 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Talasazan v. Northridge Arena Soccer League12/4/2002
e facts presented. (Barber v. Marina Sailing, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 558, 562.)
A defendant moving for summary judgment meets its burden of showing that there is no merit to a cause of action if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง437c, subd. (o)(2).) Once the defendant does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of fact exists as to that cause of action or defense. In doing so, the plaintiff cannot rely on the mere allegations or denial of his pleadings, "but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists . . . ." (Ibid.) A triable issue of material fact exists "if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)
DISCUSSION
1. Duty to Provide Security Guards
While land and business owners may sometimes have a duty to provide security guards or other protective measures on their premises, a high degree of foreseeability is required before that duty will be imposed. Although the existence of duty is a legal question, the foreseeability factor in this analysis turns on whether there was evidence of a sufficient number of prior similar reported crimes at the defendant's location. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to Talasazan. (Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1188-1190, 1197, disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854, fn. 19; Krongos v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 387, 394; see Gray v. America West Airlines, Inc. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 76, 83 [trial court's duty is to liberally construe affidavits of party opposing summary judgment and determine based on all materials presented whether foreseeability, as component of general duty analysis, existed as matter of law].)Respondents submitted declarations contending that they had no record of previous reported incidents of physical assaults on or near their premises. They also pointed to excerpts from Talasazan's deposition where he stated, among other things, that he was never told security guards would be present, that there were no prior fights involving his team, that he did not feel he needed security guards to play soccer, and that on no prior occasions had he felt the need for security while walking to his car.
According to Talasazan, security guards were present during at least four of the five to seven games he previously played at the League's arena. On as many as three occasions, he saw those guards intervene when players fought or argued, successfully preventing those situations from escalating. On the night he was injured, however, Talasazan did not see the security guards. Talasazan also obtained records from the Club showing payments it made to security guards during 1998. Payments were made for 28 dates between January 10 and July 14, 1998. The next reported payment date was July 24, 1998, the day after Talasazan was attacked.
Viewed in light of the summary judgment standard of review, this evidence shows that fights between opposing players broke out three times during the five games played by Talasazan before the night he was injured. Security guards were present at four of those five games.
While this could have been a fluke, the frequency of fights during this period might just as well be statistically representative of the ongoing regul
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|