 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hallman v. California State University11/22/2002
Marilyn Hallman and Sheila Howlett (Appellants) suffered injuries as a result of an alleged battery that occurred following a concert in the parking lot on the campus of California State University at Bakersfield (University). Appellants named University as a defendant in their suit to recover damages alleging University had failed to provide adequate security services. Three successive demurrers by University were sustained with leave to amend. University's fourth demurrer to the third amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. Appellants argue the trial court erroneously sustained University's demurrer; or, in the alternative, contend the demurrer should have been sustained with leave to amend. We will affirm.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Appellants submitted claims to the California State Board of Control on November 8, 1999, for injuries that were alleged to have been sustained as a result of a battery that occurred on May 7, 1999.
Following denial of the claims, Appellants filed a complaint on May 5, 2000, which named as defendants University, and two named individuals. University filed a demurrer to the complaint and motion to dismiss on August 2, 2000. University's demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. University successfully demurred to Appellants' first and second amended complaints as well. Leave to amend was granted in both cases.
Appellants filed their third amended complaint on February 1, 2001. Appellants alleged that University owed a special duty of care as an owner/occupier of land to invitees attending University entertainment events. They further alleged the security officers, by responding to Appellants' call for assistance, had impliedly promised thoroughly to investigate the alleged battery. Appellants contended University breached its special duty of care when the security officers failed adequately to investigate the altercation and erroneously concluded there was mutual combat. Appellants alleged that, as a result of University's failure thoroughly to investigate the incident, they were prevented from seeking proper redress and suffered emotional distress.
On March 1, 2001, University filed a demurrer and moved to dismiss. On April 23, 2001, the trial court sustained University's demurrer without leave to amend. On April 25, 2001, the court ordered the action dismissed as to University.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
On the evening of May 7, 1999, Appellants attended a concert on the campus of University. As they were walking to their car after the end of the concert, the two named individual defendants and two other people committed assault and battery on the Appellants. Appellants called for emergency assistance and University security officers arrived at the scene. The responding officers concluded the alleged assault was actually a case of mutual combat and stated so in their report.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in sustaining University's demurrer. In particular, they contend that the third amended complaint adequately alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action against University. In the alternative, Appellants argue that if the demurrer was properly sustained, the trial court erred by granting University's motion to dismiss. Appellants contend leave should have been granted to amend the complaint.
1. Sustaining of University's Demurrer
Standard of Review
A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint by challenging defects that appear either on the face of the complaint or from matters outside the complaint that can be noticed judicially. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311
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.
|
|