Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

4 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Weekly Law Resume - June 27, 2013: Duty of Care – Vendor’s Duty to Third Parties

    Low, Ball & LynchJuly 8, 2013

    The Court had to evaluate whether the category of negligent conduct at issue is sufficiently likely to result in the kind of harm experienced that liability may appropriately be imposed on the negligent party. The inquiry into foreseeability entails three considerations: "[1] the [general] foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, [2] the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, [and] [3] the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered. . . .” Cabral v. Ralph's Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 775. Here, the chain of foreseeability was both short and direct.

  2. California Court of Appeal Overturns Nonsuit Granted in Household Exposure Asbestos Case Where Trial Court’s Decision Was Based on Campbell v. Ford Motor Co.

    Wilson Elser LLPEimi WatanabeJune 4, 2014

    Analysis In any case where a claim for negligence is asserted, the general rule in California is that each person has a duty to use ordinary care and is liable for injuries caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care in the circumstances. Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 771. Here, the issue was whether to impose a duty of care on a manufacturing company in a secondary exposure case.

  3. Premises Owner Owes No Duty to Protect Family Members of Independent Contractors From Secondary Exposure to Asbestos

    Sedgwick LLPJune 21, 2012

    Ford appealed the judgment, and asserted that it did not owe a duty to Honer because Ford, as a premises owner, was not responsible for acts or omissions of independent contractors working on Ford’s premises. In finding that Ford did not owe a duty to the plaintiff, the court centered its analysis on the factors that establish a duty of care as defined in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal 2d. 108 (1968), and later clarified in Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Store, 51 Cal.4th 764 (2011). Under Rowland, foreseeability and the burden on the defendant are central to the analysis of finding the existence of a duty.

  4. Studio That Provided Financing For Motion Picture Is Not Liable For Injury To Production Company Employee

    Proskauer Rose LLPTony OncidiMarch 1, 2011

    The Court of Appeal affirmed. See alsoCortez v. Abich, 51 Cal. 4th 285 (2011) (employee of unlicensed contractor may sue homeowner under Cal-OSHA for injuries he sustained during residential remodeling project in which significant portions of the house were demolished and rebuilt and new rooms were added); Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764 (2011) (Ralphs was liable for death of driver who suddenly veered off the freeway and collided with the rear of a Ralphs tractor-trailer that was parked alongside an interstate highway where truck driver was having a snack).