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.
55 California opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knight v. Jewettgreen2 sentences2003We observed that the term "assumption of risk" had been used in connection with two classes of cases: those in which the issue to be resolved was whether the defendant actually owed the plaintiff a duty of care (primary assumption of risk), and those in which the defendant had breached a duty of care but where the issue was whether the plaintiff had chosen to face the risk of harm presented by the defendant's breach of duty (secondary assumption of risk). ( Id. at pp. 303-304, 308, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696 .) In the latter class of cases, we concluded, the issue could be resolved by app 2003We observed that the term "assumption of risk" had been used in connection with two classes of cases: those in which the issue to be resolved was whether the defendant actually owed the plaintiff a duty of care (primary assumption of risk), and those in which the defendant had breached a duty of care but where the issue was whether the plaintiff had chosen to face the risk of harm presented by the defendant's breach of duty (secondary assumption of risk). ( Id. at pp. 303-304, 308, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696 .) In the latter class of cases, we concluded, the issue could be resolved by app | 5 | 6 |
Rosh v. Cave Imaging Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2020As amici curiae note, in Rosh v. Cave Imaging Systems, Inc. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1233 (Rosh), the court stated that “the comparative fault doctrine . . . is designed to permit the trier of fact to consider all relevant criteria in apportioning liability” and allows jurors to “ ‘evaluate the relative responsibility of various parties for an injury (whether their responsibility for the injury rests on negligence, strict liability, or other theories of responsibility).’ ” (Rosh, at p. 36 B.B. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. 1233.) As amici curiae also note, in Sco 2020As amici curiae note, in Rosh v. Cave Imaging Systems, Inc. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1233 (Rosh), the court stated that “the comparative fault doctrine . . . is designed to permit the trier of fact to consider all relevant criteria in apportioning liability” and allows jurors to “ ‘evaluate the relative responsibility of various parties for an injury (whether their responsibility for the injury rests on negligence, strict liability, or other theories of responsibility).’ ” (Rosh, at p. 36 B.B. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. 1233.) As amici curiae also note, in Sco | 5 | 5 |
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kartgreen2 sentences2017In Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart (1978) 21 Cal.3d 322 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 579 P.2d 441 ] (Safeway Stores), the Supreme Court considered “whether the comparative fault principle . . . should be utilized as the basis for apportioning liability between two tortfeasors, one whose liability rests upon California’s strict product liability doctrine and the other whose liability derives, at least in part, from negligence theory.” (Id. at p. 325.) The Supreme Court determined that principles of strict liability were compatible with apportionment according to fault: “Nothing in the rationale of s 2017In Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart (1978) 21 Cal.3d 322 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 579 P.2d 441 ] (Safeway Stores), the Supreme Court considered “whether the comparative fault principle . . . should be utilized as the basis for apportioning liability between two tortfeasors, one whose liability rests upon California’s strict product liability doctrine and the other whose liability derives, at least in part, from negligence theory.” (Id. at p. 325.) The Supreme Court determined that principles of strict liability were compatible with apportionment according to fault: “Nothing in the rationale of s | 4 | 9 |
Daly v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2000In the past, this court has taken a broad view of the type of "comparative fault" of a plaintiff that may reduce damages in a tort action, permitting the comparative fault doctrine to be applied in strict liability cases (see, e.g., Daly v. General, Motors (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, 734-742 , 144 Cal. Rptr. 380 , 575 P.2d 1162 ; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart (1978) 21 Cal.3d 322, 328-332 , 146 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 579 P.2d 441 ) and even in cases in which a plaintiff voluntarily chooses to engage in an unusually risky sport, whether or not the choice to do so is unreasonable. ( Knight v. Jewett (199 2000In the past, this court has taken a broad view of the type of "comparative fault" of a plaintiff that may reduce damages in a tort action, permitting the comparative fault doctrine to be applied in strict liability cases (see, e.g., Daly v. General, Motors (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, 734-742 , 144 Cal. Rptr. 380 , 575 P.2d 1162 ; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart (1978) 21 Cal.3d 322, 328-332 , 146 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 579 P.2d 441 ) and even in cases in which a plaintiff voluntarily chooses to engage in an unusually risky sport, whether or not the choice to do so is unreasonable. ( Knight v. Jewett (199 | 4 | 7 |
American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2006Of course, at the time the doctrine developed, common law precepts precluded any attempt to ascertain comparative fault; as a consequence, equitable indemnity, like the contributory negligence doctrine, developed as an all-or-nothing proposition." ( American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 , 593 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ].) However, in American Motorcycle the Supreme Court concluded that the rationale that prompted abandonment of the rule precluding recovery by a contributorily negligent plaintiff in favor of a doctrine of comparative fault "applies equally to 2006Of course, at the time the doctrine developed, common law precepts precluded any attempt to ascertain comparative fault; as a consequence, equitable indemnity, like the contributory negligence doctrine, developed as an all-or-nothing proposition." ( American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 , 593 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ].) However, in American Motorcycle the Supreme Court concluded that the rationale that prompted abandonment of the rule precluding recovery by a contributorily negligent plaintiff in favor of a doctrine of comparative fault "applies equally to | 3 | 6 |
Far West Financial Corp. v. D & S Companygreen2 sentences2008Total indemnification is just one end of the spectrum of comparative equitable indemnification.’ ” (Far West Financial Corp. v. D&S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 808 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 202 , 760 P.2d 399 ].) “The right to indemnity flows from payment of a joint legal obligation on another’s behalf. [Citations.] The elements of a cause of action for indemnity are (1) a showing of fault on the part of the indemnitor and (2) resulting damages to the indemnitee for which the indemnitor is contractually or equitably responsible.” (Expressions at Rancho Niguel Assn. v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (2001) 86 2008Total indemnification is just one end of the spectrum of comparative equitable indemnification.’ ” (Far West Financial Corp. v. D&S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 808 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 202 , 760 P.2d 399 ].) “The right to indemnity flows from payment of a joint legal obligation on another’s behalf. [Citations.] The elements of a cause of action for indemnity are (1) a showing of fault on the part of the indemnitor and (2) resulting damages to the indemnitee for which the indemnitor is contractually or equitably responsible.” (Expressions at Rancho Niguel Assn. v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (2001) 86 | 2 | 3 |
Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwellgreen2 sentences2025(Carrol v. Gava (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 892, 897 [rejecting comparative fault analysis in negligent misrepresentation case]; Alliance Mortgage Co., supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1247 [same in intentional misrepresentation cases].) Rather, a comparative fault defense folds into any analysis regarding the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s reliance. 2025(Carrol v. Gava (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 892, 897 [rejecting comparative fault analysis in negligent misrepresentation case]; Alliance Mortgage Co., supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1247 [same in intentional misrepresentation cases].) Rather, a comparative fault defense folds into any analysis regarding the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s reliance. | 2 | 2 |
Carroll v. Gavagreen2 sentences2025(Carrol v. Gava (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 892, 897 [rejecting comparative fault analysis in negligent misrepresentation case]; Alliance Mortgage Co., supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1247 [same in intentional misrepresentation cases].) Rather, a comparative fault defense folds into any analysis regarding the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s reliance. 2025(Carrol v. Gava (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 892, 897 [rejecting comparative fault analysis in negligent misrepresentation case]; Alliance Mortgage Co., supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1247 [same in intentional misrepresentation cases].) Rather, a comparative fault defense folds into any analysis regarding the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s reliance. | 2 | 2 |
Evangelatos v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2008Under the equitable indemnity doctrine, defendants are entitled to seek apportionment of loss between the wrongdoers in proportion to their relative culpability so there will be ‘equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors.’ [Citation.] The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under joint and several liability theory, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowing another responsible defendant to escape ‘ “scot free.” ’ [Citation.] It is an extension of the comparative fault doctrine which allowed loss to be apportioned bet 2008Under the equitable indemnity doctrine, defendants are entitled to seek apportionment of loss between the wrongdoers in proportion to their relative culpability so there will be ‘equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors.’ [Citation.] The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under joint and several liability theory, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowing another responsible defendant to escape ‘ “scot free.” ’ [Citation.] It is an extension of the comparative fault doctrine which allowed loss to be apportioned bet | 2 | 2 |
Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.green2 sentences2026Theobald was decided before the California Supreme Court adopted the comparative fault doctrine in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 . 2006Of course, at the time the doctrine developed, common law precepts precluded any attempt to ascertain comparative fault; as a consequence, equitable indemnity, like the contributory negligence doctrine, developed as an all-or-nothing proposition." ( American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578 , 593 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ].) However, in American Motorcycle the Supreme Court concluded that the rationale that prompted abandonment of the rule precluding recovery by a contributorily negligent plaintiff in favor of a doctrine of comparative fault "applies equally to | 1 | 16 |
Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc.green2 sentences2014“Under the principles of comparative fault, a person’s negligent conduct [is] assigned a share of fault greater than 0 percent. . . when the conduct was a substantial factor in the causation of the pertinent injuries. [Citations.]” (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1287 [ 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 ].) “ ‘[Liability for damage will be borne by those whose negligence caused it in direct proportion to their respective fault.’ [Citation.]” (Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hosp. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 291, 303 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 553 , 282 P.3d 1250 ].) “The comparative fault doctrine ‘is designe 2014“Under the principles of comparative fault, a person’s negligent conduct [is] assigned a share of fault greater than 0 percent. . . when the conduct was a substantial factor in the causation of the pertinent injuries. [Citations.]” (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1287 [ 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 ].) “ ‘[Liability for damage will be borne by those whose negligence caused it in direct proportion to their respective fault.’ [Citation.]” (Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hosp. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 291, 303 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 553 , 282 P.3d 1250 ].) “The comparative fault doctrine ‘is designe | 1 | 5 |
DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.green2 sentences2015(See DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 603 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ].) “The comparative fault doctrine ‘is designed to permit the trier of fact to consider all relevant criteria in apportioning liability. 2015(See DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 603 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 828 P.2d 140 ].) “The comparative fault doctrine ‘is designed to permit the trier of fact to consider all relevant criteria in apportioning liability. | 1 | 3 |
GEM Developers v. Hallcraft Homes of San Diego, Inc.green2 sentences2008Under the equitable indemnity doctrine, defendants are entitled to seek apportionment of loss between the wrongdoers in proportion to their relative culpability so there will be ‘equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors.’ [Citation.] The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under joint and several liability theory, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowing another responsible defendant to escape ‘ “scot free.” ’ [Citation.] It is an extension of the comparative fault doctrine which allowed loss to be apportioned bet 2008Under the equitable indemnity doctrine, defendants are entitled to seek apportionment of loss between the wrongdoers in proportion to their relative culpability so there will be ‘equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors.’ [Citation.] The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under joint and several liability theory, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowing another responsible defendant to escape ‘ “scot free.” ’ [Citation.] It is an extension of the comparative fault doctrine which allowed loss to be apportioned bet | 1 | 3 |
Aidan Ming-Ho Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospitalgreen2 sentences2014“Under the principles of comparative fault, a person’s negligent conduct [is] assigned a share of fault greater than 0 percent. . . when the conduct was a substantial factor in the causation of the pertinent injuries. [Citations.]” (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1287 [ 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 ].) “ ‘[Liability for damage will be borne by those whose negligence caused it in direct proportion to their respective fault.’ [Citation.]” (Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hosp. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 291, 303 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 553 , 282 P.3d 1250 ].) “The comparative fault doctrine ‘is designe 2014“Under the principles of comparative fault, a person’s negligent conduct [is] assigned a share of fault greater than 0 percent. . . when the conduct was a substantial factor in the causation of the pertinent injuries. [Citations.]” (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1287 [ 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 ].) “ ‘[Liability for damage will be borne by those whose negligence caused it in direct proportion to their respective fault.’ [Citation.]” (Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hosp. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 291, 303 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 553 , 282 P.3d 1250 ].) “The comparative fault doctrine ‘is designe | 1 | 2 |
