Blog

Law rules obedience conformity justice legal trial courthouse lawyer

In negligence cases, proving causation is crucial. One of the most widely used legal standards to establish causation is the substantial factor test. This test helps determine whether a defendant’s conduct was significantly responsible for a plaintiff’s harm. Unlike the rigid "but-for" test, the substantial factor standard provides a broader, more practical approach to causation.&nbsp; What is a Substantial Factor? A substantial factor is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than trivial or remote but does not have to be the sole cause. <a data-mce-href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/mitchell-v-gonzales-31374" href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/mitchell-v-gonzales-31374">Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, 1052 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 913, 819 P.2d 872]</a>.In&nbsp;Mitchell,&nbsp;"Twelve-year old Damechie Mitchell, the son of James and Joyce Mitchell (plaintiffs), was invited to a lake by his friend Luis and Luis’s parents, Jose and Matilde Gonzales (defendants). Joyce allegedly told Matilde that Damechie could not swim and should be kept ashore. Matilde denied the conversation. Without Jose or Matilde’s knowledge, Luis and Damechie took a paddleboard onto the lake. Damechie told Luis he could not swim and asked for help if he fell into the water. Luis began rocking the paddleboard and tipped it, causing both boys to fall off. When Damechie tried to grab onto Luis, Luis pushed him away. Damechie drowned. The Mitchells sued the Gonzaleses for negligence in a California state court. At trial, the parties requested different jury instructions on causation.""The Gonzaleses requested Book of Approved Jury Instructions (BAJI) No. 3.75: 'A proximate cause of [injury] . . . is a cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, produces the [injury] . . . and without which the [injury] . . . would not have occurred.” The Mitchells requested BAJI No. 3.76, which defined the cause of injury as “a cause which is a substantial factor in bringing about the [injury].' The trial court gave BAJI No. 3.75 as an instruction. In closing argument, counsel for the Gonzaleses emphasized Damechie’s knowing inability to swim. The jury found, by an overwhelming margin, that the defendants were negligent. They also concluded, however, by an overwhelming margin, that the defendants’ negligence did not cause Damechie’s death. The Mitchells appealed." (<a data-mce-href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/mitchell-v-gonzales" href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/mitchell-v-gonzales">see here</a>).The California Supreme Court therein held that the substantial factor standard "subsumes the ‘but-for’ test of causation," meaning that a defendant’s conduct is a cause of harm if it was a substantial factor in bringing it about.The standard applied is standard is critical in cases where multiple contributing factors exist. In <a data-mce-href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/16/953.html" href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/16/953.html">Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 968-969 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 941 P.2d 1203</a>], the court emphasized that a cause-in-fact must be a substantial factor in the harm. It further explained that the test addresses independent and concurrent causes more effectively than the traditional "but-for" causation standard.&nbsp; Substantial Factor vs. But-For Causation The "but-for" test asks whether the harm would have occurred if the defendant had not acted negligently. However, the substantial factor test broadens the scope of liability, making it more applicable in complex cases where multiple causes may exist. In <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/viner-v-sweet" href="https://casetext.com/case/viner-v-sweet">Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1232, 1240 [135 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 70 P.3d 1046]</a>, the California Supreme Court explained that the substantial factor test is particularly useful when multiple independent forces operate simultaneously to cause harm.However, in cases involving multiple sufficient causes—where each cause alone could have caused the harm—the "but-for" test is inappropriate.<a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/yanez-v-plummer-1" href="https://casetext.com/case/yanez-v-plummer-1"> In Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 180, 187 [164 Cal.Rptr.3d 309]</a>, the court clarified that "a defendant cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, condition, or event was also a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm."&nbsp; Application in Toxic Exposure and Product Liability Cases The substantial factor test has been particularly significant in cases involving toxic exposure and product liability. In asbestos-related litigation, for example, plaintiffs often face challenges in proving which exposure caused their illness. Rutherford held that causation in asbestos cases requires showing that the defendant’s product contributed substantially to the risk of developing the disease. The court in <a data-mce-href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/435/" href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/435/">Lopez v. The Hillshire Brands Co.</a> (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 679, 688 [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 377] reinforced that an exposure's remoteness in time does not necessarily preclude causation under the substantial factor test.&nbsp; Comparative Fault and the Substantial Factor Test The substantial factor test aligns with comparative negligence principles, ensuring that defendants are held responsible only for the portion of harm they caused. In <a data-mce-href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/bockrath-v-aldrich-chemical-co-32043" href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/bockrath-v-aldrich-chemical-co-32043">Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc.</a><a data-mce-href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/bockrath-v-aldrich-chemical-co-32043" href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/bockrath-v-aldrich-chemical-co-32043"> (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 79 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 846, 980 P.2d 398],</a> "Thomas Bockrath (plaintiff) worked for Hughes Aircraft Company (Hughes) from 1973 to 1994. Bockrath developed cancer while working for Hughes. Bockrath sued at least 55 defendants, including the manufacturers of many common products like WD-40 and rubber cement.""The complaint alleged that: (1) Bockrath had been exposed to most and perhaps all the products, (2) all the products were used or improperly stored at the Hughes plant, (3) Bockrath had inhaled or had skin contact with all the products, and (4) the chemicals and chemical ingredients in the products produce carcinogenic effects. Two previous complaints were dismissed, and Bockrath filed a second amended complaint.""The defendants demurred or moved to dismiss the second amended complaint as well, alleging that Bockrath had not adequately explained how the products caused Bockrath’s cancer. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend, and Bockrath appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and Bockrath petitioned the California Supreme Court for review."&nbsp; (<a data-mce-href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/bockrath-v-aldrich-chemical-co" href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/bockrath-v-aldrich-chemical-co">see here</a>)The Bockrath court emphasized that even minor but significant contributions to harm qualify as substantial factors, reinforcing the principles of proportionate liability.&nbsp; Jury Consideration and Legal Instructions Courts often instruct juries on causation using <a data-mce-href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/430/" href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/430/">CACI No. 430</a>, which states that a substantial factor is one that is more than a remote or trivial cause of harm. However, courts have recognized the importance of tailoring jury instructions based on case specifics. For instance, in <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/petitpas-v-ford-motor-co" href="https://casetext.com/case/petitpas-v-ford-motor-co">Petitpas v. Ford Motor Co. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 261, 299 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 185]</a>, the court upheld the decision to provide both CACI No. 430 and <a data-mce-href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/435/" href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/435/">CACI No. 435</a> in a case involving both product liability and premises liability.Additionally, in <a data-mce-href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/8/548.html" href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/8/548.html">Soule v. GM Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572-573 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 882 P.2d 298]</a>, the court held that if a plaintiff’s injuries would have occurred regardless of the defendant’s conduct, then that conduct is not a substantial factor in causing the harm.&nbsp; Limitations of the Substantial Factor Test While broad, the substantial factor test is not limitless. In <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/modisette-v-apple-inc" href="https://casetext.com/case/modisette-v-apple-inc">Modisette v. Apple Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 136, 152 [241 Cal.Rptr.3d 209]</a>, the court held that when a plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish a reasonable link between the defendant’s conduct and the harm, the court may decide the causation issue as a matter of law.Similarly, in <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/bowman-v-wyatt" href="https://casetext.com/case/bowman-v-wyatt">Bowman v. Wyatt (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 286, 312 [111 Cal.Rptr.3d 787]</a>, the court reinforced that causation must rise to the level of probability. A "mere possibility" that a defendant’s conduct caused harm is not sufficient to establish liability.Final Thoughts The substantial factor test is a cornerstone of California tort law, providing a flexible and fair approach to causation in negligence cases. Whether applied in toxic exposure, product liability, or personal injury cases, this test ensures that responsibility is assigned based on a defendant’s meaningful contribution to the harm.For plaintiffs, understanding the substantial factor standard is crucial in building a strong negligence case. For defendants, it serves as a tool to argue against tenuous claims of causation. Ultimately, the test ensures that courts fairly assess liability by focusing on whether a defendant’s actions were a significant and meaningful factor in causing harm.If you are involved in a negligence case and need guidance on how causation laws apply, consulting with an experienced attorney can help clarify your legal standing and options.

