 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hallman v. California State University11/22/2002
, 318.) " he decision to sustain or overrule a demurrer is a legal ruling subject to de novo review on appeal ...." (Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1501.) While the trial court assumes the truth of all properly pled material allegations (Peterson, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 804), it does not " `assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.] ... t is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer when the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory. [Citation.]' [Citations.]" (County of Fresno v. Shelton (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 996, 1010.)
Complaint did not Allege Facts Sufficient to State a Cause of Action
Appellants allege University owed them a duty of care and breached that duty by failing thoroughly to investigate the altercation. To test the sufficiency of Appellants' allegation, we first determine whether the third amended complaint sets forth facts sufficient to show a duty of care was owed. (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 201-202.) We then determine whether statutes applicable to governmental entities, such as University modify that duty. (See Peterson, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 809 [discussing whether the Tort Claims Act modifies liability against a school for hazardous condition of the property].) Finally, if liability is found, we determine whether statutory immunity restricts liability. (Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 707, 722-723.)
" `As a general rule, one owes no duty to control the conduct of another, nor to warn those endangered by such conduct. Such a duty may arise, however, if "(a) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives the other a right to protection." [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1853.) Appellants contend they were owed a duty of care due to University's status as an owner/occupier of the land and their status as invitees at an entertainment event hosted by University where fees were charged. For purposes of this discussion, we need not decide whether a public entity, such as University, that occasionally hosts events that are open to the public stands in the same relationship to non-students as a private owner/occupier of the land stands to invitees. Rather, we assume without deciding that the relationship is the same for the purposes of this discussion.
The existence of duty is a matter of law to be decided by the court. (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 124 (Isaacs).) "Although the determination of duty is primarily a question of law, its existence may frequently rest upon the foreseeability of the risk of harm. [Citations.]" (Gregorian v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 944, 948 (Gregorian); see also Nash v. The Fifth Amendment (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1106, 1110.) Foreseeability of harm is ordinarily a matter for jury determination. (Isaacs, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 135.) However, foreseeability may be determined as a matter of law if, under the undisputed facts, there is no room for a reasonable difference of opinion. (Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 49, 56.)
In general, the liability of owners of parking facilities for the criminal acts of third persons has been predicated on reasonable notice to owners that invitees are at risk because of the occurrence of prior criminal activities on the premises. (Compare Gomez v. Ticor (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 662 [duty found where criminal activity was specifi
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.
|
|