(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.)
Those required assertions are made in some detail in Paragraphs 28 through 36 of the second amended complaint. Mr. Black is a defendant, and a series of allegations directed towards the defendants apply to him.
In addition to asserting a duty of care running to the plaintiff through the foreseeable harm which careless conduct by Mr. Black would cause, the allegations set forth in this complaint assert a legal duty to comply with specific statutory law designed to protect persons like the plaintiff, and that Mr. Black, like other defendants, breached that duty and caused harm.
The next stop for this defense firm, if it thinks it has the goods, is summary judgment, after discovery is completed. We believe that Mr. Black in fact was personally responsible for the failure of the rental company he owned and controlled and whose policies he personally dictated to give the training to a minor that would have prevented this accident, when such training was required by law, or to refuse to rent an ATV to a minor in the absence of such training or licensed supervision. We believe that when discovery has progressed to the point when summary judgment might be sought, there will be no more noise from Mr. Black or his lawyers.
But the only issue now before the court is the legal sufficiency of the allegations in the four corners of the complaint or reasonably inferred from those four corners, all as liberally construed, under applicable case law, in favor of the party opposing demurrer. This demurrer wastes the court’s time. (See Part 3 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.