Did the court correctly grant Davids motion to dismiss on the grounds stated?
The court correctly granted David’s motion because the transportation of gasoline is an activity that is of common usage in every community. More importantly, the grave risk of harm associated with transporting gasoline (likelihood of explosions) did not “cause” Patty’s loss. Additionally, the court correctly ruled that the damages Patty alleged were not recoverable because “pure economic loss” not linked to any physical injury or property damage is not actionable. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Under California’s Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10(e), the party against whom a complaint has been filed may object on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (It can reasonably be assumed that this case is in state court for two reasons. First, Patty’s claim is based on strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. It is not a federal question. In addition, diversity jurisdiction does not apply as the amoun
