Legal Opinion
Lichtman v. Siemens Indus. Inc.
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided November 2, 2017No. B265373PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DUNNING, J.*
*918INTRODUCTION
On the night of plaintiffs' accident, there were no batteries in a traffic signal's battery backup unit. During a power outage, plaintiffs' vehicle entered the dark intersection and was struck by another car. Plaintiffs sued the entity responsible for maintaining the battery backup system, alleging its negligence proximately caused their injuries. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis defendant owed no duty of care to plaintiffs as a matter of law. We reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2004, the City of Glendale (the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.California Supreme Court · 1992
- Davidson v. City of WestminsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- J'Aire Corp. v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- S. Cal. Gas Co. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty. (In re S. Cal. Gas Leak Cases), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Burchett v. State of CA Dept. of Forestry and Fire ProtectionDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
- Carrillo v. Alvarez CA5California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Jabo v. YMCA of San Diego Co.California Court of Appeal · 2018
- Jabo v. Ymca of San Diego Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.