How To Prove A California Gross Negligence Claim

 

 

In California, a claim of Gross Negligence is defined as:

Gross Negligence occurs when there is an extreme deviation from the ordinary standard of care supporting a finding of wanton, willful and reckless disregard or conscious indifference for the rights and safety of others.

It simply means:

Purposeful behavior done without considering the harm that it could cause other parties.

There are 4 elements of the claim:

• Element 1. The defendant owed a duty to plaintiff to use due care. The defendant had a responsibility to act carefully and responsibly to avoid causing harm to the plaintiff, meaning they should have taken reasonable steps to prevent any accidents or injuries.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant was responsible for maintaining the safety of the premises where the incident occurred, creating a duty to ensure it was free from hazards.
  * The defendant had prior knowledge of the dangerous condition that led to the plaintiff’s injury, indicating a responsibility to address it.
  * The defendant was a professional in a position of trust, which required them to exercise a higher standard of care towards the plaintiff.
  * The defendant’s actions directly impacted the plaintiff’s safety, establishing a clear duty to act with due care.
  * The defendant had a legal obligation to follow safety regulations that were designed to protect individuals like the plaintiff from harm.

• Element 2. The defendant breached that duty. The defendant failed to meet the expected standard of care, meaning they acted in a way that a reasonable person wouldn’t, which directly contributed to the harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant failed to maintain the safety equipment, which had not been inspected for over a year despite known safety regulations.
  * The defendant ignored multiple complaints from employees regarding hazardous conditions in the workplace, leading to an unsafe environment.
  * The defendant was aware of a significant risk but chose not to implement necessary safety protocols, resulting in an accident.
  * The defendant’s actions directly contradicted industry standards, demonstrating a reckless disregard for the safety of others.
  * The defendant was operating machinery without proper training, which they had previously been warned against by safety personnel.

• Element 3. The defendant’s conduct rose to the level of either a want of scant care or an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation to prevent harm to oneself or to others. The defendant acted with such little care or in such a reckless way that it was far below what any reasonable person would do to avoid causing harm to themselves or others in a similar situation.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant was observed driving at twice the speed limit in a heavily populated area, disregarding multiple stop signs.
  * The defendant failed to secure hazardous materials properly, resulting in a spill that endangered nearby pedestrians and property.
  * The defendant ignored repeated warnings from coworkers about unsafe working conditions, leading to a serious injury on the job site.
  * The defendant chose to operate heavy machinery while under the influence of alcohol, significantly impairing their ability to make safe decisions.
  * The defendant neglected to maintain their property, allowing a dangerous condition to develop that ultimately caused injury to a visitor.

• Element 4. The defendant’s conduct was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury to the plaintiff. The defendant’s actions directly led to the plaintiff’s injury, meaning that what the defendant did (or failed to do) was a key reason why the injury happened, making them legally responsible for the harm caused.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant failed to maintain the safety equipment, which directly led to the plaintiff’s injury during the incident.
  * The defendant ignored multiple safety warnings, creating a hazardous environment that resulted in the plaintiff’s harm.
  * The defendant’s reckless driving caused a collision that left the plaintiff with severe injuries.
  * The defendant’s decision to operate machinery without proper training directly contributed to the plaintiff’s accident.
  * The defendant’s negligence in securing the premises allowed for an unsafe condition that ultimately injured the plaintiff.

^{(See People v. Ochoa, 864 P. 2d 103 – Cal: Supreme Court 1993. Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917. California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 400, 425. Wood v. County of San Joaquin (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 960, 971.)}
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a claim of Gross Negligence, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make critical decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to effectively navigate your case.

Prove Your CA Gross Negligence Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only