Since a private nuisance claim involves only a question of harm to the plaintiff, not others, the trial court erred by admitting evidence of incidents of a nuisance on the property before plaintiff acquired it. Read More
Under the Government Code’s “trail immunity” provision, the City of Pasadena was immune from plaintiff’s negligence claims after he slid over an unguarded ten-foot retaining wall while trying to reach a pedestrian trail in the middle of the night. Read More
A college owes its students a duty of care to protect them from foreseeable harm (here, an attack by a mentally troubled student) in the classroom during a college course, since students are dependent on their colleges for a safe environment and colleges have a superior ability to provide that safety for activities and facilities under their control. Read More
A real and immediate threat of injury from identity theft is sufficient to sustain a plaintiff’s Article III standing. Read More
Voluntary drug abuse treatment center owes no common law duty of care to its enrollees to protect them from absconding to obtain drugs. Read More
A medical malpractice plaintiff provides adequate notice of a potential medical malpractice claim, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 364, by mailing a notice of intent to file an action to a physician’s address of record with the Medical Board of California. Read More
An elder abuse complaint alleging neglect is not a dispute relating to a health care provider’s “professional negligence” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1295, so the decedent’s heirs were not bound by the provider’s arbitration agreement. Read More
Summary judgment was properly granted to a landlord on proof that experts could not tell what caused the fire that injured plaintiffs, thus negating the element of causation of plaintiffs’ negligence claims. Read More
A property owner owes no duty of care to protect patrons of a taco truck on the property against unforeseeable misconduct by a patron fleeing the scene of a collision in the parking lot. Read More
The absolute litigation privilege protects statements in a probate proceeding by an executor or administrator, and if the privilege’s application depends on undisputed facts, it may be raised for the first time on appeal. Read More
A property owner hiring an independent contractor is not liable for injuries the contractor’s worker suffers as a result of the owner’s negligent failure to install safety features required by CalOSH regulations. Read More
A defendant who is not a party to a contract or a party’s agent is liable for interfering with the contract even if the contract contemplated the defendant’s performance of a different agreement with one of the parties. Read More
Agency records containing personal information are protected under the Information Privacy Act even if not maintained in the agency’s centralized personnel records. Read More
A landowner who hired an independent contractor to work on the roof is not entitled to summary judgment in the contractor’s negligence suit; a question of fact remained as to whether the contractor could reasonably avoid the risk posed by the obvious hazard of an unprotected ledge from which he fell. Read More
To recover under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s wrongful conduct led directly to the plaintiff’s injury. Read More
The favorable termination element of a malicious prosecution claim cannot be satisfied if the plaintiff in the underlying action prevailed on any claim. Read More
Jury question raised about extent of duty of care a hotel undertook by agreeing to check on guest who did not respond to husband telephone calls. Read More
Generally, a defendant owes no duty of care to avoid negligent conduct that results in solely economic injury; so a gas utility owed no duty of care to avoid a gas leak that caused neighborhood businesses to lose profits. Read More
A landowner who constructs a parking lot across a public street may increase his or her invitees’ exposure to harm, but that alone does not warrant the imposition of a duty of care because landowners generally have little or no control over a public street’s safety precautions, which are typically maintained by state and local government. Read More
A company the city hired to maintain backup batteries in traffic signals owed a duty of care to motorists in performing its work, and it cannot invoke Government Claims Act immunities to avoid liability. Read More
