Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court

Citation14 Cal.4th 814,59 Cal.Rptr.2d 756,927 P.2d 1260
Decision Date06 January 1997
Docket NumberNo. S051085,S051085
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 927 P.2d 1260, 65 USLW 2468, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 127, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 209 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Kathy BROWN, Real Party in Interest

Genson, Even, Crandall & Wade, Edwin B. Brown, Irvine, Tod M. Castronovo, Woodland Sharon L. Browne, Sacramento, Anne M. Hawkins, Paul N. Halvonik, Berkeley, Fred J. Hiestand, Sacramento, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, Roy G. Weatherup, Lyn Skinner Foster, Jon M. Kasimov, Santa Monica, Horvitz & Levy, Peter Abrahams, Julie L. Woods and Elizabeth Skorcz Anthony, Encino, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

[927 P.2d 1262] Hills, and John P. Fuchs, Los Angeles, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Richard F.G. Thomas, Hermosa Beach, for Real Party in Interest.

BAXTER, Justice.

We are asked to decide whether a shopkeeper owes a duty to a patron to comply with an armed robber's demand for money in order to avoid increasing the risk of harm to patrons. The Court of Appeal held that such a duty exists. Petitioner Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. (KFC), disagrees and argues that the decision of the Court of Appeal conflicts with that in Vandermost v. Alpha Beta Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 771, 210 Cal.Rptr. 613 (Vandermost ).

We conclude that a shopkeeper does not have a duty to comply with the unlawful demand of an armed robber that property be surrendered. Although the circumstances of this case differ from those considered by the Vandermost court, the reasoning of Vandermost and the authorities on which it relied are persuasive. Recognition of a duty to comply with an unlawful demand would be contrary to public policy as it would encourage similar unlawful conduct.

We shall, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I Background

This mandamus proceeding arises out of the denial of KFC's motion for summary judgment in a negligence action. Real party in interest Kathy Brown named KFC a defendant in a complaint seeking general and special damages for emotional distress, hospital and medical expenses, loss of wages, and loss of earning capacity. Brown alleged that she was a customer at a Redondo Beach restaurant operated by KFC when she was seized and held at gunpoint by an unidentified person who threatened to seriously injure Brown if employees of KFC did not give him the money in the cash register. The complaint alleged that an employee did not comply promptly with the robber's demands and that her delay and other actions caused further injury to plaintiff and resulted in additional threats of grave injury to Brown.

The complaint also alleged that KFC failed to provide proper security, and failed to properly train its employees in how to respond to criminal activity to avoid endangering or further endangering its customers.

KFC answered the complaint, denying all allegations of the complaint. As affirmative defenses KFC claimed, inter alia, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it had no duty to plaintiff to comply with a robber's unlawful demands. In the absence of the duty and breach of the duty elements, the complaint did not state a cause of action in negligence.

KFC then moved for summary judgment. (Code Civ.Proc., § 437c.)

It appears from documents offered in support of the motion for summary judgment that Brown was the only customer in the KFC restaurant when she was accosted by the robber, who put a gun to her back. She complied with his demands and surrendered her cash and her wallet to him. He then demanded that a clerk open the cash register and give him all of the money. The clerk did not do so. Instead, she said she would have to go to the back of the restaurant for a key. The robber then became extremely agitated, shoved his gun harder into Brown's back, and told the employee he would shoot Brown if the employee did not "quit playing games" and open the cash register immediately. Brown, who believed she was going to die because of the employee's actions, then "screamed" at the clerk to open the drawer and give the money to the robber, at which point the clerk complied and opened the cash register drawer. The robber seized the money and fled. The robber did not become agitated and angry until the cashier told him KFC argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law since it owed no duty of care to Brown to protect her against violent criminal acts of unknown third parties while on its premises, and that even if a duty of care was owed, no duty was breached by a failure to provide adequate security or properly train its employees to respond to criminal activity.

[927 P.2d 1263] that she would have to get the keys to the register. KFC was unaware at that time of any prior similar crimes or any crimes at this store.

In a petition for writ of mandate by which it sought to overturn the order denying the motion for summary judgment, KFC argued only that it did not have a duty to Brown, a customer, to comply with the demands of the robber in order to avoid injury to Brown. Therefore, that is the only issue the Court of Appeal was called upon to address and is the one we address here.

II Court of Appeal Decision/Vandermost

As the Court of Appeal recognized, the existence of a duty is a question of law for the court. (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207; Ramirez v. Plough (1993) 6 Cal.4th 539, 546, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 97, 863 P.2d 167.) The Court of Appeal applied general principles applicable to the liability of a landowner or occupier for injury to persons on premises held open to the public. Under those general principles, when determining the existence and scope of the duty to protect business invitees from the criminal conduct of third parties, the court balances the foreseeability of the harm against the burden of the duty. If the burden is great, a high foreseeability of harm may be required, but a lesser degree of foreseeability may be required if " ' "there are strong policy reasons for preventing the harm, or the harm can be prevented by simple means." ' " (6 Cal.4th at p. 679, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207.)