Understanding Causation in Negligence Cases: The Substantial Factor Test

<h2>Understanding the Role of Personal Injury Lawyers</h2>
When it comes to personal injury cases, having a skilled lawyer by your side can make a significant difference in the outcome. Personal injury lawyers specialize in helping clients who have suffered physical or psychological injuries due to the negligence of others. In Southern California, where the legal landscape is bustling, choosing the right attorney requires careful consideration.

<figure id="figure-0d6c8213nem8bwwlh4"><img id="0d6c8213nem8bwwlh4" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1098356728/photo/personal-injury-lawyer.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=I6yT8Z3MaSWOaGJwyolrBJMDLSj-UpABUeJ5UXiQFjY=" alt="personal injury lawyer" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9"></figure>

<h2>Key Qualities to Look For</h2>
There are several important qualities to consider when selecting a personal injury lawyer. First and foremost, you should look for experience. Attorneys who have handled numerous cases similar to yours will likely be more adept at navigating the complexities of personal injury law. Additionally, consider their track record of success. A lawyer with a history of winning cases can provide reassurance about their abilities.

<h3>Experience and Expertise</h3>
Experience is crucial in personal injury law. Attorneys who have practiced for many years often bring a wealth of knowledge and expertise to the table. It's wise to inquire about a lawyer's specific experience with cases like yours. This can include car accidents, slip and falls, or medical malpractice.

<figure id="figure-qrkhtk8ckpm8bwwlh4"><img id="qrkhtk8ckpm8bwwlh4" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/87300417/photo/a-lawyer-and-defendant-talking.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=99izT0-eywiJuqTuY4trmgS1PXChdDhqa1K8yI9ZACU=" alt="lawyer experience" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9"></figure>

<h3>Reputation and Reviews</h3>
A lawyer's reputation can offer insight into their credibility and effectiveness. Look for attorneys who are well-respected in the legal community and have positive client reviews. Online platforms and legal directories often provide unbiased testimonials that can guide your decision-making process.

<h2>Assessing Communication Skills</h2>
Effective communication is essential in any attorney-client relationship. A lawyer who listens attentively and articulates complex legal concepts in an understandable way is invaluable. During initial consultations, pay attention to how well the lawyer communicates and whether they are proactive in keeping you informed about your case.

<figure id="figure-s9jtpa3khpm8bwwlh4"><img id="s9jtpa3khpm8bwwlh4" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/87300417/photo/a-lawyer-and-defendant-talking.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=99izT0-eywiJuqTuY4trmgS1PXChdDhqa1K8yI9ZACU=" alt="lawyer communication" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9"></figure>

<h3>Accessibility and Availability</h3>
A lawyer's accessibility is another critical factor. You want an attorney who is available to address your concerns and answer questions promptly. Before making a decision, discuss the lawyer's typical response times and their preferred mode of communication.

<h2>Evaluating the Fee Structure</h2>
Understanding the fee structure is crucial in choosing a personal injury lawyer. Many attorneys work on a contingency fee basis, meaning they only get paid if you win your case. Be sure to clarify all financial arrangements beforehand to avoid any misunderstandings later on.

<h3>Contingency Fees</h3>
The concept of contingency fees can be appealing as it reduces upfront costs for clients. However, it's important to know what percentage of your settlement or award will go to the attorney. Discussing this aspect openly can help set clear expectations from the start.

