Stangle v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
244 Cal. Rptr. 103, 198 Cal. App. 3d 971, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 103 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner has no affirmative duty to allow a third party to use its telephone to summon aid for a recently committed property crime, as the narrow duty to render such aid is limited to situations involving an imminent danger of physical harm.
Facts:
- Donovan Stangle purchased a sapphire and diamond ring for $30,000 with the intent to resell it for a profit.
- Stangle gave the ring to his former girlfriend, Barnabas Britt, to sell it for him in San Francisco.
- Britt was contacted by a man calling himself Barry Richards, who arranged to purchase the ring at the offices of Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company.
- Richards told Britt the transaction needed to happen at the insurance office so the ring could be photographed and insured on-site.
- At the Fireman's Fund office, Britt met Richards, who took the ring under the pretense of having it photographed.
- Richards then fled the office with the ring.
- Immediately after the theft, Britt asked a Fireman's Fund receptionist to use the telephone to call for help.
- The receptionist refused, stating, "I’m sorry. This is for building use only."
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Donovan Stangle filed a lawsuit against defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company in a California trial court.
- After a trial, the court found in favor of the defendant, Fireman's Fund, ruling that it had no duty to prevent the plaintiff's loss and its actions were not the proximate cause of the damage.
- The trial court entered judgment for the defendant.
- Plaintiff Donovan Stangle, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 have a legal duty to permit a non-customer to use its telephone to report a recently committed theft when there is no imminent danger of physical harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Low, P. J.
No. A business owner does not have a legal duty to permit a non-customer to use its telephone to report a recently committed theft when there is no imminent danger of physical harm. The court reasoned that under common law, there is generally no duty to take affirmative action to assist or protect another person absent a special relationship. The court distinguished this case from Soldano v. O'Daniels, which established a narrow exception requiring a business to permit the use of its telephone to summon aid only when there is an "imminent danger of physical harm." The court explicitly declined to extend this exception to emergencies arising from all criminal conduct, such as property crimes, finding that such an extension would be a vast and unwarranted departure from the established rule of nonliability for inaction. Furthermore, no special relationship existed between Britt and Fireman's Fund that would impose an affirmative duty to act. The court also found, as an alternative basis for its holding, that the refusal was not the proximate cause of the loss, as testimony from building security indicated a phone call would not have led to the thief's immediate apprehension.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the duty to render aid established in Soldano v. O'Daniels. By refusing to extend the duty to situations involving only property crime, the court reinforces the traditional common law reluctance to impose affirmative duties on bystanders. The ruling draws a bright line between imminent physical peril, which may trigger a duty to assist, and property loss, which does not. This precedent protects businesses from potential liability for failing to intervene in non-violent crimes that occur on their premises, thereby limiting the expansion of negligence liability for inaction.
