Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd.
989 P.2d 121, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 35, 21 Cal. 4th 1181 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a commercial landowner to have a duty to provide security guards against third-party violent crime, there must be a high degree of foreseeability, which is rarely established without evidence of prior similar violent incidents on the landowner's premises.
Facts:
- Sharon P. operated an accounting business in a Los Angeles office building and paid a monthly fee for an assigned space in its underground parking garage.
- Arman, Ltd. owned the office building and parking garage, having purchased it in 1982, and Apcoa, Inc. provided parking services.
- On April 8, 1993, around 11:00 a.m., as Sharon P. was preparing to leave her car in the underground garage, a masked assailant sexually assaulted her at gunpoint.
- For the 10 years preceding the attack (1982-1993), there were no reported incidents of physical assault or firearm confrontation in the tenant parking garage.
- A bank on the ground floor of the building was robbed seven times between February 1991 and January 1993, with one report of physical injury, but these incidents did not extend to the garage or involve personal injury there.
- Sharon P. had noticed deterioration in the garage's condition, including several lights being out, creating dark areas, and a smell of urine.
- Sharon P. also learned after the attack that the garage's security camera had been non-operational for several months.
- A private security consultant testified for defendants that the bank robberies on the ground floor did not indicate a greater likelihood of a sexual assault crime occurring in the underground garage.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon P. sued Arman, Ltd. and Apcoa, Inc. in trial court, alleging inadequate security led to the attack.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Sharon P. because the attack was not reasonably foreseeable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the attack not foreseeable based on the analysis in Ann M. and the absence of prior crimes in the parking garage.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment by a divided vote, concluding that commercial parking structures are "inherently dangerous" and thus criminal assaults were highly foreseeable, remanding the matter for a jury to determine breach and causation.
- Defendants Arman, Ltd. and Apcoa, Inc. petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.
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 commercial landowner owe a duty to provide security measures, including security guards, in an underground parking garage to protect against third-party violent criminal acts, when no prior similar violent crimes have occurred on the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No. A commercial landowner does not owe a duty to provide security measures, including security guards, in an underground parking garage to protect against third-party violent criminal acts when no prior similar violent crimes have occurred on the premises. The court reaffirmed Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, which established that a landowner's duty to provide security against third-party crime requires a "high degree of foreseeability," typically demonstrated by prior similar violent incidents on the premises. The seven bank robberies on the ground floor were not "sufficiently similar" to a sexual assault in the garage to establish the requisite high degree of foreseeability. The court rejected the argument that all underground parking structures are "inherently dangerous" as a matter of law, distinguishing Gomez v. Ticor, which it noted had erred on the foreseeability standard. Imposing such a duty without prior similar incidents would effectively make landlords insurers of public safety, an unfair burden. Even for "less burdensome" measures like improved lighting, operational cameras, or walk-throughs, the court found the record deficient in establishing the foreseeability of violent attacks and questioned the efficacy and burden of such measures without prior incidents.
Dissenting - Mosk, J.
Yes. A commercial landowner does owe a duty to maintain premises in a fit and safe condition to guard against foreseeable attacks, and a jury should determine if the specific conditions of this garage (dilapidation, missing lights, broken cameras) increased foreseeability enough to create such a duty. Justice Mosk argued that the majority improperly decided a question of fact (foreseeability in this specific context) as a matter of law, which should have been left to a jury. He emphasized that Civil Code section 1714 imposes a general duty on landowners to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition, which includes guarding against foreseeable third-party criminal acts. He distinguished Ann M. by arguing its "high degree of foreseeability" standard primarily applied to the costly measure of hiring security guards, not to general premises maintenance. The dissent contended that neglected property can increase the foreseeability of crime, and the specific allegations of neglect (hiding places, missing lights, broken cameras, absence of supervision) combined with prior bank robberies in the building raised a triable issue of fact regarding foreseeability and a duty to take some protective measures. He criticized the majority's "iron rule of no potential liability" and their speculative comments on crime rates and the efficacy of security measures.
Concurring - Werdegar, J.
Concurring: Yes, the majority correctly found that the defendants had no legal duty to take precautions against violent criminal activity in this specific case, given the lack of prior similar incidents and "other indications" of foreseeable risk. The prior bank robberies were not similar enough to predict a rape in the garage, and there was no evidence of expressed concern from regular garage users. Dissenting: No, the majority errs by overly emphasizing security guards as a distinct category of duty analysis and by potentially reinstituting a "pure prior similar incidents rule." The foreseeability analysis should balance harm against the burden of all proposed security measures, not just security guards, and should consider "other indications" of risk beyond prior similar incidents, as Ann M. itself allowed. A landlord should not be entitled to "one free assault" before they are held liable for failure to provide security.
Analysis:
This case significantly refined California's approach to premises liability for third-party criminal acts, particularly clarifying the "high degree of foreseeability" standard established in Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center. It reinforced that the high cost and burden of security guards demand a high evidentiary bar for foreseeability, usually requiring prior similar violent crimes on the premises. The rejection of the "inherently dangerous" theory for parking garages limits the expansion of landowner liability based on general characteristics of property. Future cases will likely face a tougher standard to establish a duty to provide active security measures in the absence of a direct history of similar violent crime at the specific location.