The duty of a proprietor of a business establishment to business invitees generally includes a "duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of third persons which threaten invitees where the occupant has reasonable cause to anticipate such acts and the probability of injury resulting therefrom." (Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 114, 121, 52 Cal.Rptr. 561, 416 P.2d 793.) 1 We recognized in Taylor that a business proprietor is not an insurer of an invitee's safety. There is a requirement, however, that reasonable care be taken for their safety, and liability exists for injuries resulting from a breach of that duty of reasonable care. (Ibid.)

When the liability of a landowner to persons on his or her property is in issue, additional factors are considered in determining whether a duty should be imposed and, if so, the extent of that duty. "Some factors that courts consider in determining the existence and scope of a duty in a particular case are: '[T]he foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame Although these rules had not heretofore been applied to create a duty to cooperate with an armed robber, the Court of Appeal concluded that a duty existed in the circumstances of this case. The court reasoned: A robbery was in progress. The robber was holding a gun to the back of the patron, demanding that the cashier open the cash register and give him the money. It was reasonably foreseeable that if the cashier did not cooperate with the robber the hostage would be terrorized and potentially shot to death. That foreseeability was made clear in crime prevention pamphlets distributed by the Redondo Beach Police Department, which were among the evidence offered in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The pamphlets advised readers that they should never refuse an armed robber's demand for money, an admonition which implicitly recognized the likelihood of an increased risk of injury or death if the victim resisted the demand.

[927 P.2d 1264] attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.' " (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 675, fn. 5, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207, quoting Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 113, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561.)

Applying the remaining factors this court identified in Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, supra, 6 Cal.4th 666, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207, the Court of Appeal concluded that there was a high degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, that the injury was closely connected with the defendant's conduct, and that the burden on defendant of avoiding the injury by complying with the robber's demand was "slight."

KFC contends that this holding conflicts with that in Vandermost, supra, in which the Court of Appeal concluded that no duty to comply with a robber's demands should be imposed because adverse consequences to the public would result. There, the plaintiff was with a group of friends seated in a restaurant. He heard a commotion near the cash register and a sound like a firecracker. He went to investigate and saw Moreno talking to the cashier. Moreno demanded that the cashier " 'give me the money or I am going to shoot someone,' " after which Moreno fired into...

To continue reading

Request your trial
88 cases
  • Sakiyama v. Amf Bowling Centers, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 10, 2003
    ... 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 762 ... 110 Cal.App.4th 398 ... Shion ... No. B151800 ... Court of Appeal, Second District ... July 10, 2003 ... [Citations.]" (See also Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal, Inc. v. Superior Court ... ...
  • Winebarger v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • August 21, 2019
    ...of Columbia law)."[T]he existence of a duty is a question of law for the court." See Ky. Fried Chicken of Cal. v. Super. Ct. , 14 Cal. 4th 814, 819, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 756, 927 P.2d 1260 (Cal. 1997). Under both California and District of Columbia law, loan servicers do not owe general duties of......
  • Verdugo v. Target Corp.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 23, 2014
    ...v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143, 1147, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 445, 959 P.2d 752 ; Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal.4th 814, 822–824, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 756, 927 P.2d 1260 ; Coulter v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 144, 152–154, 145 Cal.Rptr. 534, 577 P.2d ......
  • Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1999
    ...137, 863 P.2d 207.) The existence of a duty is a question of law for the court. (Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal.4th 814, 819, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 756, 927 P.2d 1260; Ann M., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 674, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207.) Likewise, "[f]oreseeab......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Negligence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • March 31, 2022
    ...494, 124 Cal. Rptr. 467. “The existence of duty is a question of law for the court.” Ky. Fried Chicken of Cal. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 814, 819. The extent and type of duty varies according to the relationship of the parties and other circumstances. See discussion of specific t......
  • Products liability and commercial sales
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • March 31, 2022
    ...is: Was the product of a type that could endanger others if it was negligently made? Ky. Fried Chicken of Cal. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 814, 819. As discussed in Chapter 1 (§1-1:31a Special Relationships), the law recognizes that a “special relationship” exists between a manufac......
  • Wrongful death/survival actions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • March 31, 2022
    ...(1980) 102 Cal. App. 3d 282, 289, 162 Cal. Rptr. 287). • No Duty ( Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 814, 829, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 756). • Comparative Negligence. The damages recoverable under a survival action must be reduced according to the degr......
  • Chapter § 4.04 LIABILITY OF HOTELS AND RESORTS FOR COMMON TRAVEL PROBLEMS
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Travel Law
    • Invalid date
    ...to death after hotel manager admits husband to wife's room). California: Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. 4th 814, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 756, 927 P.2d 1260 (1997) (patron of restaurant held hostage by armed robber; shopkeeper has no duty to comply with robber......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT