Margaret W. v. Kelley R.
Filed 5/5/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| MARGARET W., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KELLEY R., Defendant and Respondent. | A110054 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV-229662) |
Story continued from Part I……….
Plaintiff's theory was that having hired a security guard and having noticed impending trouble, the assault was necessarily foreseeable, and defendant was negligent in not having sufficient security to protect plaintiff. The Court recognized that a business has a special relationship with its patrons that requires it to take reasonable steps to secure common areas against third party crime likely to occur absent such steps being taken (Delgado, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 235) and that it is necessary to balance the degree of foreseeability against the burden of preventing harm and the policy reasons for preventing the harm (id. at pp. 237‑238). Steps as burdensome as hiring a security guard would be required only if there were â€