EXPRESSIONS AT RANCHO NIGUEL ASS'N v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc.green2 sentences2008Total indemnification is just one end of the spectrum of comparative equitable indemnification.’ ” (Far West Financial Corp. v. D&S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 808 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 202 , 760 P.2d 399 ].) “The right to indemnity flows from payment of a joint legal obligation on another’s behalf. [Citations.] The elements of a cause of action for indemnity are (1) a showing of fault on the part of the indemnitor and (2) resulting damages to the indemnitee for which the indemnitor is contractually or equitably responsible.” (Expressions at Rancho Niguel Assn. v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (2001) 86 2008Total indemnification is just one end of the spectrum of comparative equitable indemnification.’ ” (Far West Financial Corp. v. D&S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 808 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 202 , 760 P.2d 399 ].) “The right to indemnity flows from payment of a joint legal obligation on another’s behalf. [Citations.] The elements of a cause of action for indemnity are (1) a showing of fault on the part of the indemnitor and (2) resulting damages to the indemnitee for which the indemnitor is contractually or equitably responsible.” (Expressions at Rancho Niguel Assn. v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (2001) 86 | 1 | 2 |
Warren v. Schectergreen1 sentence2026(E.g., Brandon G. v. Gray 10 (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 29 , 41–42 [affirming comparative fault finding against client in legal malpractice action]; Warren v. Schecter (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1197 [comparative fault finding in medical malpractice case]; New Hampshire Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. County of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2020As amici curiae note, in Rosh v. Cave Imaging Systems, Inc. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1233 (Rosh), the court stated that “the comparative fault doctrine . . . is designed to permit the trier of fact to consider all relevant criteria in apportioning liability” and allows jurors to “ ‘evaluate the relative responsibility of various parties for an injury (whether their responsibility for the injury rests on negligence, strict liability, or other theories of responsibility).’ ” (Rosh, at p. 36 B.B. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. 1233.) As amici curiae also note, in Sco 2020As amici curiae note, in Rosh v. Cave Imaging Systems, Inc. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1233 (Rosh), the court stated that “the comparative fault doctrine . . . is designed to permit the trier of fact to consider all relevant criteria in apportioning liability” and allows jurors to “ ‘evaluate the relative responsibility of various parties for an injury (whether their responsibility for the injury rests on negligence, strict liability, or other theories of responsibility).’ ” (Rosh, at p. 36 B.B. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. 1233.) As amici curiae also note, in Sco | 1 | 1 |
| Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. CA2/4green | 1 | 1 |
| Nusbaum v. City of Kansas Citygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lemons v. Regents of University of Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hagerman Construction Corp. v. Long Electric Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Braegelmann v. Horizon Development Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Reid v. Google, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| George v. Keokuk County Board of Supervisorsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Wraxallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| GREAT WESTERN DRYWALL v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bay Development, Ltd. v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| GENTRY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Agricultural Insurance v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lazzarone v. Bank of Americagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arbaugh v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Horn v. General Motors Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Emery v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yale v. Bowne
neutral
2 sentences2026They also assert substantial evidence did not support the giving of the comparative fault instruction or the jury’s comparative fault finding. “ ‘A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on every theory of the case advanced by him [or her] which is supported by substantial evidence.’ [Citation.] ‘The 6 propriety of jury instructions is a question of law that we review de novo.’ [Citations.]” (Yale v. Bowne (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 649 , 656–657 (Yale).) A. The comparative fault doctrine applies to professional negligence cases. 2026They also assert substantial evidence did not support the giving of the comparative fault instruction or the jury’s comparative fault finding. “ ‘A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on every theory of the case advanced by him [or her] which is supported by substantial evidence.’ [Citation.] ‘The 6 propriety of jury instructions is a question of law that we review de novo.’ [Citations.]” (Yale v. Bowne (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 649 , 656–657 (Yale).) A. The comparative fault doctrine applies to professional negligence cases. | 2 | 2023–2026 |
OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.
