Hubbard v. S. California Rapid Transit Dist., 440 P.2d 505 (Cal. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Hubbard v. S. California Rapid Transit Dist., 440 P.2d 505 (Cal. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
113 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Garreans Ex Rel. Garreans v. City of Omaha (neb, 1984-02-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garreans Ex Rel. Garreans v. City of Omaha (2×)
Neb. · 1984 · confidence medium
Griffin Lumber Co. v. Harper, 247 Ala. 616 , 25 So.2d 505 ; Taylor v. Thompson, 271 Ala. 18 , 122 So.2d 277 ; Johnson v. Sexton [ 277 Ala. 627 , 173 So.2d 790 ], supra.’ Lewis v. Zell, 279 Ala. 33, 36 , 181 So.2d 101 (1965).” In Ewing v. Cloverleaf Bowl, 20 Cal. 3d 389, 402 , 572 P.2d 1155, 1161 , 143 Cal. Rptr. 13, 20 (1978), the court stated: “ ‘[W]illful misconduct implies the intentional doing of something either with knowledge, express or implied, that serious injury is a probable, as distinguished from a possible, result, or the intentional doing of an act with a wanton and reckl…
discussed Cited "see" Osborn v. Hertz Corp. (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
Hertz’s deliberate failure to implement a policy of screening out those potential customers who are likely to drink while driving displayed a conscious and malicious disregard for the safety of the class of potential victims of drunk driving, in which [plaintiff] is included.” Our Supreme Court has remarked, “‘[W]illful misconduct implies the intentional doing of something either with knowledge, express or implied, that serious injury is a probable, as distinguished from a possible, result, or the intentional doing of an act with a wanton and reckless disregard for its consequences.’…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Irene Gonzalez v. Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc.
C.D. Cal. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“Willful or 6 wanton misconduct is intentional wrongful conduct, done either with a knowledge that serious injury 7 to another will probably result, or with a wanton and reckless disregard of the possible results.” 8 Nazar v. Rodeffer, 229 Cal. Rptr. 209, 212 (Ct. App. 1986) (citations omitted), abrogated on 9 different grounds by Ornelas v. Randolph, 847 P.2d 560 (Cal. 1993). 10 California courts generally look to three factors to differentiate between negligent acts and 11 misconduct: 12 Three essential elements must be present to raise a negligent act to the level of wilful misconduct: …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery (2×)
Cal. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co., supra, 37 Cal.App.3d at p. 1011 , 112 Cal.Rptr. 695 .) One common description of willful misconduct is that it refers to "intentional wrongful conduct, done either with a knowledge that serious injury to [another] probably will result or with a wanton and reckless disregard of the possible results." (E.g., Reuther v. Viall (1965) 62 Cal.2d 470, 475 , 42 Cal.Rptr. 456 , 398 P.2d 792 [automobile guest statute]; Meyer v. Blackman (1963) 59 Cal.2d 668, 677 , 31 Cal.Rptr. 36 , 381 P.2d 916 [same]; Goncalves v. Los Banos Mining Co. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 916, 918 , 26 Cal. Rptr. 769 , 376 P.2d 833 [s…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ROSALIND HUBBARD, a Minor, etc., and
v.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, and
L. A. No. 29488.
California Supreme Court.
May 17, 1968.
440 P.2d 505
1968 Cal. LEXIS 213
Valian & Tardiff and Herbert E. Selwyn for Plaintiff and Appellant., Harry M. Hunt and Victor Rosenblatt for Defendant and Respondent.
Tobriner.
Published
TOBRINER, J.

In February 1965 plaintiff Rosalind Hubbard, a minor, through her guardian ad litem, filed an action against defendant Southern California Rapid Transit District ; she alleged that on March 30, 1962, she was injured by a streetcar negligently operated by defendant’s agents. She further alleged that she had timely filed a claim with defendant, but that defendant had rejected the claim on an unspecified date. Defendant demurred to the first amended complaint on the ground that the action was barred by Government Code section 945.6; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision 3.

This case raises the same issue as .that posed in Williams v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, ante, p. 599 [68 Cal.Rptr. 297, 440 P.2d 497], and is controlled by oúr • decision in- that ease.'Accordingly, we reverse the judg[*921] ment of dismissal and remand the cause with directions to the trial court to overrule the demurrer and to grant a reasonable time within which defendant may answer if so advised.

Traynor, C. J., Peters, J., Mosk, J., Burke, J., and Sullivan, J., concurred.

McComb, J„ dissented.