California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 23 P.3d 1143, 25 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2001):
[107 Cal.Rptr.2d 636]
The majority adopts this false premise, again, apparently because it wishes to argue that "the assault on plaintiff could well have been made by tenants having authority to enter and remain on the premises." (Maj. opn., ante, 107 Cal. Rptr.2d at p. 626, 23 P.3d at p. 1151.) As plaintiff "cannot prove the identity or background of her assailants" (id. at p. 626, 23 P.3d at p. 1151), the majority argues, she has an insurmountable proof problem. But this argument also is a non sequitur, because plaintiff does not have to prove she was assaulted by a nontenant. She has only to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants' failure to provide increased daytime security was a "substantial factor" in causing her injuries. (Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, 1052-1054, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 913, 819 P.2d 872; see also Rest.2d Torts, 431, subd. (a).)[107 Cal.Rptr.2d 636]
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.