isk of side effects than the existing Gilead drug.The Result: The California Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' negligence claim to proceed. The court held that the "legal duty of a manufacturer to exercise reasonable care" can encompass a manufacturer's decision to pause the development of a new drug. But the California Supreme Court will now weigh in on the matter.Looking Ahead: The Court of Appeal's decision opens the door for plaintiffs to sue pharmaceutical manufacturers simply for deferring the development of new drugs—which could bear upon how manufacturers think about their pipeline. But the Court of Appeal's decision itself acknowledged that this theory could potentially be limited to new drugs whose safety and efficacy has been established in Phase III trials. All eyes will now be on the California Supreme Court as it decides whether to let the ruling stand.California law permits plaintiffs to recover under a negligence theory for injuries suffered from a product. Under California Civil Code section 1714, a plaintiff must prove that the manufacturer owed a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty by acting unreasonably, and caused the injury. Many understood previous decisions as precluding negligence liability for pharmaceutical manufacturers for injuries caused by a prescription drug that was properly prepared and accompanied by appropriate warnings. But in Gilead, the California Court of Appeal recently held that plaintiffs may state a negligence claim against a manufacturer simply for not bringing an alternative drug to market, regardless of whether the manufacturer's existing product was defective. The California Supreme Court will now be reviewing that decision.Specifically, the Gilead court held that the plaintiffs could maintain a negligence claim against Gilead for its decision to defer development of the HIV drug TAF, an alternative to TDF, Gilead's product already on the market. Importantly, because of the summary judgment posture, the court accepted the plaintiffs' assert

s workplace injury.The Court distinguished between claims that were “collateral to or derivative of” the employee’s workplace injury, and claims that are merely factually related to the employee’s injury.Specifically, the Court determined the WCA does not preempt claims where the injuries of the plaintiff did not require proof of the employee’s injuries as a legal factor for the plaintiff’s cause of action, even if the two injuries are factually related. Even if the plaintiff’s injury would not have been caused “but for” the employee’s injury, the causal link is insufficient to render the claims derivative.Therefore, the WCA does not apply because, while the wife’s negligence claim against the employer was factually related to or caused by his injury, her claim was not legally dependent on her husband’s workplace injury.Duty of Employer to Prevent ExposureThe Court ruled employers do not have a duty of care to prevent “take-home exposure” of COVID-19 to an employee’s household members.California Civil Code section 1714 generally imposes an expansive duty of care, which the Court found could impose a duty of care upon employers. The Court determined the wife’s injury was reasonably foreseeable in that permitting the workplace spread of COVID-19 could cause an employee’s household members to contract the illness. The Court also determined the “moral blame” likely tilted toward finding a duty of care, as the employer could have profited off its failure to abide by the health order to prevent the spread of COVID-19.However, the Court recognized imposing a duty of care upon employers to employees’ household members would impose a “significant and unpredictable burden” because it would be “impossible to eliminate the risk of infection, even with perfect implementation of best practices,” which could result in untold increases in litigation against employers with dire financial consequences. Given the high burden, this would impose on California businesses, the court systems in increased litigation, and bu

Establishing the existence of a legal duty and the applicable standard of care is key to a successful claim. For a tort claim of negligence against a landlord, a plaintiff will need to prove the landlord owed a duty to the plaintiff, the landlord breached the standard of care applicable to that duty, plaintiff suffered an injury, and the landlord’s breach of the standard of care was the proximate cause of that injury.What is the standard of care? California Civil Code 1714 (a) states that “everyone is responsible… for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person…” The courts have held that this duty of care espoused in Section 1714 applies to possessors of land for injuries to people on their premises (see Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 119) and that a landlord owes a tenant the same duty of reasonable care in providing and maintaining a leased premises. (Becker v. IRM Corp. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 454, 467.)

