Deserna v. Jones Ontario Acquisition, LLC, et al

Negligence – Negligence may be pleaded generally. (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 154-155.) In California, “it is sufficient to allege the negligence in general terms, specifying, however, the particular act alleged to have been negligently done.” (Id. at p.155) As a general rule, a negligence cause of action is not subject to a heightened pleading standard. (See Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 508, 514 [“Under well established principles, . . . general allegations of negligence, proximate causation and resulting injury and damages suffice to state a cause of action.”].)

It follows that in cases involving a car repair facility that allegedly performed repairs in a negligent fashion (e.g., with an absence of care), it is sufficient to allege the defendant negligently repaired the vehicle without alleging how or in what respect. Thus, here, Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to meet negligence pleading standards.

Economic Loss Rule – Defendant Jones Ontario also argues that the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff’s negligent repair cause of action. (Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 483.) Economic losses are “damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product or consequent loss of profits — without any claim of personal injury or damages to other property.” (Sacramento Regional Transit Dist. v. Grumman Flxible (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 289, 294.) As such, Defendant Jones Ontario asserts that the negligent repair claim fails.

As for Defendant Jones Ontario’s economic loss rule argument, it is insufficient to grant the JOP: The economic loss rule provides that, “[i]n general, there is no recovery in tort for negligently inflicted ‘purely economic losses,’ meaning financial harm unaccompanied by physical or property damage.” (Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905, 922.) “California decisional law has long recognized that the economic loss rule does not necessarily bar recovery in tort for damage that a defective product (e.g., a window) causes to other portions of a larger product (e.g., a house) into which the former has been incorporated.” (Jimenez, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 483-484.)

In Sheen, supra, 12 Cal.5th 905, 923, the California Supreme Court discussed one circumstance in which the economic loss rule applies “involves parties who are in contractual privity.” In this case, however, there is no allegation demonstrating Plaintiff had a contractual relationship with Jones Ontario. Nonetheless even if it did, there is another “recognized exception to the economic loss rule for consumers who contract for certain kinds of professional services.” (Sheen, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p.933.)

As Sheen illustrated: In that context, . . . a cause of action for negligence ensures that the consumer receives the services the professional agreed to provide. In such settings, professionals generally agree to provide ‘careful efforts’ in rendering contracted for services, but most clients do not know enough to protect themselves by inspecting the professional’s work or by other independent means. Given this disparity, a claim for professional negligence can serve the important purpose of ensuring that professionals render the careful efforts they have contracted to provide. (Sheen, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 933 [internal citations omitted].)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Jones Ontario violated an independent legal duty to repair the vehicle using ordinary care and skill according to industry standards. Finally, it also is not clear from the face of the Complaint that negligent acts were associated with the defective product.

*** *** ***

3