Is There a Duty to Protect in California?
Does a property owner have the legal obligation to protect persons on his or her property from other persons on the property?
This was the question the California Court of Appeal answered this week in Williams v. Fremont Corners.
Tayler Williams and his band performed at the Peacock Lounge in Sunnyvale, California on March 31, 2012. After the set wrapped up, he was exiting the lounge and saw a scuffle taking place in the parking lot. He attempted to break it up and was knocked unconscious. He woke up with serious injuries.
Williams sued Fremont Corners, the property owner of the Peacock Lounge. He alleged that Fremont Corners breached its duty of care to keep the property reasonably safe for the public. He alleged that part of this duty required Fremont Corners to protect patrons of the Lounge from the reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties.
Williams argued in the trial court that Fremont Corners had notice, or should have known about the criminal conduct that occurred on the property. Specifically, police reports were obtained showing generalized criminal activity in the blocks surrounding the Peacock Lounge. Williams, however, could not point to any specific prior criminal behavior that occurred in or around the Peacock Lounge.
The trial court dismissed Williams case. The court agreed with Fremont Corners that as a general rule, landowners in California owe no duty to protect from third-party criminal conduct. Forcing landowners to assume the responsibility for this type of protection would in effect turn landowners into insurers of the public. The expense and social utility of doing so would just be too high.
The Appeals Court agreed. The Court did note that when a plaintiff can show sufficiently similar prior criminal activity on the property, this could dictate a duty for the property owner to take corrective actions. The Court noted that this is a high bar to attain. "The requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises."
As we can see from the Williams case, generalized criminal conduct in or around the area would likely not be enough to create a duty to protect others in California. Another example the Court used was from a previous case involving an assault in an underground parking lot. A prior bank robbery in that same building on the ground level was not enough to create a duty for the property owner to have security guards protecting against physical assaults in the underground parking lot. (Sharon P. v. Arman (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181.)
Torts cases involving premises owner defendants can be tricky. As you might tell, they are highly fact intensive and proving notice is one of the key issues in these cases.
If you or someone you know was injured on a property by the criminal or other conduct of a third person on that property in Los Angeles or throughout Southern California, contact an attorney knowledgeable about such issues.
The Rabbi Lawyer is ready to assist, 24/6.
