Delgado v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

• Citation: 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 838,72 Cal.App.4th 1403
• Decision Date: 17 June 1999
• Docket Number: No. B117790,MULTI-CINEM,INC,B117790
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4772, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6121 Beatriz DELGADO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AMERICAN, Defendant and Respondent.

Page 838

85 Cal.Rptr.2d 838

72 Cal.App.4th 1403, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4772,

1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6121

Beatriz DELGADO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

No. B117790.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

June 17, 1999.

Review Denied Sept. 15, 1999.

Federico Castelan Sayre, Newport Beach, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Molfetta & Associates and Jay S. Hill, Glendale, for Defendant and Respondent.

GODOY PEREZ, J.

Appellants Beatriz and Marcos Delgado appeal from the dismissal of their complaint after the demurrer of respondent American Multi-Cinema, Inc. ("AMC"), was sustained without leave to amend. After review, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On October 7, 1995, the movie "Dead Presidents" was showing at respondent's theater in Long Beach. "Dead Presidents" was an "R"-rated film, containing "extremely graphic depictions of violence and bodily injuries which were likely ... [to] cause ... minors to become emotionally disturbed." In keeping with movie industry practice, respondent's policy was not to admit anyone under 17 years old to an "R" rated movie unless accompanied by an adult. Despite its policy, respondent admitted 13-year-old Raymond Aiolentuna and two of his under age friends to "Dead Presidents" without checking their ages or requiring that an adult accompany them.

As the three youths watched the movie, Aiolentuna "became agitated and violent," stating during particularly violent scenes "I am going to have to shoot somebody." Immediately after the movie ended, Aiolentuna walked to a street corner one-and-a-half blocks from the theater and shot and killed Marcos Delgado, Jr., appellants' son.

Based on the foregoing alleged facts, appellants sued respondent for negligence in admitting Aiolentuna to an "R"-rated movie

unaccompanied by an adult. Respondent demurred to the complaint, arguing it failed to state a cause of action. The court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, advising appellants to replead their complaint to include every allegation they could possibly muster. Appellants did so and respondent demurred again, reiterating that appellants failed to state a cause of action. The court sustained the second demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

".... 'We treat [a] demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.' [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. [Citation.] And when it is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we affirm. [Citations.] The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the [appellant]." (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.)

DISCUSSION

Appellants contend the trial court erred in finding their complaint did not state a cause of action for negligence because respondent assumed a duty of care to the public when it adopted the Motion Picture Association of America's voluntary film-rating system. ¹ (See generally Rest.2nd Torts, § 323 [party may voluntarily assume a duty of due care].) Under that system, respondent was obligated to bar Aiolentuna from seeing "Dead Presidents," an "R"-rated movie, because he was unaccompanied by an adult. By failing to confirm whether Aiolentuna was old enough to see the movie, respondent breached its duty of care, which, according to appellants, led to their son's murder. We disagree.

The existence of a legal duty of care, the breach of which may constitute negligence, is a question of law which we independently determine. (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 674, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207.) As we have previously explained, creation of a legal duty is fundamentally a policy determination: "The existence of a legal duty is a question of law which is simply an expression of the sum total of the policy considerations that lead a court to conclude that a particular plaintiff is entitled to protection...." (Jacoves v. United Merchandising Corp. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 88, 114, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 468.) As noted by courts around the country, the movie industry's film-rating system is designed to allow parents to exercise control over what their children see. One such court explained, "The purpose of the R-rating is to alert parents of the need for discretion and scrutiny in deciding whether a movie should be viewed at all. Subsequently, if the decision is to allow the child to see the movie, a parent or guardian is then required to accompany the child to provide guidance on the subject for which it was R-rated. From the outset the purpose of the rating system was to provide advance information to enable parents to make judgments on movies they wanted their children to see or not to see. Basic to the program was and is responsibility of the parent to make the decision. [p] Appellants' reliance on Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 46, 123 Cal.Rptr. 468, 539 P.2d 36, is misplaced. There, the court found the risk of a car accident was foreseeable when the defendant radio station held an on-the-air contest promising a prize to whomever arrived first at a certain location. By tacitly encouraging speeding on crowded city streets, the radio station created a foreseeable risk of collisions for which it was liable. Appellant's attempt to bring themselves within Weirum fails, however, because they do not allege respondent encouraged Aiolentuna towards violence. Instead, they allege respondent failed to stop him from doing something his parents (or any other adult) could have permitted if they had been with him--watching an "R"-rated movie.

The only objective of the rating system is to advise the parent in advance so he or she may determine the possible suitability or unsuitability of viewing by children...." (Desilets v. Clearview Regional Board of Education (A.D.1993) 266 N.J.Super. 531, 630 A.2d 333, 339; see also Miramax Films Corp. v. Motion Picture Association of America (N.Y.Sup.1990) 148 Misc.2d 1, 560 N.Y.S.2d 730, 732 ["The stated purpose of the rating system is 'to provide advance information to enable parents to make judgments on movies they wanted their children to see or not to see'...."]; State v. Tavone (R.I.1982) 446 A.2d 741, 742, fn. 1 ["the rating system was intended by its originator, the Motion Picture Association of America, to serve as a guide for parents"].) Measured by its goal of protecting children from objectionable films, the movie-rating system's duty flows to parents; it was not designed or intended to protect society at large. (Accord Abrams v. City of Rockville (1991) 88 Md.App. 588, 596 A.2d 116, 122 [parents could state cause of action for negligence against after-school program which showed a horror movie rated "PG" (parental guidance advised) to a seven year old who then suffered sleeplessness and nightmares].) Therefore, respondent breached no duty to appellants--who are not Aiolentuna's parents--by letting Aiolentuna view a movie he should not have seen without an adult.

Appellants' reliance on Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 508, 150 Cal.Rptr. 1, 585 P.2d 851, is also misplaced. There, the court held parents could sue a school district for injuries their child suffered when he left school without authorization during school...