<figure id="figure-lwgvxf7ftcm8bwwlh4"><img id="lwgvxf7ftcm8bwwlh4" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/658494014/photo/terms-of-payment.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=BA-emlF1vJin26SZhgvzii6kU2wjRbvbmxU_88_YUwI=" alt="legal fees" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9"></figure>

<h2>The Importance of Personal Connection</h2>
Finally, consider the personal rapport you have with a prospective lawyer. A strong attorney-client relationship is built on trust and mutual respect. Choose someone you feel comfortable with and who genuinely seems invested in your case's outcome.

By carefully considering these factors, you can confidently compare personal injury lawyers in Southern California and select one who best fits your needs. Remember, the right lawyer can be instrumental in securing the compensation you deserve.

Comparing Personal Injury Lawyers in Southern California: What to Look For

<a data-mce-href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/mudslides-trap-motorists-in-southern-california-storm/vi-AA1AU4Eq?cvid=d0c0441fc0e84e31ba1789959782c53a&amp;ei=32#details" href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/mudslides-trap-motorists-in-southern-california-storm/vi-AA1AU4Eq?cvid=d0c0441fc0e84e31ba1789959782c53a&amp;ei=32#details" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">The Shocking Video Can Be Seen Here</a>

Watch: Mudslides trap motorists in Southern California storm

aerial photography of gray concrete roads

Torrance High School junior Valentina d’Alessandro dreamed of becoming a fashion designer.But that dream turned into a nightmare at 1:45 a.m. on Dec. 7, 2013, when the driver of the car she was riding in challenged a co-worker to a street race. He pounded the gas pedal, reaching 80 mph before running a red light and crashing, killing Valentina instantly.Five months later her mom, Lili Trujillo Puckett, started the group Street Racing Kills, which educates youth and adults about the dangers of reckless driving, including street racing, complete with court-ordered diversion classes for offenders.Trulio is now advocationg for a powerful new documentary, Power Trip, is sparking conversations about the rising death toll from car crashes across the United States. Released on March 10, 2025, the film confronts the culture of speed, reckless driving, and the influence of media and advertising on dangerous road behavior.The timing of the release was eerily fitting—on the same day, a crash in North Hills, California, left four injured, including one person in serious condition. This tragic coincidence underscores the film's urgent message.A Personal Tragedy Sparks a MissionOne of the most moving stories featured in Power Trip is that of Lili Trujillo Puckett, who turned personal loss into a mission for change. In 2013, her daughter, Valentina d’Alessandro, was killed when the driver of the car she was in initiated a street race, running a red light at 80 mph. The crash ended Valentina’s life and shattered her dreams of becoming a fashion designer.Months later, Trujillo Puckett founded the nonprofit Street Racing Kills to educate youth and adults about the dangers of reckless driving. She also hosts court-ordered diversion classes for offenders."She gave me this [nonprofit] and this way, I can be with her. Plus, I didn’t want this to happen to anyone else," said Trujillo Puckett. Her organization has become a beacon of hope and advocacy, helping families cope with loss while actively working to prevent future tragedies.The Vision Behind Power TripThe film was directed by Myron Levin, a veteran journalist from Pasadena who reported on traffic safety for the Los Angeles Times and later founded the investigative news outlet FairWarning. Power Trip is his call to action, highlighting an alarming statistic: 42,000 driving deaths occur each year in the United States, with roughly a third linked to unsafe speeds."Far more Americans died in road crashes than in all the wars combined. Yet, this is barely a blip on the public radar," Levin said. Levin’s passion for the project was supported by his friend, Michael Connelly, the bestselling crime novelist, who served as the film’s executive producer. The documentary is narrated by Peter Coyote, known for his work in Ken Burns’ historical documentaries.A Culture of Speed and RiskPower Trip doesn’t shy away from criticizing the automobile industry, particularly its marketing strategies that glorify speed and power. The film features clips from car commercials showcasing vehicles racing at breakneck speeds, drifting around sharp corners, and tearing through urban landscapes."What happens when you make power your thing above everything? You decide fast is never fast enough," the film’s narrator states, as images of cars barreling across bridges and mountains fill the screen.The documentary cites advertisements that boast vehicles capable of reaching speeds over 140 mph—an alarming reality when such speeds are neither safe nor legal on public roads."There is no reason we should have vehicles on our roads capable of doing 140 mph," said Damian Kevitt, executive director of the nonprofit Streets Are For Everyone (SAFE), who also appears in the film.Kevitt’s personal story is one of resilience and advocacy. In 2017, he was hit by a van while cycling, dragged under the vehicle, and left for dead. He survived but lost his right leg. His experience led him to found SAFE and organize public events, including "die-ins" to draw attention to the dangers faced by pedestrians and cyclists.&nbsp; The Broader Impact of Reckless Driving The statistics are sobering. Traffic deaths in the U.S. surged by 30% between 2014 and 2022, and while some predict a slight decline in 2023 and 2024, the numbers remain alarmingly high.In Los Angeles, traffic fatalities crossed the 300 mark in 2022—a record high in two decades. Pedestrian deaths rose 19%, and cyclist deaths jumped by 24%.Kevitt believes society has become desensitized to traffic violence."As a society, we have become used to traffic violence as a part of life," he said. &nbsp; Can Fast Car Ads Really Influence Behavior?While Levin acknowledges there’s limited research proving that fast-car commercials directly cause reckless driving, the film argues that these messages shape cultural attitudes—especially among young male drivers, who statistically take more risks and account for a significant portion of fatal crashes."When behavior is exciting, we might want to imitate it. Young males take more risks and suffer the highest rate of crash deaths," said Michael Brooks, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, in the film. Despite reaching out to a dozen car manufacturers, Levin said none agreed to comment for the documentary.A Mission for Awareness and ChangeTrujillo Puckett continues to speak at seminars and diversion classes, sharing her personal loss and inviting others impacted by reckless driving to tell their stories."I love what [Levin] did. It is awesome. I hope it is going to be of help," she said. Levin, too, hopes the film will spark meaningful conversations and action. He's pursuing interviews with podcasts and plans to distribute the documentary to driver education programs across the country."I hope this film helps stimulate conversation about this preventable tragedy that happens all the time," Levin said. &nbsp; Watch the Film and Join the Conversation Power Trip is now available to stream on YouTube and at www.powertripfilm.com.This powerful documentary is more than a film—it's a wake-up call. One that challenges viewers to reconsider the culture of speed and recklessness on American roads, and to advocate for safer streets for everyone.View more here: <a data-mce-href="https://www.whittierdailynews.com/2025/03/14/pasadena-journalist-famous-novelist-make-film-about-rising-deaths-from-car-crashes/" href="https://www.whittierdailynews.com/2025/03/14/pasadena-journalist-famous-novelist-make-film-about-rising-deaths-from-car-crashes/">Pasadena journalist, famous novelist make film about rising deaths from car crashes – Whittier Daily News</a>

Pasadena journalist, famous novelist make film about rising deaths from car crashes

Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that can significantly impact a personal injury case. It creates a presumption of negligence when someone violates a statute, regulation, or ordinance designed to protect the public. Understanding how this doctrine works can be crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants navigating negligence claims.What is Negligence Per Se?Negligence per se arises when a person's violation of a law or regulation is presumed to be negligent if certain conditions are met. Under <a data-mce-href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=669&amp;lawCode=EVID" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=669&amp;lawCode=EVID">Evidence Code section 669</a>, negligence is presumed when the following elements are established:1. The defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation.2. The violation proximately caused injury or damage.3. The injury resulted from an occurrence that the statute was designed to prevent.4. The injured party is a member of the class that the statute was intended to protect. This framework was clarified in <a data-mce-href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2019/g054545.html" href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2019/g054545.html">Taulbee v. EJ Distribution Corp. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 590, 596 [247 Cal.Rptr.3d 538]</a>, where the court emphasized that the burden is on the proponent of the negligence per se doctrine to demonstrate these elements.&nbsp; How Negligence Per Se is AppliedIf a plaintiff establishes that a defendant violated a statute and that the violation was a substantial factor in causing harm, the jury must find the defendant negligent—unless the defendant can prove that the violation was excused. This was confirmed in <a data-mce-href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/nunneley-v-edgar-hotel-26307" href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/nunneley-v-edgar-hotel-26307">Nunneley v. Edgar Hotel (1950) 36 Cal.2d 493, 500-501 [225 P.2d 497]</a>, which highlighted that negligence can still be proven by other means even if negligence per se is not established.Importantly, negligence per se is not an independent cause of action. Instead, it serves as an evidentiary presumption affecting the standard of care in a negligence lawsuit (<a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/turner-v-seterus-inc" href="https://casetext.com/case/turner-v-seterus-inc">Turner v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 516, 534 [238 Cal.Rptr.3d 528]</a>). In essence, the plaintiff "borrows" a statute to establish both the duty and the standard of care (David v. Hernandez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 578, 584 [172 Cal.Rptr.3d 204]).&nbsp; Excuses for Statutory ViolationsNot every violation of a law results in negligence per se. The doctrine allows for certain exceptions where a violation may be excused. For example, if compliance with the law was impossible or if violating the statute was safer under the specific circumstances, the presumption of negligence may be rebutted. Courts have highlighted this in various rulings, noting that the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to establish that the violation did not cause the plaintiff's injury (<a data-mce-href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1727665.html" href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1727665.html">Toste v. CalPortland Construction (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 362, 371 [199 Cal.Rptr.3d 522</a>]).Moreover, <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/spriesterbach-v-holland-1" href="https://casetext.com/case/spriesterbach-v-holland-1">Spriesterbach v. Holland (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 255, 263 [155 Cal.Rptr.3d 306</a>] clarified that the presumption of negligence can only be rebutted by evidence showing a valid excuse or justification for the violation.&nbsp; Determining the Standard of CareThe trial court plays a key role in determining whether a statute sets the standard of care. The first two elements of negligence per se—violation and causation—are factual determinations for the jury. However, whether a statute is intended to protect against the type of harm suffered, and whether the injured party is part of the protected class, are legal questions for the court (<a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/jacobs-farmdel-cabo-v-w-farm-serv-inc" href="https://casetext.com/case/jacobs-farmdel-cabo-v-w-farm-serv-inc">Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1526 [119 Cal.Rptr.3d 529]</a>).In <a data-mce-href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ramirez-v-plough-inc" href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ramirez-v-plough-inc">Ramirez v. Plough, Inc. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 539, 547 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 97, 863 P.2d 167]</a>, "When Jorge Ramirez (plaintiff) was four months old, he was given a non-prescription drug, St. Joseph Aspirin for Children (SJAC), for relief from cold-like symptoms. After receiving three SJAC tablets over a two-day period, Ramirez’s mother took Ramirez to a hospital, where a doctor prescribed non-aspirin-containing drugs. Ramirez’s mother ignored the advice and continued to provide Ramirez with SJAC. Ramirez subsequently developed Reye’s syndrome and suffered severe neurological damage as a result. At the time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was aware of the relationship between the ingestion of aspirin during a viral illness and Reye’s syndrome, and required a warning label concerning Reye’s syndrome to be displayed on SJAC packaging. Ramirez’s mother sued Plough, Inc. (Plough) (defendant), the manufacturer of SJAC, on Ramirez’s behalf. Although Plough had provided a warning about Reye’s syndrome on the SJAC purchased by Ramirez’s mother, the warning was in English and Ramirez’s mother was only literate in Spanish. The trial court determined that Plough had no duty to provide the warning in a foreign language, and granted Plough’s motion for summary judgment. Ramirez appealed. The court of appeal overturned the decision, holding that the adequacy of the warning provided by Plough was a triable issue of fact. Plough appealed the decision." (<a data-mce-href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ramirez-v-plough-inc" href="https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ramirez-v-plough-inc">see here</a>)The&nbsp;Ramirez court elaborated that legislative standards become the civil standard of care only because courts accept them. Without such standards, the jury is left to determine what constitutes reasonable conduct under the circumstances.&nbsp;Negligence Per Se and Federal StandardsCalifornia courts recognize that federal statutes or regulations can establish the standard of care in negligence per se claims (<a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/dirosa-v-showa-denko-kk" href="https://casetext.com/case/dirosa-v-showa-denko-kk">DiRosa v. Showa Denko K. K. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 799, 808 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d 128]</a>). However, administrative agencies cannot independently impose a duty of care unless authorized by the legislature (Cal. Serv. Station Etc. Ass'n v. Am. Home Assur. Co. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1175 [73 Cal.Rptr.2d 182]).&nbsp; When Does Negligence Per Se Apply?Negligence per se is most commonly applied in cases involving violations of safety regulations, traffic laws, or building codes. However, the courts have limited its application in some contexts. For instance, while negligence per se can apply to building code violations, courts have noted that its application has been limited to specific situations <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-awad" href="https://casetext.com/case/jones-v-awad">(Jones v. Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1212 [252 Cal.Rptr.3d 596]</a>).Similarly, Cal-OSHA regulations can establish standards for duty and care in negligence cases <a data-mce-href="https://casetext.com/case/elsner-v-uveges" href="https://casetext.com/case/elsner-v-uveges">(Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, 928 [22 Cal.Rptr.3d 530, 102 P.3d 915])</a>. However, their application depends on the specifics of each case.&nbsp; Why Understanding Negligence Per Se MattersNegligence per se can simplify a plaintiff's case by establishing a presumption of negligence based on statutory violations. However, defendants have the opportunity to rebut this presumption by showing that their actions were justified or that the violation was not the actual cause of the harm.Understanding this doctrine is essential for both sides of a legal dispute. For plaintiffs, it provides a framework to establish negligence more efficiently. For defendants, it highlights the importance of demonstrating valid reasons for any statutory violations.If you believe negligence per se applies to your case, consult us today to evaluate your options and develop a strong legal strategy. Knowing how and when this doctrine applies can make a significant difference in the outcome of a case.

