How To Prove A California Negligent Undertaking Claim

 

How To Prove A California Negligent Undertaking Claim

 

In California, a claim of Negligent Undertaking is defined as:

A negligent undertaking claim allows a person, such as a landlord, who renders services necessary for the protection of another person be held liable to the other for physical harm resulting from the failure to exercise reasonable care to perform the undertaking,

It simply means:

When someone offers certain services to another, they may be held liable if the performance of their duties cause harm to others.

There are 5 elements of the claim:

  • Element 1. The defendant voluntarily or for a charge, rendered services to plaintiff. The defendant either willingly helped the plaintiff or was paid to provide a service, which is an important part of proving a claim of negligent undertaking.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant provided landscaping services to the plaintiff for a fee, which included regular maintenance and design work.
    * The defendant entered into a written contract with the plaintiff, outlining the specific services to be rendered in exchange for payment.
    * The defendant actively solicited the plaintiff’s business by advertising their services and offering a promotional discount.
    * The defendant received payment from the plaintiff for the installation of a new irrigation system on their property.
    * The defendant acknowledged their responsibility to perform the services competently and in accordance with industry standards.

  • Element 2. These services were of the kind that defendant should have recognized as needed for protection of plaintiff. In a negligent undertaking claim, this means that the defendant should have understood that the services they provided were necessary to keep the plaintiff safe, and failing to recognize this need could lead to harm or injury to the plaintiff.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant was aware that the plaintiff was relying on their expertise for safety-related services in a high-risk environment.
    * The defendant had previously provided similar services to other clients, demonstrating their understanding of the potential dangers involved.
    * The defendant had received training and certifications relevant to the safety services they were offering, indicating a professional obligation to recognize the need for protection.
    * The defendant had direct knowledge of specific hazards present at the plaintiff’s location, which should have prompted them to take protective measures.
    * The defendant had a contractual obligation to ensure the safety of the plaintiff while providing their services, highlighting their responsibility to recognize the need for protection.

  • Element 3. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in rendering these services. The defendant did not take the necessary precautions or act carefully while providing their services, which led to harm or damage, showing that they failed to meet the expected standard of care in their actions.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The Defendant did not follow established industry standards while providing the service, leading to a foreseeable risk of harm.
    * The Defendant failed to conduct a proper assessment of the situation before proceeding with the service, neglecting critical safety protocols.
    * The Defendant ignored multiple warnings from employees about potential hazards associated with the service being rendered.
    * The Defendant lacked adequate training and experience in the specific service area, resulting in substandard performance.
    * The Defendant did not implement necessary safety measures, which directly contributed to the incident in question.

  • Element 4. Defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care was a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff. The defendant didn’t take the necessary precautions to ensure safety, and this lack of care significantly contributed to the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * Defendant failed to follow established safety protocols while operating machinery, leading to an unsafe work environment.
    * Witnesses observed the defendant neglecting to secure hazardous materials, which directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.
    * The defendant did not provide adequate training to employees, resulting in a lack of awareness about potential dangers.
    * The defendant ignored multiple complaints about unsafe conditions, demonstrating a disregard for the well-being of others.
    * The defendant’s actions directly led to an accident that could have been easily prevented with reasonable care.

  • Element 5. Defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care added to the risk of harm. The defendant didn’t take the necessary precautions to ensure safety, which increased the chances of harm occurring to others, showing that their lack of care contributed to the situation that caused the injury or damage.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * Defendant failed to properly maintain the equipment, leading to a malfunction that caused injury.
    * Defendant ignored safety protocols that were established to prevent accidents in the workplace.
    * Defendant did not provide adequate training to employees on the safe operation of machinery.
    * Defendant was aware of previous incidents but took no corrective action to mitigate risks.
    * Defendant allowed hazardous conditions to persist without implementing necessary safety measures.

(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 450C.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Negligent Undertaking, 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 navigate your case effectively.

Prove Your CA Negligent Undertaking Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only

Just a moment please.