 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Talasazan v. Northridge Arena Soccer League12/4/2002
controlled the game. In that context, the appellate court believed that the liability and insurance burdens of finding such a special relationship would likely lead to the abandonment of intramural sporting events. (Id. at p. 1306.)
We believe Ochoa and the other public policy decisions cited by respondents are not applicable. Unlike Ochoa, this case did not involve negligence by a public university's referees who were hired to officiate at intramural games. Instead, this case involved private businesses that had already assumed the costs of providing security guards most of the time but who simply failed to provide them the night Talasazan was injured. Just as respondents have failed to address the reasons why the security guards were not present that night, they have also failed to analyze the public policy issue in that context. In short, they have failed to show what additional, undue burden they would have shouldered by having their security guards present that night such that public policy would have been violated.
2. Causation
Respondents contend there was no evidence to support a finding that the absence of security guards would have prevented the fight, thus precluding proof that they caused Talasazan's injuries. Their argument rests on cases such as Nola M. v. University of Southern California (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 421 (Nola M.) and Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763 (Saelzler), where plaintiffs contended that inadequate security measures were taken to prevent assaults in, respectively, the grounds of a large university and a large apartment complex.
The plaintiff in Nola M. was raped on a college campus and sued the college on the theory it should have provided more security. Plaintiff's causation argument rested on the testimony of experts who believed that the college's security measures were inadequate and that the security guards needed to change the way they patrolled the campus. Given the vast territory to be patrolled, the appellate court found this evidence too speculative and conjectural to support a finding that the lack of better security caused the rape to occur. (Nola M., supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at pp. 437-439.) The plaintiff in Saelzler was a Federal Express employee who was assaulted while trying to deliver a package to a 28-building, 300-unit apartment complex located on several acres of land. She contended that there were not enough security guards to cover the grounds and that various security gates had not been secured. The Supreme Court held this evidence was insufficient to establish causation because such measures were designed to keep out unauthorized visitors and there was no evidence that such persons assaulted her. Because it was just as likely that the assault was committed by tenants of the complex, who would not have been kept out by better security, the court held the causation evidence was too speculative. (Saelzler, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 776-777.)
We believe those decisions are inapplicable. Unlike Nola M. and Saelzler, the fight at issue here took place within the confines of an indoor arena that was not much larger than a tennis court. The guards were stationed inside the arena and had previously stopped fights from escalating. Talasazan's most serious injuries occurred five minutes after the fight started and we believe a trier of fact could conclude that had the same guards been present that night, they could have stopped the fight before Talasazan was seriously injured.
3. Assumption of the Risk
Respondents contend that Talasazan impliedly assumed the risk of his injuries because the fight that took place was an inherent risk of playing soccer. That rule does n
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.
|
|