How To Prove A California Negligent Misrepresentation Claim
In California, a claim of Negligent Misrepresentation is defined as:
A party that is trying to induce another party to a contract has a duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken as regards the accuracy of any representations of fact that may lead to the latter party to enter the contract. If such reasonable care to ensure the truth of a statement is not taken, then the wronged party may be the victim of negligent misrepresentation. Negligent misrepresentation can also occur in some cases when a party makes a careless statement of fact or does not have sufficient reason for believing in that statement’s truth.
It simply means:
A statement made without regard to the truth.
There are 7 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant represented to the plaintiff that a fact was true. The defendant told the plaintiff something that they claimed was true, which the plaintiff relied on, believing it to be accurate.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant assured the plaintiff that the property was free of any structural issues before the sale.
* The defendant provided a written report stating that the plumbing system was in excellent condition.
* The defendant verbally claimed that the business had consistently profitable financial records for the past three years.
* The defendant represented that all necessary permits for the renovation had been obtained and were valid.
* The defendant indicated that the product was certified safe for consumer use, based on their own testing. - Element 2. The defendant’s representation was not true. In a negligent misrepresentation claim, this element means that the defendant made a false statement or claim that they presented as true, which the other party relied on, leading to harm or loss.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant claimed that the property was free of any structural issues, but an independent inspection revealed significant foundation problems.
* The defendant stated that the product had a five-year warranty, yet the warranty documentation provided was only valid for one year.
* The defendant assured the buyer that the financial projections were based on accurate data, but the data was later found to be fabricated.
* The defendant represented that the service would be completed within two weeks, but it took over two months to fulfill the agreement.
* The defendant claimed to have extensive experience in the industry, but records show that they had only been operating for a few months. - Element 3. Though the defendant may have honestly believed the representation was true, they had no reasonable grounds for believing the representation was true when they made it. Even if the defendant genuinely thought what they said was true, they didn’t have a good reason to believe it at the time, which means they could still be held responsible for misleading someone.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant failed to conduct any independent research or verification before making the representation, relying solely on hearsay.
* The defendant had previously received conflicting information about the accuracy of the representation but chose to ignore it.
* The defendant lacked expertise in the subject matter of the representation, making their belief unreasonable.
* The defendant was aware of significant red flags that should have prompted further investigation into the accuracy of the representation.
* The defendant had a history of making similar representations that were later proven to be false, indicating a pattern of negligence. - Element 4. The defendant intended that the plaintiff rely on this representation. This means that the person making a false statement knew that the other person would trust and act on that information, which is important for proving that they were careless in providing accurate details.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant made the representation during a formal meeting where the plaintiff was present, indicating a clear intention for the plaintiff to rely on the information provided.
* The defendant followed up with the plaintiff after making the representation, reinforcing its importance and encouraging reliance on the information.
* The defendant had prior knowledge of the plaintiff’s reliance on similar representations in the past, demonstrating an understanding of the potential impact of their statements.
* The defendant explicitly stated that the information was accurate and reliable, suggesting a deliberate intention for the plaintiff to trust and act upon it.
* The defendant provided the representation in a context where the plaintiff was seeking guidance, indicating an expectation that the plaintiff would rely on the information given. - Element 5. The plaintiff reasonably relied on the defendant’s representation. The plaintiff trusted what the defendant said or showed them, believing it to be true, and this trust was reasonable based on the situation, which is an important part of proving that the defendant was negligent in their misleading information.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant provided a detailed report indicating that the property was free of structural issues, which the plaintiff reviewed before making a purchase.
* The plaintiff had no prior experience in real estate transactions and relied solely on the defendant’s expertise and assurances regarding the property’s value.
* The defendant assured the plaintiff that all necessary permits were obtained for renovations, leading the plaintiff to proceed with the purchase without further investigation.
* The plaintiff attended a meeting where the defendant presented financial projections, which the plaintiff relied upon to make an investment decision.
* The defendant’s reputation in the industry as a trustworthy advisor influenced the plaintiff’s decision to rely on the information provided. - Element 6. The plaintiff was harmed. The plaintiff was harmed means that the person who is suing suffered some kind of loss or damage, like financial trouble or emotional distress, because they relied on false information provided by someone else, which they believed to be true.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff relied on the defendant’s false statements regarding the quality of a product, leading to a financial loss when the product failed to meet expectations.
* The plaintiff incurred additional expenses for repairs and replacements due to the misleading information provided by the defendant.
* The plaintiff experienced emotional distress and anxiety as a result of the financial impact caused by the defendant’s misrepresentation.
* The plaintiff lost a business opportunity because they acted on the inaccurate information given by the defendant.
* The plaintiff’s reputation was damaged in their industry due to reliance on the defendant’s misleading claims. - Element 7. The plaintiff’s reliance on the defendant’s representation was a substantial factor in causing their harm. The plaintiff trusted what the defendant said, and this trust played a major role in leading to the plaintiff’s harm or loss.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff based their investment decision solely on the defendant’s assurances about the profitability of the venture.
* The defendant provided misleading financial projections that the plaintiff relied upon when entering into the contract.
* The plaintiff explicitly stated they would not have proceeded without the defendant’s representations regarding the product’s safety.
* The plaintiff suffered financial losses directly linked to the defendant’s inaccurate statements about market conditions.
* The defendant’s claims were the primary reason the plaintiff chose to engage in the transaction, despite other available options.
(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 1903. B.L.M. v. Sabo & Deitsch(1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 823, 834. Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216Cal.App.2d 50, 57.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Negligent Misrepresentation, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively navigate your legal journey.
Prove Your CA Negligent Misrepresentation Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only