Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. v. Superior Court
927 P.2d 1260, 14 Cal.4th 814, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 127 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner does not have a legal duty to a patron to comply with an armed robber's unlawful demand for the surrender of property. Public policy considerations against encouraging criminal conduct and the right to defend property preclude the establishment of a duty to acquiesce to a robber's demands.
Facts:
- Kathy Brown was a customer in a Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) restaurant when an armed robber entered.
- The robber put a gun to Brown's back, took her personal cash and wallet, and then demanded money from the KFC cash register.
- The KFC employee did not immediately comply, telling the robber she needed to go to the back of the restaurant for a key.
- The employee's delay agitated the robber, who pushed the gun harder into Brown's back and threatened to shoot her if the employee did not open the register immediately.
- After Brown screamed at her to comply, the employee opened the cash register drawer.
- The robber seized the money from the register and fled the scene.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathy Brown sued Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. (KFC) for negligence in a California trial court.
- KFC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to Brown to comply with the robber's demands.
- The trial court denied KFC's motion for summary judgment.
- KFC petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to grant the motion.
- The Court of Appeal, as the intermediate appellate court, denied the petition, holding that a duty to comply did exist under the circumstances.
- The Supreme Court of California then granted review of the case.
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 owner owe a duty of care to a patron to comply with an armed robber's demand for property in order to avoid increasing the risk of harm to the patron?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No. A shopkeeper does not have a duty to comply with the unlawful demand of an armed robber that property be surrendered. Recognizing such a duty would be contrary to public policy, as it would encourage criminals to use hostages to enforce their demands, thereby increasing the overall risk to the public. The court reasoned that there is no certainty that compliance would reduce the risk to a hostage, as robbers are unpredictable. Furthermore, both the California Constitution and state statutes recognize the right of a person to defend their property. Therefore, a simple refusal to comply with a robber's demand does not breach any duty owed to patrons on the premises.
Dissenting - Mosk, J. & Kennard, J.
Yes. A business owner does have a duty of care to a patron, and whether non-compliance with a robber's demand breaches that duty is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the court. The majority incorrectly frames the issue as one of 'duty' when it should be about the 'standard of care.' A business already has a well-established duty to exercise reasonable care for its customers' safety. Whether the employee's actions were reasonable under the sudden, stressful circumstances of a robbery is a classic jury question. The majority's harsh, bright-line rule of immunity wrongly prioritizes property interests over human safety and usurps the jury's function to determine reasonableness.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant, bright-line rule of non-liability for business owners in California regarding non-compliance with robbers' demands. It prioritizes the public policy of deterring crime over a case-by-case analysis of an employee's reasonableness during a robbery. By framing the issue as a lack of 'duty,' the court effectively creates immunity for businesses from negligence claims based on an employee's refusal or delay in surrendering property. The ruling distinguishes simple non-compliance from active resistance, leaving the legal standard for active resistance that endangers a patron an open question for future cases.
Unlock the full brief for Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. v. Superior Court