Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400
23 P.3d 1143, 25 Cal. 4th 763, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 617 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a premises liability action for injuries caused by a third party's criminal act, the plaintiff must present non-speculative evidence to show that the property owner's negligent security measures were a substantial factor in causing the injury. A mere possibility that additional security could have prevented the attack is insufficient to establish causation.
Facts:
- Marianne Saelzler, a Federal Express employee, entered the Sherwood Apartments complex, owned by the defendants, in the mid-afternoon to deliver a package.
- The apartment complex was located in a high-crime area and had a known history of recurring criminal activity, including assaults, robberies, rapes, and gang activity on the premises.
- Upon entering, Saelzler observed two young men loitering near a propped-open security gate and saw a third young man already inside the complex.
- After an unsuccessful delivery attempt, Saelzler began to leave the complex.
- The three men confronted Saelzler on a walk path, then beat and attempted to rape her, inflicting serious injuries.
- The assailants fled the scene after the attack and were never identified or apprehended.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Marianne Saelzler filed a negligence action against the defendant apartment owners in the trial court.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff could not establish causation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Plaintiff Saelzler, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court).
- A majority of the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact on causation.
- Defendants, as appellants in this court, sought and were granted review by the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a premises liability action, does a plaintiff create a triable issue of material fact on causation by showing a property owner's failure to provide adequate security, when the plaintiff cannot prove that the unknown assailants would have been deterred or prevented from committing the assault if such security measures had been in place?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
No. In a premises liability action, a plaintiff fails to establish causation where it is merely speculative whether the property owner's breach of duty to provide adequate security was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries. The court reasoned that because the assailants were never identified, the plaintiff could not prove they were unauthorized intruders who would have been deterred by functioning security gates or additional security patrols. The assailants could have been tenants with legitimate access to the property. The court held that an expert's opinion on causation is also insufficient if it is based on speculation and conjecture rather than specific facts linking the security breach to the particular attack. To hold otherwise would make property owners the insurers of the absolute safety of everyone on their premises, which is contrary to public policy. The court rejected shifting the burden of proof on causation to the defendant, stating it would contradict the summary judgment statute and established tort principles.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
Yes. A plaintiff creates a triable issue of fact on causation by presenting evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that the property owner's failure to provide security was a substantial factor in the assault. The majority improperly requires the plaintiff to prove causation with certainty, a standard not required even at trial. The correct inquiry for summary judgment is whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude it is more probable than not that the absence of security guards, which common sense suggests deter criminals, contributed to the attack. By deciding this factual question as a matter of law, the majority deprives the plaintiff of her constitutional right to a jury trial.
Dissenting - Werdegar, J.
Yes. Causation is fundamentally a question of fact for the jury, and the plaintiff presented sufficient, non-speculative evidence to create a triable issue. The majority distorts the law of causation by requiring proof of what an unknown assailant would have done, creating an impossibly high bar for plaintiffs. The substantial factor test only requires that the defendant's negligence be more than a negligible or theoretical cause. The plaintiff's evidence, including expert testimony based on the property's rampant crime, the circumstances of the daytime attack, and police recommendations for daytime security, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the defendants' complete lack of daytime security was a substantial factor in the assault.
Analysis:
This decision significantly heightened the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in premises liability cases involving third-party criminal acts, particularly when the perpetrator is unknown. By demanding non-speculative proof of causation, the court made it exceptionally difficult for such cases to survive summary judgment. The ruling prioritizes the policy of avoiding making landowners 'insurers' of safety over the policy of compensating victims of foreseeable crime. It solidifies a restrictive view of causation in this context, requiring a direct, provable link between the specific security lapse and the actions of the specific assailant, which is often impossible to establish without a captured perpetrator.
Unlock the full brief for Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400