12 Cited authorities

Zelig v. County of Los Angeles
27 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 2002) Cited 966 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding public entity could not be liable under respondeat superior because the plaintiff had failed to allege that the public employees were engaged in conduct within the scope of employment that would render the public employee liable to the plaintiff
Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop
106 Cal.App.4th 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 108 times
Noting weight of authority refusing to recognize confidential or fiduciary relationship based on mere pastor-parishioner relationship where claim is not grounded in marital, family or financial counseling
Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery
19 Cal.4th 714 (Cal. 1998) Cited 100 times
Rejecting argument that Legislature's focus on negligence principles supported a limitation of section 847's immunity provisions to negligent acts
Doe v. U.S. Youth Soccer Ass'n, Inc.
8 Cal.App.5th 1118 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) Cited 52 times
Noting that if courts find a special relationship, they go on to "balance the policy factors set forth in Rowland to assist in their determination of the existence and scope of a defendant's duty in a particular case"
George v. Auto. Club of South. California
201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 47 times
Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity
Manuel v. Pacific Gas Electric Co.
173 Cal.App.4th 927 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 21 times
Defining willful misconduct as involving a "positive intent actually to harm another or to do an act with a positive, active and absolute disregard for its consequences."
New v. Consolidated Rock Products Co.
171 Cal.App.3d 681 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) Cited 35 times
In New v. Consolidated Rock Products Co., supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at pages 691 to 692, the court rejected the argument that punitive damages should be limited to situations where a defendant acts with a subjectively culpable state of mind.
Ching Yee v. Dy Foon
143 Cal.App.2d 129 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956) Cited 27 times
Docket No. 16723. July 16, 1956. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Harry J. Neubarth, Judge. Affirmed. White White for Appellant. Dana, Bledsoe Smith, Bledsoe, Smith, Cathcart Johnson and Joseph W. Rogers, Jr., for Respondent. KAUFMAN, J. This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent after jury verdict in a personal injury action by a guest for injuries received in an automobile accident in Los Angeles on September 7, 1951
Erickson v. Vogt
27 Cal.App.2d 77 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938) Cited 20 times
In Erickson v. Vogt, 27 Cal.App.2d 77 [ 80 P.2d 533], the trial court directed a verdict for defendant upon somewhat similar facts.
Forsman v. Colton
136 Cal.App. 97 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933) Cited 21 times
Docket No. 4914. December 27, 1933. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County. Walter E. Herzinger, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. L.C. Smith for Appellant. Hugh K. McKevitt and Carr Kennedy for Respondents. PULLEN, P.J. This in an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit in an action alleging wilful misconduct, brought by plaintiff against defendants. [1] The court may grant a nonsuit only when, disregarding conflicting evidence and giving to plaintiff
Rule 3.1320 - Demurrers
Cal. R. 3.1320 Cited 97 times
(a) Grounds separately stated Each ground of demurrer must be in a separate paragraph and must state whether it applies to the entire complaint, cross-complaint, or answer, or to specified causes of action or defenses. (b) Demurrer not directed to all causes of action A demurrer to a cause of action may be filed without answering other causes of action. (c) Notice of hearing A party filing a demurrer must serve and file therewith a notice of hearing that must specify a hearing date in accordance

Memorandum Points and Authorities

12 Cited authorities

Finding public entity could not be liable under respondeat superior because the plaintiff had failed to allege that the public employees were engaged in conduct within the scope of employment that would render the public employee liable to the plaintiff

Noting weight of authority refusing to recognize confidential or fiduciary relationship based on mere pastor-parishioner relationship where claim is not grounded in marital, family or financial counseling

Rejecting argument that Legislature's focus on negligence principles supported a limitation of section 847's immunity provisions to negligent acts

Noting that if courts find a special relationship, they go on to "balance the policy factors set forth in Rowland to assist in their determination of the existence and scope of a defendant's duty in a particular case"

Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

Defining willful misconduct as involving a "positive intent actually to harm another or to do an act with a positive, active and absolute disregard for its consequences."

In New v. Consolidated Rock Products Co., supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at pages 691 to 692, the court rejected the argument that punitive damages should be limited to situations where a defendant acts with a subjectively culpable state of mind.

In Erickson v. Vogt, 27 Cal.App.2d 77 [ 80 P.2d 533], the trial court directed a verdict for defendant upon somewhat similar facts.