eries took place in and other parking areas. Another 10,751 occurred in convenience stores.Many studies and reports tag nightclubs and bars as high-risk areas for criminal assaults. Alcohol, loud music, and large crowds in a concentrated area contribute to the potential for sexual assaults, fights, and other attacks at these venues. Criminal attacks can seriously injure or kill their victims. Depending on the specific type of assault or battery, potential injuries include traumatic brain injuries, fractures, and bruises. Sexual assault victims face the prospect of disease and significant emotional distress manifested by post-traumatic stress, flashbacks, phobias, isolation, and suicidal thoughts. Crime victims may turn to the premises owner for compensation for these injuries. Below, we discuss what is involved in proving a negligent security claim.Defining Negligent SecurityProperty owners owe lawful occupants and guests a duty to use reasonable measures to keep their premises safe. California Civil Code Section 1714(a) holds owners liable for injuries caused by the failure to use reasonable and ordinary care in the management of property. Negligent security represents one facet of premises liability. In such a claim, the victim alleges that a landlord or owner of a business or other public place failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a reasonably anticipated crime. Landowners have a “special relationship” with customers and other lawful visitors or occupants of the property. As such, negligent security claims can overcome the general rule that a party is not liable for not anticipating or preventing criminal acts by third parties. Proving That the Criminal Act Was Reasonably AnticipatedCalifornia law requires landowners to protect occupants from criminal acts that the landowner can reasonably anticipate. As such, the court must first determine whether the owner could have reasonably anticipated the attack in question. Broadly speaking, courts balance foreseeability against the burden to the owne

County, California from November 8, 2018 to November 25, 2018, almost completely destroying the town of Paradise, killing 85 people and destroying 18,804 buildings. It was the most destructive and deadly wildfire in the history of the state, and its cost has been estimated at $16.65 billion.A CAL FIRE investigation determined that the fire was started by PG&E power lines.Lawsuits alleged that PG&E’s negligence caused the Camp Fire, arguing that the Camp Fire occurred because PG&E failed to properly maintain its power equipment and the vegetation around it.Negligence is failing to act with reasonable care for the purpose of preventing harm. Acting and failing to act can both be negligent. Doing what a reasonably careful entity wouldn’t do is negligent, as is not doing what a reasonably careful entity would do. In the case of the Camp Fire, lawsuits argued that PG&E negligently failed to act in order to make sure its power equipment and the vegetation around it were properly maintained.California Civil Code 1714 holds those who injure others via negligence liable for any damages related to the injuries. This includes both physical and mental injuries.PTSD is a commonly cited injury in personal injury lawsuits seeking to recover financial compensation for injuries. Since the “climate trauma” mentioned by the researchers shares many things in common with PTSD, it is possible that future lawsuits, such as lawsuits involving wildfires started by utility companies, will seek financial compensation for climate trauma.

shed; see Lucas v City of Visalia.Strict Product Liability – Failure to WarnThe complaint alleges that the defendants knew or should have known that paraquat was likely to enter the bodies of those who used it or were near where it was being used, and that, once it entered their bodies, paraquat was likely to cause Parkinson’s disease.Despite this, the defendants, according to the complaint, failed to:Provide directions for use which would cause it to be unlikely that users and those nearby would ingest, inhale or absorb paraquat into their bodiesProvide a warning that paraquat was likely to cause Parkinson’s disease once it was absorbed, inhaled or ingested into the bodyCompanies who fail to warn about dangers associated with their products when they know or should know about the dangers are strictly liable in California for any injuries caused by the products; see Burke v Almaden Vineyards, Inc.NegligenceNegligence is the failure to act with reasonable care in order to prevent harm. California Civil Code 1714 holds negligent parties financially liable for injuries caused by their negligence.The complaint alleges the defendants were negligent by:Formulating, manufacturing, designing and packaging paraquat in a manner which made it likely to enter the bodies of its users and those nearby its useFormulating, manufacturing and designing paraquat in a manner which made it likely to cause Parkinson’s disease once it entered the human bodyFailing to adequately test paraquat to determine how likely it was that it would enter the bodies of its users and those nearby its useFailing to adequately test the likelihood and mechanics of paraquat spray driftFailing to adequately test the likelihood that paraquat would cause Parkinson’s disease once entering the human bodyFailing to provide instructions making it unlikely that paraquat would enter the bodies of its users or those nearby its useFailing to warn that exposure to paraquat is likely to cause Parkinson’s diseaseBreach Of Express And Implied Warr

