California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 6 Cal.4th 666, 863 P.2d 207 (Cal. 1993):
Turning to the question of the scope of a landlord's duty to provide protection from foreseeable third party crime, we observe that, before and after our decision in Isaacs, we have recognized that the scope of the duty is determined in part by balancing the foreseeability of the harm against the burden of the duty to be imposed. (Isaacs, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 125, 211 Cal.Rptr. 356, 695 P.2d 653.) " '[I]n cases where the burden of preventing future harm is great, a high degree of foreseeability may be required. [Citation.] On the other hand, in cases where [6 Cal.4th 679] there are strong policy reasons for preventing the harm, or the harm can be prevented by simple means, a lesser degree of foreseeability may be required.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.) Or, as one appellate court has accurately explained, duty in such circumstances is determined by a balancing of "foreseeability" of the criminal acts against the "burdensomeness, vagueness, and efficacy" of the proposed security measures. (Gomez v. Ticor, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 631, 193 Cal.Rptr. 600.)
While there may be circumstances where the hiring of security guards will be required to satisfy a landowner's duty of care, such action will rarely, if ever, be found to be a "minimal burden." The monetary costs of security guards is not insignificant. Moreover, the obligation to provide patrols adequate to deter criminal conduct is not well defined. "No one really knows why people commit crime, hence no one really knows what is 'adequate' deterrence in any given situation." (7735 Hollywood Blvd. Venture v. Superior Court (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 901, 905, 172 Cal.Rptr. 528.) Finally, the social costs of imposing a duty on landowners to hire private police forces are also not insignificant. (See Nola M., supra, 16 Cal.App. 4th at pp. 437-438, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 97.) For these reasons, we conclude that a high degree of foreseeability is required in order to find that the scope of a landlord's duty of care includes the hiring of security guards. We further conclude that the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises. 7 To hold otherwise [863 P.2d 216] would be to impose an unfair burden upon landlords and,
Page 146
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.