Castaneda v. Olsher
41 Cal. 4th 1205, 162 P.3d 610, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 99 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord has no duty to refuse to rent to prospective tenants based on suspected gang affiliation. A landlord's duty to protect tenants from the criminal acts of another tenant by evicting them or implementing costly security measures arises only when the tenant's conduct or other circumstances create a heightened foreseeability of a specific type of violent crime.
Facts:
- George Olsher owned the Winterland-Westways mobilehome park, which was managed by Beverly Rogers.
- For approximately two months before the shooting, men who appeared to be gang members congregated at the mobilehome on space 23, occupied by Paul Levario.
- During this time, the men whistled and hooted at plaintiff Ernest Castaneda's sister, and intimidated another tenant, Monica Preciado-Langford, by kicking a pit bull to make it growl at her and her children.
- Tenants, including Castaneda's grandmother Joyce Trow and Preciado-Langford, complained to manager Rogers about this harassment and other issues like broken lights.
- The mobilehome park had a history of problems, including daily gang graffiti, weekly drug sales, and a prior shooting incident on an adjacent property involving a park resident.
- On November 9, 1996, men from a rival gang arrived, leading to a confrontation with Levario and his guest, Manuel Viloria, involving the exchange of gang slurs.
- During the confrontation, Viloria fired a gun, and a stray bullet struck Castaneda, who was an innocent bystander on his own porch.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernest Castaneda sued George Olsher and his companies (Olsher) in California Superior Court (trial court) for premises liability.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- After Castaneda presented his case, Olsher moved for a nonsuit.
- The trial court granted the motion for nonsuit, ruling that the shooting was not highly foreseeable and therefore the landlord owed no duty.
- Castaneda, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the case to be decided by a jury, and remanded for trial.
- Olsher, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of California, which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a residential landlord have a legal duty to protect tenants from a violent gang-related shooting by refusing to rent to suspected gang members or by evicting tenants whose reported behavior consisted of non-violent harassment, when prior criminal activity on the premises did not include similar violent assaults?
Opinions:
Majority - Werdegar, J.
No. A residential landlord does not have a duty to protect tenants from a violent gang-related shooting under these circumstances. First, imposing a duty not to rent to suspected gang members is contrary to public policy, as it would encourage arbitrary discrimination and place landlords in an untenable position of facing liability for either renting or not renting. Second, while a duty to evict a dangerous tenant exists, it is triggered only by a 'heightened foreseeability' of violence. The tenant complaints here concerned non-violent harassment and annoyance, which did not make a gang shootout highly foreseeable. Finally, imposing burdensome duties like hiring security guards also requires heightened foreseeability, which was absent because prior crimes on the premises were not similar violent assaults. The plaintiff also failed to show that the absence of guards or better lighting was a substantial cause of his injury.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
Justice Kennard concurs in part and dissents in part, ultimately disagreeing with the majority's conclusion to reverse the Court of Appeal. Kennard agrees with the majority that public policy forbids imposing a duty on landlords to refuse to rent to suspected gang members. However, she dissents from the rest of the holding, arguing the majority improperly conflated the legal question of 'duty,' which is for the court, with the factual question of 'breach,' which is for the jury. Kennard asserts that landlords have a general duty to act reasonably to protect tenants, and the extensive evidence of ongoing criminal activity (gang graffiti, drug sales, harassment, and a prior nearby shooting) was sufficient for a jury, not the court, to decide whether the landlord breached that duty by failing to evict the dangerous tenants or take other security measures.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of a landlord's duty in premises liability actions involving third-party crime. It establishes a strong precedent against holding landlords liable for failing to screen out tenants based on suspected gang affiliation, prioritizing anti-discrimination policies over a duty to vet. The decision reinforces the 'heightened foreseeability' standard, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate prior similar violent incidents before a court will impose burdensome duties like eviction or hiring security guards. This raises the bar for plaintiffs in such cases, protecting landlords from liability for general crime or non-violent tenant misconduct that does not specifically portend the type of violent act that occurs.
Unlock the full brief for Castaneda v. Olsher