Steinmetz v. Stockton City Chamber of Commerce

• Decision Date: 31 May 1985
• Citation: 169 Cal.App.3d 1142,214 Cal.Rptr. 405
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Louis C. STEINMETZ et al., Minors, etc., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STOCKTON CITY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 24496.

Page 405

214 Cal.Rptr. 405

169 Cal.App.3d 1142

Louis C. STEINMETZ et al., Minors, etc., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STOCKTON CITY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 24496.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

May 31, 1985.

Rehearing Denied June 26, 1985.

Review Denied Oct. 3, 1985.

Belli, Drivon & Bakerink and Stewart M. Tabak, Stockton, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Bailey & Brown, David I. Brown, Weintraub, Genshlea, Hardy, Erich & Brown and Robert B. Zaro, Sacramento, for defendants and respondents.

PUGLIA, Presiding Justice.

Plaintiffs appeal from summary judgments in favor of defendants Stockton City Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) and California Human Development Corporation (CHDC). The lawsuit arises out of the fatal stabbing of plaintiffs' decedent. The issue on appeal concerns a landowner's liability for a criminal assault by a third person upon an invitee which occurs off the landowner's premises. We shall affirm.

On the evening of March 4, 1982, decedent attended a business "mixer" sponsored by Chamber. Chamber sponsors periodic "mixers" at the request of individual area businesses. Members of the local business community are invited to attend in order to promote active commercial intercourse. Each mixer is hosted by a local business selected by Chamber. The mixer following which decedent was slain was hosted by CHDC on its business premises. These premises are located in Cherokee Industrial Park and are leased by CHDC from defendant Charles Whiteside, an owner of the industrial park.

Cherokee Industrial Park is located near Highway 99 in a rural area on the outskirts of Stockton. There are no retail businesses located in the park; the tenants are primarily manufacturers and wholesale establishments.

Several hundred people attended the mixer. CHDC had only 20 to 25 parking spaces on its premises, but there was additional parking available elsewhere within the industrial park.

The mixer was scheduled to end at 7 p.m. Decedent left at approximately 7:30 p.m. Her car was parked about one block away off CHDC premises but within the industrial park. Upon returning to her parked car, she was fatally stabbed by an unknown assailant.

Plaintiffs, by their guardian ad litem, brought this wrongful death action against Chamber, CHDC, and Whiteside on the theory that defendants breached a duty owing to the decedent as a business invitee in failing to provide a safe place for her to park her car while she attended the mixer. The complaint further charges that a lack of security and supervisory personnel and inadequate lighting and other safety precautions in the parking lot and other parking areas contributed to decedent's death. ¹

CHDC and Whiteside moved for summary judgment claiming the absence of any prior violent criminal activity in the industrial park made the attack unforeseeable, and thus no duty was owed to decedent. In addition, CHDC asserted it had no liability or responsibility for an attack occurring off its leased premises. Both motions were granted.

Thereafter, Chamber moved for summary judgment, asserting essentially the same bases set forth by CHDC in its successful motion. Chamber's motion was likewise granted. Plaintiffs appeal from the summary judgment in favor of CHDC and Chamber. Whiteside is not a party to this appeal.

"Liability founded upon a claim of negligence cannot exist unless a duty of care is owed by the alleged wrongdoer to the person injured or to the class of which the injured person is a member. [Citations.] In California, it is well settled that an owner of land held open for business purposes may have a duty to protect visitors from the wrongful acts of third persons. [Citation.] Whether such a duty in fact exists is a question of law to be determined separately in each case, based on the weighing of a number of factors. [Citation.]" (Gomez v. Ticor (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 622, 627, 193 Cal.Rptr. 600.)

Recently, the Supreme Court considered the duty owed by a landowner to an invitee injured on the landowner's premises by criminal activity of a third person. (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 211 Cal.Rptr. 356, 695 P.2d 653) In Isaacs, a doctor affiliated with a private hospital brought an action against the hospital to recover for injuries sustained when he was shot by an unknown assailant in one of the hospital's parking lots. At trial plaintiff's evidence tended to show the hospital failed to take adequate security measures to protect its invitees and licensees against the criminal acts of third persons on the premises. The Supreme Court reversed a judgment of nonsuit, holding the assault on plaintiff was not unforeseeable as a matter of law, and that the evidence established the hospital had a duty to protect the plaintiff from criminal assaults in the parking lot. (Id., at pp. 130-131, 211 Cal.Rptr. 356, 695 P.2d 653.) The Court stated: " 'It has long been recognized that "a possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons ... and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to (a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or (b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it." ' " (38 Cal.3d at p. 124, 211 Cal.Rptr. 356, 695 P.2d 653.) However, the Court continued "[a] defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it [does] not own, possess, or control. Where the absence of ownership, possession, or control has been unequivocally established, summary judgment is proper." (Id. at p. 134, 211 Cal.Rptr. 356, 695 P.2d 653.)

In this case, the record establishes without question the decedent was murdered off the premises leased by CHDC on property not within the possession or control of CHDC or Chamber, but rather on the premises of another tenant in the industrial park. In the cases relied upon by plaintiff (e.g., Isaacs, supra; Gomez v. Ticor, supra; Cohen v. Southland Corp. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 130, 203 Cal.Rptr. 572), the criminal acts of the third party occurred on premises owned, possessed, or controlled by the landowner. Plaintiffs have not cited nor are we aware of any case where a landowner was held responsible for injuries to an invitee from criminal activity...