green
2 sentences2025In that context, however, a plaintiff is not “ ‘held to the standard of precaution or of minimum knowledge of a hypothetical, reasonable [person]’ ” and will be denied recovery only if the relative conduct “ ‘in light of [their] own intelligence and information was manifestly unreasonable.’ ” (Alliance Mortgage Co., at p. 1247.) In other words, the question asked is whether it was “ ‘reasonable for [the] plaintiff to accept [the] defendant’s statements without an independent inquiry or investigation.’ ” (OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 2025In that context, however, a plaintiff is not “ ‘held to the standard of precaution or of minimum knowledge of a hypothetical, reasonable [person]’ ” and will be denied recovery only if the relative conduct “ ‘in light of [their] own intelligence and information was manifestly unreasonable.’ ” (Alliance Mortgage Co., at p. 1247.) In other words, the question asked is whether it was “ ‘reasonable for [the] plaintiff to accept [the] defendant’s statements without an independent inquiry or investigation.’ ” (OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th | 2 | 2025–2025 |
David v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences2023The doctrine ‘is a flexible, commonsense concept, under which a jury properly may consider and evaluate the relative responsibility of various parties for an injury (whether their responsibility for the injury rests on negligence, strict liability, or other theories of responsibility), in order to arrive at an “equitable apportionment or allocation of loss.” ’ [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (David v. Hernandez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 578, 591-592 .) It is true Mrs. Gibson admitted she and Mr. Gibson bore some responsibility for the accident. 2021The doctrine ‘is a flexible, commonsense concept, under which a jury properly may consider and evaluate the relative responsibility of various parties for an injury (whether their responsibility for the injury rests on negligence, strict liability, or other theories of responsibility), in order to arrive at an “equitable 19 apportionment or allocation of loss.” ’ [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ ” (David v. Hernandez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 578, 591-592 , quoting Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285 , 1287 and Aidan Ming-Ho Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hosp. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 291, 3 | 2 | 2021–2023 |
Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Paseman
green
2 sentences2017In Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart (1978) 21 Cal.3d 322 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 579 P.2d 441 ] (Safeway Stores), the Supreme Court considered “whether the comparative fault principle . . . should be utilized as the basis for apportioning liability between two tortfeasors, one whose liability rests upon California’s strict product liability doctrine and the other whose liability derives, at least in part, from negligence theory.” (Id. at p. 325.) The Supreme Court determined that principles of strict liability were compatible with apportionment according to fault: “Nothing in the rationale of s 2017In Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest-Kart (1978) 21 Cal.3d 322 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 550 , 579 P.2d 441 ] (Safeway Stores), the Supreme Court considered “whether the comparative fault principle . . . should be utilized as the basis for apportioning liability between two tortfeasors, one whose liability rests upon California’s strict product liability doctrine and the other whose liability derives, at least in part, from negligence theory.” (Id. at p. 325.) The Supreme Court determined that principles of strict liability were compatible with apportionment according to fault: “Nothing in the rationale of s | 2 | 2016–2017 |
Witt v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1983Relying essentially on a claim of invited error (relating to the revised form of special verdict used over initial objection) and a theory of active liability on the part of the employer law firm as a result of Jarvis’ managerial function, S.P. argues that the Fund’s right to reimbursement is precluded under Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 366 P.2d 641 ], as explicated by case law with the advent of the doctrine of comparative fault. 1983Relying essentially on a claim of invited error (relating to the revised form of special verdict used over initial objection) and a theory of active liability on the part of the employer law firm as a result of Jarvis’ managerial function, S.P. argues that the Fund’s right to reimbursement is precluded under Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 366 P.2d 641 ], as explicated by case law with the advent of the doctrine of comparative fault. | 2 | 1979–1983 |
New Hampshire Insurance v. Sauer
green
1 sentence2026Co. v. Sauer (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 454 , 460–462 [affirming comparative fault allocation in insurance company’s negligence action against insurance agent for breach of duty to inform company of nature of insured’s business].) More recently, in Yale, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th 649 , the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff’s argument that it was error to give a comparative fault instruction in a legal malpractice case. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
BRANDON G. v. Gray
green
1 sentence2026(E.g., Brandon G. v. Gray 10 (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 29 , 41–42 [affirming comparative fault finding against client in legal malpractice action]; Warren v. Schecter (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1197 [comparative fault finding in medical malpractice case]; New Hampshire Ins. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Williams v. Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Insurance Services of California Inc.
