Trujillo v. G.A. Enterprises, Inc.

California Court of Appeal Jul 18, 1995 No. B086706Published

Before: Gilbert

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A business that hires a security guard has a duty to protect its patrons from third-party criminal acts, and there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether the guard acted reasonably in failing to prevent the plaintiff's injuries. A plaintiff is not required to prove the business had notice of prior similar acts to establish this duty.

Issues

Whether a business owes a duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal attacks when it has hired a security guard.
Whether a plaintiff must prove notice of prior similar acts to establish a duty of care.
Whether the reasonableness of a security guard's actions and causation are triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under such circumstances there is a duty on the part of the restaurant to protect its patron and there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the security guard acted reasonably.”

“The injured patron need not prove the restaurant had notice of prior similar acts.”

“[A] security guard hired by the business should be liable to an injured customer where the guard fails to act as would a reasonable security guard under similar circumstances and that failure causes . . . injury.”

Opinion

GILBERT, J.

A fast-food restaurant hires a security guard to protect its patrons. Some youths threaten a patron of the restaurant in the presence of the security guard. A fight ensues in which the patron is injured.

Under such circumstances there is a duty on the part of the restaurant to protect its patron and there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the security guard acted reasonably. The injured patron need not prove the restaurant had notice of prior similar acts.

Oliver Trujillo, by his guardian ad litem, Maria Carreno, (Trujillo) appeals from the summary judgment granted to Victoria Court Management and

[1107]

G.A. Enterprises, Inc., which does business as McDonald’s Restaurant (McDonald’s). Trujillo was attacked inside a McDonald’s restaurant. We reverse the summary judgment.

Facts

One afternoon, Trujillo and a friend walked to the McDonald’s restaurant in Victoria Court on State Street in Santa Barbara. As they walked, they noticed a group of kids “hanging out” in front of McConnell’s Ice Cream shop near McDonald’s. It was not, unusual for kids, panhandlers and others to be milling about on the sidewalk in the area, and Victoria Court Management had a security guard on duty at the site.

As the pair approached the entrance to McDonald’s, Trujillo heard one of the kids say, “Hey, that’s the one.” Trujillo did not think they were talking about him. But as soon as he entered McDonald’s, a group of kids approached him. The security guard followed the group and also entered McDonald’s. One of the kids said, “Hey, you, come here.” He asked Trujillo whether he had jumped his cousin. Trujillo said “No. I don’t know your cousin.”

A girl took a swing at Trujillo. The nearby security guard grabbed her and took her away to the telephones outside McDonald’s. Another youth, Joseph Dorland, displayed a large knife.

He and the other kids started hitting Trujillo. The security guard did not return until after the fight ended. Trujillo was injured in the melee. Afterwards, the security guard called the police. Trujillo filed this suit.

Trujillo v. G.A. Enterprises, Inc.

AI Brief

GILBERT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief