Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV02759, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02759    Hearing Date: August 29, 2024    Dept: I

The motion to strike is GRANTED.  Plaintiff alleges negligence.  According to the complaint, plaintiff was at a property on 2/1/24 to collect wheeled trash carts pursuant to his job.  He claims that as he was handling one of the carts a defect in the product caused it to break.  The metal cart handle allegedly struck plaintiff and caused an injury.  Plaintiff alleges that defendant is the source of the cart and that defendant had notice of the defect because the cart broke regularly and had injured people across the country.  Defendant moves to strike the allegations pertaining to punitive damages.

The court will grant the motion.  To allege punitive damages, the complaint must include specific factual allegations showing that the conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious.  (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864.)  It cannot be pled generally.  Here, the allegations are not sufficient.  Plaintiff does not allege any particular reason why the defendant would know of the defect or the types of harm that were supposedly caused or the frequency of the product breaking.  In short, other than a form-book allegation, there is nothing here.  The court also notes that the cause of action is negligence.  Punitive damages are not recoverable for negligence.  The name in the caption of the cause of action is not dispositive, but it does appear that plaintiff needs to do more than plead negligence.

The court is aware, of course, that discovery might well support a claim for punitive damages.  If it is established that the product broke with significant frequency and that the defense knew it, and that when it broke it often caused significant injury, but yet defendant did nothing to fix the problem or warn users (not end users like plaintiff but rather those who bought the product) about the danger of misusing it or that it could break, perhaps that would be enough.  After all, Ford was liable for punitive damages for designing a Pinto that had a tendency to explode into flame in the event of a rear end collision.  But that does not turn every product defect case into a punitive damages case based on form book allegations.  If that were enough, Brousseau would be of no purpose.

The court will give plaintiff 30 days’ leave to amend because it must.  But the better course would be to make it clear that this ruling is without prejudice to a motion for leave to amend to add punitive damages back in if discovery yields information that could lead to an inference of malice, fraud, or oppression (and the other elements needed to allege punitive damages).