has formulated standard in California

2022A “The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. [Citations.] Once the court has formulated the standard, its application to the facts of the case is a task for the trier of fact if reasonable minds might differ as to whether the defendant’s conduct has conformed to the standard. [Citations.] [¶] In most cases, courts have fixed no standard of care for tort liability more precise than that of a reasonably prudent person under like circumstances. [Citations.] ‘But the proper conduct of a reasonable person under particular situations may become settled by judicial d

2022A “The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. [Citations.] Once the court has formulated the standard, its application to the facts of the case is a task for the trier of fact if reasonable minds might differ as to whether the defendant’s conduct has conformed to the standard. [Citations.] [¶] In most cases, courts have fixed no standard of care for tort liability more precise than that of a reasonably prudent person under like circumstances. [Citations.] ‘But the proper conduct of a reasonable person under particular situations may become settled by judicial d

1998Only if the circumstances permit no reasonable doubt about whether the attorney’s conduct did or did not violate the standard of care, may the court as a matter of law resolve the question whether an attorney breached a duty to clients. [Citations.] In Starr v Mooslin (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 988, 998 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 583 ], the court stated: ‘ “In any negligence action the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is a question of law for the court. [Citation.] If a duty exists, the complementary degree of care exacted of the defendant—usually that of a reasonable man of or

1998Only if the circumstances permit no reasonable doubt about whether the attorney’s conduct did or did not violate the standard of care, may the court as a matter of law resolve the question whether an attorney breached a duty to clients. [Citations.] In Starr v Mooslin (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 988, 998 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 583 ], the court stated: ‘ “In any negligence action the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is a question of law for the court. [Citation.] If a duty exists, the complementary degree of care exacted of the defendant—usually that of a reasonable man of or

1997This, as I indicated earlier, is a question for the jury, not a question of law for the court: “Once the court has formulated the standard [of care], its application to the facts of the case is a task for the trier of fact if reasonable minds might differ as to whether the defendant’s conduct has conformed to the standard.” (Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., supra, 6 Cal.4th 539, 546 ; see also Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1061 [ 232 Cal.Rptr. 528 , 728 P.2d 1163 ] [“the trier of fact determines whether a defendant’s conduct satisfies the applicable standard of care”]; Coffee v. McDon

1997This, as I indicated earlier, is a question for the jury, not a question of law for the court: “Once the court has formulated the standard [of care], its application to the facts of the case is a task for the trier of fact if reasonable minds might differ as to whether the defendant’s conduct has conformed to the standard.” (Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., supra, 6 Cal.4th 539, 546 ; see also Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1061 [ 232 Cal.Rptr. 528 , 728 P.2d 1163 ] [“the trier of fact determines whether a defendant’s conduct satisfies the applicable standard of care”]; Coffee v. McDon

2007Because of the elasticity of the concept of duty, it is always possible for a court to characterize and analyze every issue in a negligence case in terms of duty. ( Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 839, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 756 , 927 P.2d 1260 (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.); 1 Dobbs, The Law of Torts (2001) § 226, p. 578, § 230, pp. 584-585; Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5th ed.1984) § 53, p. 356.) But doing so is improper because it conflates the legal standard applicable to conduct (a decision for the court) with the factual question of whether that standard

2007Because of the elasticity of the concept of duty, it is always possible for a court to characterize and analyze every issue in a negligence case in terms of duty. ( Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 839, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 756 , 927 P.2d 1260 (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.); 1 Dobbs, The Law of Torts (2001) § 226, p. 578, § 230, pp. 584-585; Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5th ed.1984) § 53, p. 356.) But doing so is improper because it conflates the legal standard applicable to conduct (a decision for the court) with the factual question of whether that standard

2000(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 ].) This familiar rule is a reiteration by the Supreme Court of the standard it set out in Fahy v. Connecticut (1963) 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 [ 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 ]: “The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” More recently, the court has formulated the inquiry as “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 [ 113 S.Ct. 2078,

2000(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 ].) This familiar rule is a reiteration by the Supreme Court of the standard it set out in Fahy v. Connecticut (1963) 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 [ 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 ]: “The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” More recently, the court has formulated the inquiry as “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 [ 113 S.Ct. 2078,

2000(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 ].) This familiar rule is a reiteration by the Supreme Court of the standard it set out in Fahy v. Connecticut (1963) 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 [ 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 ]: “The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” More recently, the court has formulated the inquiry as “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 [ 113 S.Ct. 2078,

2000(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 ].) This familiar rule is a reiteration by the Supreme Court of the standard it set out in Fahy v. Connecticut (1963) 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 [ 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 ]: “The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” More recently, the court has formulated the inquiry as “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 [ 113 S.Ct. 2078,

2000(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 ].) This familiar rule is a reiteration by the Supreme Court of the standard it set out in Fahy v. Connecticut (1963) 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 [ 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 ]: “The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” More recently, the court has formulated the inquiry as “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 [ 113 S.Ct. 2078,

2000(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 ].) This familiar rule is a reiteration by the Supreme Court of the standard it set out in Fahy v. Connecticut (1963) 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 [ 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 ]: “The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” More recently, the court has formulated the inquiry as “whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 [ 113 S.Ct. 2078,

1995(Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, 96, fn. 13 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 585 ].) In Starr v. Mooslin (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 988, 998 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 583 ], the court stated: “ ‘In any negligence action the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is a question of law for the court. [Citation.] If a duty exists, the complementary degree of care exacted of the defendant—usually that of a reasonable man of ordinary prudence in a like situation—is also declared by law. [Citation.] Breach of duty is usually a fact issue for the

1995(Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, 96, fn. 13 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 585 ].) In Starr v. Mooslin (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 988, 998 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 583 ], the court stated: “ ‘In any negligence action the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is a question of law for the court. [Citation.] If a duty exists, the complementary degree of care exacted of the defendant—usually that of a reasonable man of ordinary prudence in a like situation—is also declared by law. [Citation.] Breach of duty is usually a fact issue for the

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993Issues such as this, which concern the scope of an established duty, are resolved by reference to the governing standard of care: "Once the existence of a legal duty is found, it is the further function of the court to determine and formulate the standard of conduct to which the duty requires the defendant to conform." (Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, com. f, p. 153.) (1) The formulation of the standard of care is a question of law for the court. ( Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal. App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard,

1993(Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard, its application to the facts of the case is a task for the trier of fact if reasonable minds might differ as to whether the defendant’s conduct has conformed to the standard.

1993(Ishmael v. Millington (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 520, 525 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 592 ]; Rest.2d Torts, § 328B, subd. (c).) Once the court has formulated the standard, its application to the facts of the case is a task for the trier of fact if reasonable minds might differ as to whether the defendant’s conduct has conformed to the standard.