green
1 sentence2026The Danielses highlight testimony that supports their version of events and dismiss Samrick’s testimony regarding her requests for information as “self-serving.” However, it is for the jury to make these factual 13 determinations, and we have no power to reweigh the evidence, consider witness credibility, or resolve conflicts in the evidence. ( Williams, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 643–644.) On this record, we find substantial evidence sufficient for the trial court to give the comparative fault instruction, as well as substantial evidence supporting the jury’s comparative fault finding. ( Y | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Theobald v. Byers
green
2 sentences2026(Theobald, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at p. 147 .) Thus, the issue was whether contributory negligence, which if found would be a complete bar to recovery, applied to nonprofessionals. ( Theobald, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at p.151.) The trial court found the plaintiffs/clients contributorily negligent in a legal malpractice case. 2026(Theobald, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at p. 147 .) Thus, the issue was whether contributory negligence, which if found would be a complete bar to recovery, applied to nonprofessionals. ( Theobald, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at p.151.) The trial court found the plaintiffs/clients contributorily negligent in a legal malpractice case. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Millard
green
1 sentence2022The court commented that even “assuming this was an extraordinary case where [Rachel E.’s] fault reached the level that we should even begin to think about [the comparative fault doctrine],” the underlying facts as to Rachel E.’s actions 5 In the recording of the 911 call, the caller repeatedly tells the “screaming, female passenger” not to move “too much.” 7 were “quite disputed.” The court further noted that it was not sure whether Rachel E.’s alleged actions rose to level of victim negligence in People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7 (Millard) and that there were issues as to “how to va | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Horwich v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2021(Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, 284 .) “Thus, if the decedent had been comparatively negligent, a wrongful death judgment will be reduced proportionately.” (Ibid.) Senter Road asserted a comparative fault defense in its answer to the complaint. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kindt v. Kauffman
green
1 sentence2020In 1976, the Third District Court of Appeal held that Li’s “comparative negligence doctrine . . . does not apply to willful misconduct.” (Kindt v. Kauffman (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 845, 855 .) But courts in the First, Second, and Fifth Appellate Districts, and one federal appellate court, later held otherwise, extending comparative fault principles to tortfeasors liable for willful and wanton conduct. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
green
1 sentence2020Appeals Bd., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1039 ), the statements on which amici curiae rely are not authority for the proposition that intentional tortfeasors may, under existing principles of comparative fault, shift liability to negligent actors. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| East-Harding, Inc. v. Horace A. Piazza & Associates green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Greer v. City of Philadelphia green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| MT BUILDERS, LLC v. Fisher Roofing Inc. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Son v. Ashland Community Healthcare Services green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Lee v. Escrow Consultants, Inc. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Record v. Reason green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Kahn v. East Side Union High School District green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Cheong v. Antablin green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| California Casualty General Insurance v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| International Insurance v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Curtis v. Kastner green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| City of Sacramento v. Gemsch Investment Co. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Summers v. Tice green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Associated Constr. & Eng'g v. WORKERS'COMP. APP. BD. green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Robinson v. Pioche, Bayerque & Co. green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.