was not properly connected to the washing machine, causing a leak. (UMF 3.) Among Plaintiffs’ claims against Best Buy was the allegation that the washing machine was negligently installed. (UMF 4.) The FAC contains similar allegations. (UMF 5.)
BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. V. STYLE-LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.
In its opposition Style-Line claims that its “equitable indemnity claims are based on strict and negligent products liability,” citing the FACC at paragraph 26. However, the FACC makes no mention of products liability, strict or negligence.
TU THI VO ET AL VS MIGHTY U S A INC
The complaint alleges strict and negligent products liability, breach of express and implied warranties, and negligence for a milling machine malfunctioning and killing Decedent Tuan Anh Cao on January 20, 2017. On November 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint to name Defendants Mighty Enterprises, Inc., Machine Group, Inc., Acromil Corporation, and She Hong Industrial Co. LTD. On January 17, 2019, the Court dismissed Defendant Acromi Corporatioon without prejudice.
CLAUDIA VENEGAS VS SAN PEDRO FISH AND OYSTER CORPORATION
PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff asks the Court to grant leave for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) to allege a third cause of action for strict and negligent products liability against Doe Defendants.
., and Merit Bioacquisition Co. for medical malpractice, medical battery, medical malpractice – lack of informed consent, strict products liability – design and/or manufacturing defect, negligent products liability – failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and misrepresentation.
NUNEZ ET AL. V. MAZDA MOTOR CORP. ET AL.
Motion: Motions for Summary Adjudication by Mazda Motor Corporation and Mazda North America Operations Tentative Ruling: To grant Mazda Motor of America, Inc. dba Mazda North American Operations’ (“MNAO”) motion for summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages and second cause of action for negligent products liability. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(1).) To deny Mazda Motor Corporation’ (“MC”) motion for summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. (Code Civ.
PETRONILA GONZALEZ VS NUTRIBULLET LEAN LLC
BACKGROUND On February 1, 2018, Plaintiff Petronila Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Nutribullet Lean, LLC, who subsequently represented itself as Defendant Nutribullet, LLC, (“Defendant”) alleging strict and negligent products liability and negligence for injuries sustained when removing an extractor blade from a Nutribullet on December 9, 2017.
The Court finds Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for negligent products liability. Plaintiff’s allegations show that facts have been alleged to support each element of negligent products liability. Demurring Defendant chooses to focus its attention on the title of Plaintiff’s second cause of action in the demurrer, as opposed to the substance of the allegations in this cause of action.
Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) strict products liability; (2) negligent products liability; (3) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act; (4) breach of implied warranty under California Commercial Code, Section 2314; and (5) negligence (wrongful death and personal injuries).
ALMIR MANSILLA VS HAAS AUTOMATION INC ET AL
Negligent Products Liability The doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not apply to claims for negligent products liability. (See Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 547, 562-565 (explaining why primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to claims for strict products liability); see also Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1300-1302 (applying the ruling in Milwaukee to products liability based on negligence).)
Demurrer – Negligent Products Liability A cause of action for negligent products liability requires a showing that the defendant negligently caused a defect in a product, the defect existed when it left the defendant’s hands, and the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries. (Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 383.) A failure to warn can constitute a defect. (Oxford v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 700, 717).
Defendant is entitled to Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for Negligent Products Liability Because PPC was Not Negligent in its Design of the Table Defendant is entitled to Summary Adjudication of Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for General Negligence because PCC Did Not Breach a Legal Duty Motion is DENIED. Defendant PPC argues that the plaintiff will be unable to show that defendant acted unreasonably in its design of the table.
Plaintiff brought causes of action for: General Negligence; Strict Products Liability; Negligent Products Liability; Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; Fraudulent Concealment; and Battery. On December 20, 2018, this court approved a good faith settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants Helen Grace Chocolates and BFC Financial Corporation.
LILY DEUTSCH ET AL VS POLY & BARK ET AL
(collectively, “Defendants”) for strict products liability, negligent products liability, breach of warranty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of a September 7, 2017 incident where a sculpture coffee table purchased from Defendants broke, causing glass to fall on top of Lily, who was three years old at the time of the incident. Defendants move for summary adjudication as to cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. II.
ERIK HOWELL VS LG CHEM LTD ET AL
The complaint, filed February 21, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) strict products liability; and (2) negligent products liability. B. Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order On December 28, 2018, LG Chem, Ltd. (“LG”) filed a motion to quash Plaintiff’s service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s opposition and LG’s reply brief. On February 22, 2019 and February 25, 2019, LG filed 2 motions for protective order.
SACHS VS. PACIFIC COAST OB GYN
Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action for Negligent Products Liability fails as a matter of law because it is expressly preempted by federal law, including by not limited to, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) 3. Plaintiffs' failure to warn claims fail because they are barred by the Learned Intermediary Doctrine.
The complaint, filed February 21, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) strict products liability; and (2) negligent products liability. Counsel Marc Williams and Rachel Hedley apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendant LG Chem, Ltd. Plaintiff filed a Response to the application. PRO HAC VICE DISCUSSION 1.
Id., ¶32. 6th cause of action for negligence, 7th cause of action for strict products liability – failure to warn, and 8th cause of action for negligent products liability – failure to warn Defendants argue that they have no duty to plaintiff based on the Learned Intermediary Doctrine.
MARK WOODSON VS PEDDINGHAUS CORPORATION ET AL
The Court agrees that, based on the foregoing, Peddinghaus is not liable for negligent products liability. Plaintiff’s claim for negligence against Peddinghaus, however, goes beyond negligent products liability, as Peddinghaus concedes in the motion. Rather, Plaintiff also alleges Peddinghaus negligently installed the machine in the first place.
LOUIS VELASCO VS THE VAPORS ET AL
The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Strict Products Liability Negligent Products Liability Loss of Consortium A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).)
SCOTT V. MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE SERVICES
With respect to Issue Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant requests summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims for “strict and negligent products liability” and “breach of express and implied warranty. The court notes the that the First Amended Complaint (FAC), filed on 11-7-17, designates these claims as counts within fourth cause of action (“Products Liability) against Defendant. It is unclear whether Defendant’s Notice seeks adjudication of all theories within the fourth cause of action.