Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill
113 P.3d 1159, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 145, 36 Cal. 4th 224 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business proprietor's duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts is determined by a sliding-scale balancing test. While a duty to provide high-burden security measures requires heightened foreseeability shown by prior similar incidents, a duty to take low-burden measures arises from regular foreseeability of an imminent or ongoing criminal act.
Facts:
- On a Saturday night, Michael Wollery Delgado and his wife were patrons at the Trax Bar & Grill, which employed two security guards.
- During their time there, another patron, Jacob Joseph, accompanied by three or four companions, repeatedly exchanged hostile stares with Delgado.
- Concerned about a potential fight, Delgado's wife approached the interior guard, Jason Nichols, to report the situation.
- Nichols personally observed the hostile staring and concluded that a fight between Delgado and Joseph's group was imminent.
- To prevent an altercation, Nichols asked Delgado and his wife to leave the bar but did not escort them to their car in the parking lot.
- Joseph and his companions followed Delgado out of the bar.
- In the parking lot, Joseph's group, joined by a larger group of 12 to 20 men who appeared to be waiting, surrounded and brutally assaulted Delgado.
- Delgado suffered severe injuries, including a fractured skull and a subdural hematoma.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Wollery Delgado sued Trax Bar & Grill in a California superior court (trial court) on a premises liability theory.
- A jury returned a special verdict finding that the defendant was negligent and 100 percent at fault, and the trial court entered judgment for Delgado.
- The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Trax Bar & Grill, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, concluding that the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff because the assault was not foreseeable.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve a conflict between Courts of Appeal decisions.
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 business proprietor have a duty to take reasonable, minimally burdensome steps to protect a patron from an imminent criminal assault by a third party, even if there is no history of prior similar incidents on the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - George, C. J.
Yes. A business proprietor's special relationship with a patron imposes a duty to take reasonable, relatively simple, and minimally burdensome steps to address an imminent criminal danger that its employees are aware of. The court distinguished this situation from the rule in Ann M., which requires 'heightened foreseeability' (i.e., prior similar incidents) to impose a high-burden duty like hiring security guards. Here, the duty was not to provide guards in the first instance, but to act reasonably in the face of an unfolding, foreseeable threat. The bar's guard, Nichols, perceived the imminent danger of a fight and chose to eject Delgado. Having done so, the bar's duty included taking minimal steps to ensure the separation was effective, such as dissuading Joseph's group from following or ensuring the outside guard was at his post. The foreseeability of the specific, large-scale ambush was not required; foreseeability of an imminent assault was sufficient to trigger a duty to take low-burden preventative measures.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
No. The scope of a business owner's duty depends on the foreseeability of the specific type of criminal conduct that actually occurred. The hostile staring inside the bar did not make a vicious, coordinated gang attack by 15 men in the parking lot foreseeable. The majority's 'sliding-scale' approach improperly deviates from the 'prior similar incidents' rule established in Ann M. and subsequent cases. This new rule imposes an amorphous and potentially limitless duty on business owners, forcing them to guess what precautions are necessary and unfairly burdening businesses, especially those in high-crime areas, with costs that will be passed on to the community.
Dissenting - Brown, J.
No. The attack on Delgado was not foreseeable, and therefore the Trax Bar & Grill had no duty to protect against it. This opinion agrees with Justice Kennard's reasoning regarding the lack of foreseeability.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines California's premises liability law regarding third-party criminal acts. It establishes a two-tiered foreseeability standard, limiting the strict 'prior similar incidents' rule from Ann M. to cases involving high-burden security measures like hiring guards. By creating a duty to take low-burden steps in response to imminent, observable threats, the decision creates a more nuanced framework. This holding prevents businesses from claiming no duty in the face of an unfolding crime simply because a similar incident has never happened before, thus holding them accountable for responding reasonably to dangers that become apparent in the moment.
Unlock the full brief for Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill