How has the escape rule been interpreted in the context of the "Escape Rule"?

In one case after a defendant committed a burglary, he took the victim with him when he fled. "When defendant departed from the victim's apartment the 'commission' of the burglary, for section 12022.7 purposes, had not ended. Defendant not only possessed property stolen during the burglary but still controlled the burglary victim. By removing her from the burglary situs defendant extended the need for section 12022.7's deterrent threat and thereby its effect. [] Therefore, in determining whether defendant inflicted 'significant or substantial physical injury' on the victim we consider injuries inflicted within and without her apartment . . . ." (People v. Mixon (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1488.)

'"The escape rule' defines the duration of the underlying felony, in the context of certain ancillary consequences of the felony [citation], by deeming the felony to continue until the felon has reached a place of temporary safety. [Citation.]" (People v. Cavitt (2004) 33 Cal.4th 187, 208.) "There is case support for the proposition that, under the escape rule, a felony continues as long as any one of the perpetrators retains control over the victim or is in flight from the crime scene. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 209.) "Whether a defendant has reached a place of temporary safety is a question of fact for the jury. [Citation.] Case law does not specifically address whether this determination is to be based on the defendant's subjective belief or whether objective criteria are also relevant to this inquiry. However, we are satisfied that an objective standard is to be applied." (People v. Johnson (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 552, 559-560.)