(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this vehicle accident/medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
Paragraph 32 explicitly asserts that the negligence of the defendants, therefore including John Black, was the legal and proximate cause of harm to Kathy White.
Paragraph 33 sets forth all that is needed to defeat this demurrer in a single paragraph, asserting a duty of care, breach of that duty of care, therefore negligence, causation and damages, all as to defendants, therefore including John Black.
Paragraph 34 sets out an explicit assertion of negligence per se against defendants, therefore including John Black.
Paragraph 35 asserts causation and damages against defendants, including therefore John Black
Paragraph 36 sets out the nature of the damages caused by negligence of defendants, including therefore, John Black.
Is this enough to defeat the demurrer? Statute, case law, and commentary all support that conclusion.
As to the general negligence claim, it is black letter law that “Negligence claims can be pleaded generally, without specifying the particular breach or the manner in which the accident occurred.” (The Rutter Group, California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Section 6:129). Plaintiff need only allege that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, that the duty was breached and that breach was the cause of the damages sustained by the plaintiff.
This is all that is required to defeat a demurrer as to the negligence cause of action. Further, [B]ecause the function of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint, [the court will] assume the truth of all facts properly pled. (See Blank v. Kirwan, (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.) (See Part 6 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.