Cases of Interest

California law imposes a duty on everyone, including landlords, to exercise reasonable care, and Defendants failed to show public policy considerations to justify departing from that general duty; and causation, as it is in most cases, is a factual issue.

A plaintiff opposing a summary judgment motion involving a property damage coverage claim must: 1) Be able to present proof that the alteration of its property actually caused damage; 2) Identify the specific property that has been damaged; 3) Present proof whether that property had to be replaced or was no longer usable; and 4) Present evidence of the dollar amount t of its loss.

Under the Government Claims Act, a plaintiff complies with the claim presentation requirement when the complaint alleges facts that are factually equivalent to the facts within the government claim, and failure to file a proper government claim timely is fatal to maintaining a civil action against a public entity. Cal. Gov’t Code § 835.

Where an owner/hirer affirmatively provides security measures in a high crime area and there are questions of fact as to the reasonableness of those measures, the Hooker exception to the Privette doctrine is applicable.

A declaration from a PMQ or corporate representative is still held to the same rules of evidence as a lay witness in assessing a declaration attached to an MSJ.