11 Cited authorities

Christensen v. Superior Court
54 Cal.3d 868 (Cal. 1991) Cited 692 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants owed duty to close family members for whose benefit funeral services were intended to avoid mishandling decedent's remains
Berkley v. Dowds
152 Cal.App.4th 518 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 206 times
Holding that the statute "does not create a cause of action as such, but provides for attorney fees, costs and punitive damages under certain conditions"
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 79 times
Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"
Doe v. U.S. Youth Soccer Ass'n, Inc.
8 Cal.App.5th 1118 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) Cited 51 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
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.
Williams v. Carr
68 Cal.2d 579 (Cal. 1968) Cited 47 times
In Williams v. Carr (1968) 68 Cal.2d 579, 583-584 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 305, 440 P.2d 505], the court explained that "willful misconduct," in an automobile guest statute, "implies the intentional doing of something either with knowledge, express or implied, that serious injury is a probable, as distinguished from a possible, result, or the intentional doing of an act with a wanton and reckless disregard of its consequences.
Shahinian v. McCormick
59 Cal.2d 554 (Cal. 1963) Cited 55 times
In Shahinian, the plaintiff, a fallen waterskier, was waiting to be picked up by a boat operated by the defendant with the plaintiff's wife as a passenger.
Donnelly v. Southern Pacific Co.
18 Cal.2d 863 (Cal. 1941) Cited 91 times
In Donnelly v. S. Pac. Co., 18 Cal. 2d 863 (1941), the California Supreme Court considered whether existing law precluded a personal injury action based on negligence.
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

Order Submitted Matter

11 Cited authorities

Holding that defendants owed duty to close family members for whose benefit funeral services were intended to avoid mishandling decedent's remains

Holding that the statute "does not create a cause of action as such, but provides for attorney fees, costs and punitive damages under certain conditions"

Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

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

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 Shahinian, the plaintiff, a fallen waterskier, was waiting to be picked up by a boat operated by the defendant with the plaintiff's wife as a passenger.

In Donnelly v. S. Pac. Co., 18 Cal. 2d 863 (1941), the California Supreme Court considered whether existing law precluded a personal injury action based on negligence.