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.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lehto v. City of Oxnardgreen2 sentences2021(See Lehto v. City of Oxnard (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 285, 292 [“Government Code section 815.6 applies to public entities the familiar rule of tort law that violation of a legislatively prescribed standard of care creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence”].) In sum, the trial court erred in granting the County’s motion for summary adjudication as to plaintiffs’ negligence cause of action based on governmental immunity. 14 The court in Cochran v. Herzog Engraving Co. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 405 , which the County cites in support of its contention the absence of a citation to Government Code s 2021It has been recognized that Government Code section 815.6 “applies to public entities the familiar rule of tort law that violation of a legislatively prescribed standard of care creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence.” (Lehto v. City of Oxnard (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 285, 292 ; see also Alejo v. City of Alhambra (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1185, fn. 3 [Gov. | 4 | 5 |
Alejo v. City of Alhambrared1 sentence2021It has been recognized that Government Code section 815.6 “applies to public entities the familiar rule of tort law that violation of a legislatively prescribed standard of care creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence.” (Lehto v. City of Oxnard (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 285, 292 ; see also Alejo v. City of Alhambra (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1185, fn. 3 [Gov. | 1 | 1 |
Polygram Records, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1991Code, §§ 45, 46; Polygram Records Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 543, 548-550 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 252 ]), such publications may also be protected by defenses not ordinarily assertable in typical negligence or medical malpractice actions, such as the legislatively prescribed privilege contained in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c) (formerly § 47, subd. (3)). 7 *239 If plaintiffs such as Felton were permitted to sue in negligence, we perceive plaintiffs would seek to evade the strictures of libel law and avoid the applicable defenses by framing all libel actions as negligence caus 1991Code, §§ 45, 46; Polygram Records Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 543, 548-550 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 252 ]), such publications may also be protected by defenses not ordinarily assertable in typical negligence or medical malpractice actions, such as the legislatively prescribed privilege contained in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c) (formerly § 47, subd. (3)). 7 *239 If plaintiffs such as Felton were permitted to sue in negligence, we perceive plaintiffs would seek to evade the strictures of libel law and avoid the applicable defenses by framing all libel actions as negligence caus | 1 | 1 |
Vesely v. Sagerred2 sentences1987(Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 164-165 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Evid. 1987(Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 164-165 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 , 486 P.2d 151 ]; Evid. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Department of State Hospitals v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2021Code, § 815.6 “applies the negligence per se doctrine to public entities”].) Under this section, “the government may be liable when (1) a mandatory duty is imposed by an enactment, (2) the duty was designed to protect against the kind of injury allegedly suffered, and (3) breach of the duty proximately caused injury.” (State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court (2015) 61 Cal.4th 339, 348 .) The trial judge decides the issues of whether the statute imposes a mandatory duty on the public entity and whether it was designed to protect against the type of harm suffered. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Cochran v. Herzog Engraving Co.
green
1 sentence2021(See Lehto v. City of Oxnard (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 285, 292 [“Government Code section 815.6 applies to public entities the familiar rule of tort law that violation of a legislatively prescribed standard of care creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence”].) In sum, the trial court erred in granting the County’s motion for summary adjudication as to plaintiffs’ negligence cause of action based on governmental immunity. 14 The court in Cochran v. Herzog Engraving Co. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 405 , which the County cites in support of its contention the absence of a citation to Government Code s | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State of California v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1991“Discussions of whether a mandatory duty exists under Government Code section 815.6 and whether a standard of care has been legislatively prescribed under Evidence Code section 669 are therefore interchangeable.” (Brenneman v. State of California, supra, at 208 Cal.App.3d at pp. 816-817, fn. 2.) 11 In State of California v. Superior Court, supra, 150 Cal.App.3d 848, 854-859 , cited above, the court concluded no actionable mandatory duty to investigate was created by the obligatory language of Business and Professions Code section 10176, because of a lack of proximate cause between the failure | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.