§Why CasetextPricing

NALWA v. CEDAR FAIR

Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

26 Cited authorities

  1. Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist.

    31 Cal.4th 990 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 455 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an intervening act properly to be considered a superseding cause, "the act must have produced harm of a kind and degree far beyond the risk that the original tortfeasor should have foreseen"

  2. Knight v. Jewett

    3 Cal.4th 296 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 420 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a "reckless or intentional" standard in a case involving an injury suffered in a touch football game

  3. LI v. Yellow Cab Co.

    13 Cal.3d 804 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 609 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the “ ‘all-or-nothing’ ” common law doctrine of contributory negligence is superseded by a comparative negligence system that assigns liability for damage in direct proportion to the fault of each party

  4. Shin v. Ahn

    42 Cal.4th 482 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 175 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Discussing totality-of-the-circumstances rule, but not in the context of peace officers using deadly force

  5. Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co.

    15 Cal.4th 456 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 227 times
    Holding that the social utility of defendant's conduct overrode the foreseeability of harm

  6. Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc.

    8 Cal.4th 532 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 95 times
    Preferring to jettison even the nomenclature of assumption of risk and expressly state that "the proper basis for the firefighter's rule ... is a legal conclusion that the person who starts a fire owes no duty of care to the firefighter who is called to respond to the fire"

  7. Cheong v. Antablin

    16 Cal.4th 1063 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 83 times
    Concluding that county ordinance providing that skier assumes risk of collision with another skier bars negligence action by one skier against another skier arising out of collision

  8. Ford v. Gouin

    3 Cal.4th 339 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 95 times
    Holding recreational water skiing to be a sport

  9. Priebe v. Nelson

    39 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 37 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing a "kennel exception" and precluding a kennel worker from maintaining a claim against the owner of a dog when injured by the dog while in the performance of his duties as a kennel worker

  10. Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC

    175 Cal.App.4th 650 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Attending Burning Man festival and being burned participating in ritual burning of eponymous effigy

  11. Section 3195.9 - Motion Restriction and Other Specific Hazard Control Measures

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3195.9   Cited 1 times

    (a) Emergency Brakes and Devices. Ride conveyance vehicles shall be provided with emergency brakes or other equally effective emergency stopping controls, if upon failure of normal stopping controls, collision may reasonably be expected to occur and result in patron injury or equipment damage. Low speed vehicles designed for controlled collisions, such as bumper cars, do not require emergency stopping controls. (b) Anti-Rollback Controls. Each permanent amusement ride with a passenger conveyance

  12. Section 3900 - Purpose

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3900   Cited 1 times

    These Orders establish minimum standards for design, maintenance, construction, alteration, operation, repair, inspections, assembly, disassembly, and use of amusement rides for the protection of persons using such rides. These Orders do not replace or supersede any existing Safety Orders affecting employee safety. NOTE: Where the use of guardrails is impracticable for personal fall protection, see Section 3210(b), Exception No. 10 of these orders. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 8, § 3900 1. Amendment of section

  13. Rule 3.1354 - Written objections to evidence

    Cal. R. 3.1354   Cited 158 times

    (a) Time for filing and service of objections Unless otherwise excused by the court on a showing of good cause, all written objections to evidence in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication must be served and filed at the same time as the objecting party's opposition or reply papers are served and filed. (b) Format of objections All written objections to evidence must be served and filed separately from the other papers in support of or in opposition to