Premises liability laws in California are based on the concept of negligence. California Civil Code 1714 holds California entities responsible for injuries caused when the entities fail to act with “ordinary care or skill” in managing their property.Negligence is the failure to be reasonably careful for the purpose of preventing harm. Acting as a reasonably careful entity would not act under the same circumstances is acting negligently. It is also negligent to fail to act as a reasonably careful entity would act in the same situation.Premises liability claims ultimately come down to if negligence on behalf of an entity who owned, leased, controlled or occupied property caused somebody to be injured.What Must Be Proven In A Slip And Fall Claim?If a plaintiff has been injured after slipping and falling on someone else’s property, the plaintiff must be able to prove four elements in order to establish a successful slip and fall lawsuit in California:The defendant owned, occupied, leased or controlled the property that the slip and fall accident happened on;The defendant negligently used or

alifornia Civil Code § 3291Any other relief deemed proper by the courtThe complaint notes that Patrick’s injury will keep him out for the entirety of the 2022-2023 season and will necessitate surgical intervention, physical therapy, training and rehabilitation. The complaint claims that Patrick’s injury has caused pain and suffering, loss of over half of his salary, emotional distress and economic loss, and that the injury will continue to cause Patrick to suffer emotional distress, pain and suffering “for the foreseeable future.”The complaint claims Patrick’s injury might affect his employment status for the foreseeable future, will cause him to lose $200,000 to $400,000 in bonuses, will cause him to lose $370,000 in base salary, and will affect his earning capacity and market value as a free agent after the 2023 NFL season.Lawsuit Alleges That All Defendants Were NegligentThe complaint alleges that Patrick was injured as the result of negligence on the part of every named defendant. California Civil Code § 1714 holds negligent parties financially liable for damages suffered by those injured as a result of the negligence.The complaint alleges that SoFi Stadium, Hollywood Park Land Company, Stockbridge, The Flesher Group, Kroenke Sports and the Los Angeles Chargers were negligent because:The field was unsafe for players when they ran out of boundsElectrical cables were placed in an unsafe locationUnsafe mats were placed over the cablesThey failed to inspect the field for dangerous conditions before the gameThey failed to provide warnings about an unsafe condition before the gameThey failed to train the NFL TV liaison where he was supposed to stand on the sidelines, and failed to ensure he was correctly positioned during the gameThey failed to make sure the players were safeThey failed to correct dangerous conditions before the gameThe complaint alleges that ESPN was negligent because:They placed electrical cables, and mats over those cables, in unsafe locationsThey created a dangerous conditio

The holidays are around the corner. For many, that may mean excessive amounts of food, family, friends, and, yes, alcohol. With this in mind, now might be a good time to discuss potential liability when hosting an event.We previously discussed party hosts and underagedrinking, but one of the more critical aspects of the California Social Host Law is that a host who knowingly serves alcoholic beverages to a minor can be held liable, and face serious consequences.California Civil Code §1714(d) states:(1) Nothing in subdivision (c) shall preclude a claim against a parent, guardian, or another adult who knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence to a person whom he or she knows, or should have known, to be under 21 years of age, in which case, notwithstanding subdivision (b), the furnishing of the alcoholic beverage may be found to be the proximate cause of resulting injuries or death.(2) A claim under this subdivision may be brought by, or on behalf of, the person under 21 years of age or by a person who was harmed by the person under 21 years of age.For example, if an underaged individual is intoxicated and causes a serious car accident, that could mean additional liability for the adult who served alcohol to the minor.According to a 2019 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s)Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 21.4 percent of underage youths in California reported they drank alcohol, and 33.3 percent obtained the alcohol they drank from a third p

s disease even when the product is manufactured correctly and used correctly or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.Strict Liability – Failure To WarnA product is considered defective in California if a company knows or should know that the product is unreasonably dangerous, yet fails to warn about the danger.Lawsuits argue that products containing paraquat contain a warning defect. The lawsuits allege that paraquat manufacturers knew or should have known that paraquat could cause Parkinson’s disease, as numerous scientific studies have linked the herbicide with the disease. The lawsuits claim that it is paraquat’s redox properties which lead to Parkinson’s disease, and that the scientific community has known about these properties since the 1930s.NegligenceNegligence is the failure to be reasonably careful in order to stop harm from occurring. It is negligent to do what a reasonably careful person wouldn’t do, and it is negligent to fail to do what a reasonably careful person would do.California Civil Code §1714 holds negligent parties liable for any harm done by their negligence.Lawsuits argue that paraquat manufacturers have been negligent by failing to warn that their products could cause Parkinson’s disease, as well as by not testing products containing paraquat adequately.Breach Of Implied Warranty Of MerchantabilityCalifornia Civil Code §1792 states that consumer goods sold in the state “shall be accompanied by the manufacturer’s and the retail seller’s implied warranty that the goods are merchantable.”Lawsuits allege that products containing paraquat breach this implied warranty, as they are not merchantable since they can cause Parkinson’s disease even when manufactured correctly and used correctly or in a reasonably foreseeable way.