A Second Look at Negligence Per Se: What It Means and How It Affects Your Case

A dramatic video captured a high-speed crash on a residential street in Redondo Beach early Monday morning, showing a driver losing control and violently flipping into a home's driveway.<a data-mce-href="https://ktla.com/video/violent-redondo-beach-crash/10531013" href="https://ktla.com/video/violent-redondo-beach-crash/10531013">Watch the video here</a>.According to a KTLA viewer who submitted the footage, the incident occurred around midnight on Garnet Street. The crash was so loud it woke him, his wife, and their daughter.The video shows a small white SUV speeding down the narrow street when it suddenly launches into the air, likely after striking a speed bump. Sparks fly as the vehicle lands front-first, bouncing back onto its rear and swaying side to side.The SUV swerves past parked cars and homes before hitting what appears to be a curb, causing it to flip and land on its side in a home's driveway. The heavily damaged vehicle came to rest on its passenger side in front of a garage door.The KTLA viewer, who has lived on Garnet Street for 33 years, said he had never witnessed anything like it in the neighborhood.It remains unclear whether there were passengers in the vehicle or if drugs or alcohol were involved. However, a spokesperson for the Redondo Beach Police Department confirmed that at least one person was hospitalized and another was taken to jail.It is not yet confirmed whether these were the same individual.

Blog

Understanding Causation in Negligence Cases: The Substant...

Comparing Personal Injury Lawyers in Southern California:...

Watch: Mudslides trap motorists in Southern California storm

Pasadena journalist, famous novelist make film about risi...

A Second Look at Negligence Per Se: What It Means and How...

Dramatic video shows violent crash on quiet Southern Cali...