Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this elder abuse/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Here, Allen may bring a civil action under section 15656 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. In Laczko v. Jules Meyers, Inc. (1969) 276 Cal. App. 2d 293, 295, 80 Cal. Rptr. 798, and Michael R. v. Jeffrey B. (1984) 158 Cal. App. 3d 1059, 205 Cal. Rptr. 312, the court held that a violation of a statute embodying a public policy is actionable even though no specific civil remedy is provided in the statute itself. Any injured member of the class whom the statute was designed to protect may include the violation of the statute as a cause of action in a civil matter.
There is nothing in Welfare and Institutions Code 15656 that precludes Allen from bringing a civil action based upon that state. The general purpose of the EADACPA is to protect elders and dependent adults from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect. Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 23,33, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610. Allen is a member of the class that section 15656 was designed to protect. As a member of this class, Allen may bring a civil action balked upon section 15656, even though the statute does not provide for civil remedies. The legislature did not intend to prevent an individual from asserting a cause of action in a civil matter under Welfare and Institutions Code §15656.
Allen has alleged a viable claim under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §15656.
As stated above, less particularity in pleading statutory causes of action is needed when the defendant may be assumed to have knowledge of the facts equal to or superior to that possessed by the plaintiff. Burks v. Poppy Constr. Co. (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 463, 474, 20 Cal. Rptr. 69; Dahlquist v. State of California (1966) 243 Cal. App. 2d 208, 212, 52 Cal. Rptr. 324.
Here, Allen has alleged that In committing the acts alleged in this complaint, defendants, and each of them, during the time they were responsible for the care and custody of plaintiff, willfully caused plaintiff, with knowledge that he was a dependent adult, to be injured, and willfully caused plaintiff to be placed in a situation in which his health was endangered. These allegations, taken together with other allegations of abuse and neglect, are sufficient to withstand defendant’s demurrer. Accordingly, defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike should be overruled. (See Part 7 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.