Other Liability Theories in California Personal Injury Cases
Liability theories are used to argue the plaintiff’s case that the defendant is responsible and thus should be held monetarily accountable for property damage and bodily harm. Liability theories in California civil cases primarily focus on claims based on or related to:
- Negligence
- Gross negligence
- Recklessness
- International torts
- Strict liability
- Vicarious liability (e.g., parents’ liability on behalf of children, or employer’s liability for employee referred to as Respondeat Superior); and
- Joint and several liability.
Though these are the fundamental liability theories applicable in California tortious claims and lawsuits, there are other liability theories and doctrines that branch out from these theories, and though they are less discussed, they are still just as important to understand. If you have been harmed by the action or inaction of another person or entity, knowing the different types of theories available to you may help make sure the right theories are employed. As it is, informed clients make better decisions about the direction of their cases, and so here’s what you need to know about other liability theories that may be relevant in your unique circumstances.
Review the below theories and explore our other pages on the specific liability theories listed above and then contact us with your additional questions. We will help guide you in the right direction to find a personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles equipped with the skill, knowledge, and resources your specific case requires.
Need legal advice? Let’s talk.
Claim your free consultation—private and personalized to your specific needs.
Why Do Liability Theories Matter & Why Do You Need the Right One?
It’s simple: liability theories matter because they clarify your cause of action and identify the at-fault parties. Without a cause of action, you have no case. In other words, liability theories are the basis of how you––as a victim of someone else’s wrongdoing––will recover just and fair compensation. Each theory is accompanied by its own elements. Satisfying those elements will be key to winning your case.
As you can see, however, there are many different liability theories available to victims in Los Angeles specifically and California generally. Most liability theories will not apply in your specific circumstances and only one or two will maximize your chances of a successful outcome. Knowing that you have options in certain situations can also maximize your chances to a successful end: if one theory fails, another theory may succeed.
In addition to the above-mentioned theories, the following are also theories or doctrines of liability that may apply in your unique situation:
- Res ipsa loquitur
- Negligence “Per Se”
- Negligent Entrustment of a Motor Vehicle
- Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention
- Dangerous Condition of Public Property.
Remember, these theories may only apply in certain situations but can give a person options when filing a personal injury claim or lawsuit. For example, if you were injured in an accident caused by a FedEx employee, you may be able to file a claim using the theories of negligence, vicarious liability, and negligent hiring, supervision, or retention. The more theories you have as your causes of action, the more options you have to argue your case and win.
Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur is a “special doctrine” meaning, in Latin, that “the thing speaks for itself.” This doctrine allows a plaintiff to meet the burden of proof based on the totality of circumstantial evidence. According to Evidence Code § 646(c), res ipsa loquitur is a means for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s negligence caused the harm, but three elements must be satisfied for this doctrine to work:
1. The plaintiff’s harm would not ordinarily happen except for someone being negligent;
2. The plaintiff’s harm must have been caused by something that only the plaintiff controlled; and
3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the harm.
For example, if you went to the hospital for a scheduled surgery, and the surgeon left a foreign object inside your chest, then this doctrine would indicate the surgeon’s liability because:
1. Having a foreign object left in your chest cavity is not something that would ordinarily happen but for someone’s negligence;
2. The patient was harmed and this harm was caused by an act over which only the surgeon or medical facility had control; and
3. The patient could not have contributed to leaving the foreign object in the cavity because the patient was not awake during the procedure. Therefore, you may have a valid medical malpractice case under the theory of res ipsa loquitur.
On the other hand, if you slipped and fell at a grocery store, it may be harder to prove res ipsa loquitur because, for example:
- More than one person or entity could have had control over a slippery floor; and
- You as the victim may have contributed to the fall for not paying attention to your surroundings while shopping.
Negligence “Per Se”
Negligence per se is the theory that the defendant was negligent based on the commission of a crime or other violation of the law. According to Evidence Code § 669, there are two elements of this theory:
1. The defendant violated the law; and
2. The violation of the law was a substantial factor in causing harm.
When employing this theory, however, you must make sure that the commission of a crime was not justified. For example, if you were knocked out by the defendant, the assault would be a commission of a crime and would also be a substantial factor in the harm caused to you. If, however, the defendant struck you because you were attacking another person, the defendant may be justified and could invoke the defense of defending others.
