Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 California opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc.green2 sentences2015This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.” (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 79 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 846 , 980 P.2d 398 ]; see 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Torts, § 1193, p. 568.) On the other hand, the workers’ compensation system is not based upon fault. 2015This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.” (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 79 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 846 , 980 P.2d 398 ]; see 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Torts, § 1193, p. 568.) On the other hand, the workers’ compensation system is not based upon fault. | 4 | 7 |
Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2023This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.” (Ibid.) The plaintiff’s expert “need not exclude all other possibilities before he or she can express an opinion that defendant’s conduct or product caused the plaintiff’s harm.” (Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals American, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 555, 580 .) Rather, “the plaintiff must offer an expert opinion that contains a reasoned explanation illuminating why the facts have convinced the expert, and therefore should convince the jury, that it is more probable than not the negligent act was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injury.” 2023This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.” (Ibid.) The plaintiff’s expert “need not exclude all other possibilities before he or she can express an opinion that defendant’s conduct or product caused the plaintiff’s harm.” (Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals American, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 555, 580 .) Rather, “the plaintiff must offer an expert opinion that contains a reasoned explanation illuminating why the facts have convinced the expert, and therefore should convince the jury, that it is more probable than not the negligent act was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injury.” | 3 | 3 |
Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2014This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.” (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 79 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 846 , 980 P.2d 398 ].) “A plaintiff need not establish that a defendant’s product was the sole potential proximate cause of injury, but only that the defendant’s conduct substantially contributed to the injury and the circumstances make it just to hold the defendant responsible for the consequences of the accident. [Citation.]” (Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1302 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 780 ] (Bunch).) BRP does not contend any of these in 2014This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.” (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 79 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 846 , 980 P.2d 398 ].) “A plaintiff need not establish that a defendant’s product was the sole potential proximate cause of injury, but only that the defendant’s conduct substantially contributed to the injury and the circumstances make it just to hold the defendant responsible for the consequences of the accident. [Citation.]” (Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1302 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 780 ] (Bunch).) BRP does not contend any of these in | 1 | 1 |
Kelley v. Trunkgreen1 sentence2014(Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1118 (Jennings).) That said, an expert “does not possess a carte blanche to express any opinion within the area of expertise. [Citation.] For example, an expert’s opinion based on assumptions of fact without evidentiary support [citation], or on speculative or conjectural factors [citation], has no evidentiary value [citation] and may be excluded from evidence. [Citations.] Similarly, when an expert’s opinion is purely conclusory because unaccompanied by a reasoned explanation connecting the factual predicates to t | 1 | 1 |
McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc.green1 sentence2014(Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1118 (Jennings).) That said, an expert “does not possess a carte blanche to express any opinion within the area of expertise. [Citation.] For example, an expert’s opinion based on assumptions of fact without evidentiary support [citation], or on speculative or conjectural factors [citation], has no evidentiary value [citation] and may be excluded from evidence. [Citations.] Similarly, when an expert’s opinion is purely conclusory because unaccompanied by a reasoned explanation connecting the factual predicates to t | 1 | 1 |
Bates v. John Deere Co.green2 sentences2004(Bates v. John Deere Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 40, 50 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 637 ].) A plaintiff’s misuse of a product may be a cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. 2004(Bates v. John Deere Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 40, 50 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 637 ].) A plaintiff’s misuse of a product may be a cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Holmberg
green
2 sentences2024This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.’ ” (People v. Holmberg, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1321–1322.) Stated differently, to overcome the presumption that a victim’s loss was “a direct result of the defendant’s criminal conduct” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(4)(A)), “a defendant must prove that his [or her] criminal conduct played, at most, ‘ “ ‘only an “infinitesimal” or “theoretical” part in bringing about’ ” ’ the injury.” (People v. Lockwood (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 91, 103 .) The principles of 5 proximate causation in awarding restitution are analogous to their application in other 2016This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Holmberg (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1321-1322 .) People v. Holmberg, supra, relied upon by the People, is instructive. | 4 | 2013–2024 |
People v. Lockwood
green
2 sentences2024This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.’ ” (People v. Holmberg, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1321–1322.) Stated differently, to overcome the presumption that a victim’s loss was “a direct result of the defendant’s criminal conduct” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(4)(A)), “a defendant must prove that his [or her] criminal conduct played, at most, ‘ “ ‘only an “infinitesimal” or “theoretical” part in bringing about’ ” ’ the injury.” (People v. Lockwood (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 91, 103 .) The principles of 5 proximate causation in awarding restitution are analogous to their application in other 2022This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.” ’ ” (People v. Lockwood (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 91, 102-103 .) Here, defendant pleaded no contest to receiving the extractor as stolen property. | 2 | 2022–2024 |
Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America CA2/3
green
2 sentences2023This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.” (Ibid.) The plaintiff’s expert “need not exclude all other possibilities before he or she can express an opinion that defendant’s conduct or product caused the plaintiff’s harm.” (Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals American, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 555, 580 .) Rather, “the plaintiff must offer an expert opinion that contains a reasoned explanation illuminating why the facts have convinced the expert, and therefore should convince the jury, that it is more probable than not the negligent act was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injury.” 2023This rule honors the principle of comparative fault.” (Ibid.) The plaintiff’s expert “need not exclude all other possibilities before he or she can express an opinion that defendant’s conduct or product caused the plaintiff’s harm.” (Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals American, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 555, 580 .) Rather, “the plaintiff must offer an expert opinion that contains a reasoned explanation illuminating why the facts have convinced the expert, and therefore should convince the jury, that it is more probable than not the negligent act was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injury.” | 2 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Jones
green
1 sentence2024If an intervening cause is a normal and reasonably foreseeable result of defendant’s original act the intervening act is “dependent” and not a superseding cause, and will not relieve a defendant of liability. [Citation.] “[ ] The consequence need not have been a strong probability; a possible consequence which might reasonably have been contemplated is enough. [ ] The precise consequence need not have been foreseen; it is enough that the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of some harm of the kind which might result from his [or her] act.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. Jones, supra, 187 Cal.Ap | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Cervantes
green
1 sentence2024If an intervening cause is a normal and reasonably foreseeable result of defendant’s original act the intervening act is “dependent” and not a superseding cause, and will not relieve a defendant of liability. [Citation.] “[ ] The consequence need not have been a strong probability; a possible consequence which might reasonably have been contemplated is enough. [ ] The precise consequence need not have been foreseen; it is enough that the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of some harm of the kind which might result from his [or her] act.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. Jones, supra, 187 Cal.Ap | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999This rule honors the principle of comparative fault. ( Ibid. ) *852 Though we regard the complaint as poorly drafted, and it appears to be internally inconsistent in places, [1] we understand plaintiff to be attempting to allege that defendants' products cause cancer, he was exposed to them, and they migrated to his internal organs and caused his multiple myeloma. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.