Lexplug logoLexplug

Soldano v. O'Daniels

Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District
141 Cal. App. 3d 443, 190 Cal. Rptr. 310 (1983)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A business open to the public owes a duty of care to a person in peril to not withhold the use of a telephone from a good Samaritan seeking to summon emergency aid, when the burden of doing so is minimal.


Facts:

  • Darrell Soldano was at Happy Jack's Saloon where he was threatened by Rudolph Villanueva.
  • A patron from Happy Jack's went across the street to the Circle Inn, an eating establishment.
  • The patron informed a Circle Inn employee that a man was being threatened at Happy Jack's.
  • The patron requested that the employee either call the police or allow him to use the Circle Inn's phone to do so.
  • For the purposes of its ruling, the court assumed the telephone was in a public area of the Circle Inn, accessible without inconvenience.
  • The employee refused both to call the police and to allow the patron to use the telephone.
  • Subsequently, Rudolph Villanueva shot and killed Darrell Soldano.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff, Darrell Soldano's child, filed a complaint for wrongful death against the defendant, the owner of the Circle Inn, in a state trial court.
  • The defendant moved for summary judgment on the negligence cause of action.
  • The trial court granted the defendant's motion and entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the defendant.
  • The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.

Locked

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 establishment incur liability for wrongful death if it denies use of its telephone to a good Samaritan who explains an emergency situation is occurring and wishes to call the police?


Opinions:

Majority - Andreen, J.

Yes. A business establishment may be liable for wrongful death if it denies use of its telephone to a good Samaritan seeking to summon aid in a violent emergency. While the common law generally does not impose a duty to aid another (a rule of nonfeasance), this rule is not absolute. The court reexamined the common law rule and applied the factors from Rowland v. Christian to determine if a duty of care existed. The court found that the harm to the decedent was highly foreseeable, the injury was certain, there was a close connection between the refusal to allow the call and the death, the employee's conduct was morally blameworthy, and imposing a duty would serve the public policy of preventing future harm. The burden on the defendant was minimal—simply allowing the use of a telephone. The court held that this minimal burden did not justify refusing aid, creating a narrow duty for a business open to the public not to impede a third party from rendering emergency assistance.



Analysis:

This decision carves out a significant, though narrow, exception to the common law rule of nonliability for nonfeasance (the failure to act). It moves beyond the traditional 'special relationship' requirement for imposing an affirmative duty. By using the Rowland v. Christian balancing test, the court established that a duty can arise from the circumstances, particularly when a business's commercial nature invites the public onto its premises and the burden of providing aid is negligible. This case signals a judicial willingness to adapt common law tort principles to reflect modern societal expectations regarding crime prevention and minimal humanitarian assistance.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Soldano v. O'Daniels (1983) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Soldano v. O'Daniels