Negligent Entrustment of a Motor Vehicle
Negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle is a theory that shoots off from California’s negligence theory but is specific to motor vehicle owners. Under the negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle, people who own a motor vehicle or who are in control of one have a specific duty of care not to knowingly allow another person to drive the vehicle when that person:
- Does not have a driver’s license; or
- Is not competent enough to drive.
Typically, this theory is employed in cases where the owner of the vehicle knew or should have known the driver was:
- Without a driver’s license
- Without the right type of driver’s license (e.g., commercial driver’s license)
- With a suspended or revoked driver’s license
- Underage
- Drunk
- High on drugs
- Medically or physically impaired in a way it made driving dangerous (e.g., vision impairment).
California Vehicle Code §§ 14606, 14607, and 14608 address these very specific situations and applies to the following vehicle owners but are not limited to them:
- Family members (e.g., parents or older siblings)
- Employers (e.g., Uber or FedEx)
- Car or truck rental companies (e.g., Hertz or Uhaul).
Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention
Negligent hiring, supervision, or retention is a liability theory that applies specifically to employers. In this type of situation, the plaintiff claims that he or she was harmed by an employee of a specific company and that the employer is responsible for the harm because it negligently hired, supervised, or retained the employee. There are five elements of this theory that must be established in order for it to be successful:
1. The employer hired the employee;
2. The employee was or became unfit or incompetent to undertake his or her duties of the job for which he or she was hired to perform;
3. The employer knew or should have known that the employee was or became unfit or incompetent and that the unfitness or incompetence was a risk to others;
4. The plaintiff’s harm resulted from the employee’s unfitness or incompetence; and
5. The employer’s negligence to hire, supervise, or retain the employee was a substantial factor leading to the plaintiff’s injury.
For each of the three parts (hiring, supervision, and retention) under this theory, case law prescribes further elements. For example, to specifically establish negligent supervision, it must be shown that the supervisor had prior knowledge of the employee’s tendency to act bad (in a way that exemplifies his or her unfitness or incompetence), but the plaintiff would not need to show the same for negligent hiring.
Dangerous Condition of Public Property
Dangerous condition of public property is a theory applicable against a governmental agency, whether it’s national, state-wide, or local. Under this theory, a plaintiff claims that he or she was harmed by a dangerous condition on the public property. This theory, according to Government Code § 835, is established when six elements are satisfied:
1. The defendant owned the property (or otherwise was in control of the property);
2. At the time of the injury, there was a dangerous condition on the property;
3. The dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury––the kind the plaintiff suffered;
4. One of two things occurred:
i. A tortious action or inaction by an employee of the defendant created the dangerous condition; or
ii. The defendant had notice of the dangerous condition for a long period of time and could have prevented harm by dealing with the dangerous condition;
5. The plaintiff was harmed; and
6. The dangerous condition was a substantial factor that caused the plaintiff’s injury.
Some examples of dangerous conditions of the public property include:
- Absence of street warns or signs (e.g., a sharp curve)
- Street signs that are hidden, damaged, or otherwise rendered useless (e.g., trees hiding a stop sign)
- Poorly designed or maintained roads (e.g., serious potholes)
- Sharp drops on roadsides without railings or with damaged railings.
To note, this theory involves claims against a government entity. As such, the claims process is different. Of particular importance, you only have 6 months to file the claim. Plus, government agencies may have immunities against certain claims. Having an attorney who understands the ends and outs of claims against the government is probably your only if not best bet to file the claim right and optimize your chances for fair and just compensation.
Retain a Knowledgeable Personal Injury Attorney in Los Angeles Today
Many personal injury claims and lawsuits are filed on the grounds of several different liability theories. Only an attorney with experience and deep knowledge of the law will have the ability to competently and persuasively argue your case based on these theories. Contact us today so we can help you find the best lawyer for your specific personal injury matter in Los Angeles who will be committed and diligent and get you the compensation you deserve.
