Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226 (1975), commonly referred to simply as Li, is a California Supreme Court case that judicially embraced comparative negligence in California tort law and rejected strict contributory negligence.
Comparative negligence, called non-absolute contributory negligence outside the United States, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury.
American Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 578 (1978), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that first adopted a comparative fault regime for apportionment of liability among multiple tortfeasors for negligence in California. [1]
Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975): [55] The Court embraced comparative negligence as part of California tort law and rejected strict contributory negligence. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976): [56] The Court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a ...
Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992), was a case decided by the California Supreme Court, ruling that the comparative negligence scheme adopted in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California did not eliminate the defense of assumption of risk in an action for negligence. [1]
Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. 4th 617 (1992), was a Supreme Court of California case in which the court’s decision held that restaurants, grocery stores, and other food service establishments in California can be held liable for injuries sustained by patrons from foreign objects—including natural food parts—that are left in food.
On Sunday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order that enforces the state’s anti-price-gouging rules for disaster areas through Jan. 7, 2026. Under California Penal Code 396 ...
In comparative negligence jurisdictions, secondary assumption of risk is applied as a factor that the jury can consider in apportioning fault, rather than a complete defense. [6] The California Supreme Court explained the difference between primary and secondary assumption of risk (under California law) as follows: