Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist.

Decision Date06 September 1984
Docket NumberS.F. 24587
Citation685 P.2d 1193,205 Cal.Rptr. 842,36 Cal.3d 799
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 685 P.2d 1193, 19 Ed. Law Rep. 689 Kathleen PETERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, et al., Defendants and Respondents

Leo J. O'Brien, Lawrence A. Margoles and Barfield, Barfield, Dryden & Ruane, San Francisco, for defendants and respondents.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Marvin Goldsmith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Seward L. Andrews and Bruce J. Braverman, Deputy Attys. Gen., as amici curiae for defendants and respondents.

BROUSSARD, Justice.

This case presents the question whether a community college district and its agents have a duty to exercise due care to protect students from reasonably foreseeable assaults on the campus. We conclude that the district does owe such a duty to its students. As we shall explain, we also conclude that while the district is immune from liability for failure to provide adequate police protection, it is not immune for failure to warn its students of known dangers posed by criminals on the campus.

Plaintiff Kathleen Peterson brought this action for damages under California's Tort Claims Act (Gov.Code, § 810 et seq.) 1 against the San Francisco Community College District, a state agency, and its agents. The plaintiff, a student, sustained injuries as a result of an attempted daylight rape in the parking lot area of the City College of San Francisco campus. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's first amended complaint without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal. 2

The complaint consists of two causes of action. In the first cause of action plaintiff alleges that by virtue of a special relationship between the defendant district and herself, the defendants had a duty to protect her and/or to warn her of danger. In her second cause of action plaintiff alleges that defendants are liable under section 835 for maintaining a dangerous condition of property which together with the criminal act of a third party caused her injuries.

FACTS

A general demurrer admits the truthfulness of the properly pleaded factual allegations of the complaint. (White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 765, 120 Cal.Rptr. 94, 533 P.2d 222.) The facts as alleged in plaintiff's first amended complaint are as follows:

On April 25, 1978, plaintiff, a student at City College of San Francisco, was assaulted while ascending a stairway in the school's parking lot. An unidentified male jumped from behind "unreasonably thick and untrimmed foliage and trees" which adjoined the stairway and attempted to rape her. The assailant used a modus operandi which was similar to that used in previous attacks on the same stairway. The defendants were aware that other assaults of a similar nature had occurred in that area and had taken steps to protect students who used the parking lot and stairway. Plaintiff relied upon this increased protection.

Plaintiff had been issued a parking permit by the college in return for a fee. Defendants did not publicize the prior incidents or in any way warn the plaintiff that she was in danger of being attacked in that area of campus. Plaintiff sustained physical and emotional injuries and economic loss as a result of the assault.

Although plaintiff has chosen to proceed under two different theories, the primary question before us is whether under the facts as alleged the defendants owed her a duty of care. The question then becomes whether this duty is affected by the fact that the defendants here are a public entity and its agents. Accordingly, we proceed to consider the nature of the relationship between plaintiff and defendants and the duty, if any, which the defendants owed her.

DUTY

Plaintiff alleges that the following circumstances placed upon the defendants an affirmative duty to exercise due care for her protection: "Having invited [her] onto the campus property, having enrolled her as a student, having issued to [her] a permit to park and use the parking lot and stairway in question in exchange for ... payment of a fee, having undertaken to patrol the parking lot and stairway in question in the light of the prior incidents of violence in the area, and having induced [her] to rely and depend upon this protection, a special relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendants pursuant to which Defendants were obliged to take reasonable protective measures to ensure Plaintiff's safety against violent attacks and otherwise protect her from foreseeable We have observed that the question of a duty " '... is a shorthand statement of a conclusion, rather than an aid to analysis in itself ... [b]ut it should be recognized that "duty" is not sacrosanct in itself, but only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that a particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.' " (Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 734, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912, quoting with approval Prosser, Law of Torts (3d ed.) at pp. 332-333.) In considering whether one owes another a duty of care, several factors must be weighed including among others: " '[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 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. [Citations.]' (Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 113, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561; [citations].) When public agencies are involved, additional elements include 'the extent of [the agency's] powers, the role imposed upon it by law and the limitations imposed upon it by budget; ...' (Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 ; see Smith v. Alameda County Social Services Agency [1979] 90 Cal.App.3d 929 .)" (Thompson v. County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741, 750, 167 Cal.Rptr. 70, 614 P.2d 728.)

criminal conduct and/or to warn her as to the location of prior violent assaults in the vicinity of the subject parking lot and stairway."

As a general rule one has no duty to control the conduct of another, and no duty to warn those who may be endangered by such conduct. (Rest.2d Torts, § 315; Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 203, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894; Thompson v. County of Alameda, supra, 27 Cal.3d 741, 751, 167 Cal.Rptr. 70, 614 P.2d 728; Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 435, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334.) A duty may arise, however, where "(a) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives the other a right to protection." (Rest.2d Torts, § 315; Davidson v. City of Westminster, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 203, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894; Thompson v. County of Alameda, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pp. 751-752, 167 Cal.Rptr. 70, 614 P.2d 728; Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 435, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334.) Among the commonly recognized special relationships are that between a common carrier and its passengers, that between an innkeeper and his or her guests, and that between a possessor of land and members of the public who enter in response to the landowner's invitation. (Rest.2d Torts, § 314A.) 3

                [685 P.2d 1197] There is no question that if the defendant district here were a private landowner operating a parking lot on its premises it would owe plaintiff a duty to exercise due care for her protection.  (See  Civ.Code, § 1714; 4  Gomez v. Ticor (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 622, 628, 193 Cal.Rptr. 600 [parking lot is " 'an especial temptation and opportunity for criminal misconduct' ";  where prior acts of theft and vandalism alleged, defendant owed patrons duty of care].)  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."  (Rest.2d Torts, § 344;  Slater v. Alpha Beta Acme Markets, Inc. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 274, 278, 118 Cal.Rptr. 561;  4 Witkin, Summary of Cal.Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, § 596, p. 2867.)   Liability will normally be imposed in circumstances where the possessor has reasonable cause to anticipate the misconduct of third persons.  (See Rogers v. Jones (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 346, 356, 128 Cal.Rptr. 404;  4 Witkin, Summary of Cal.Law (8th ed., 1982 supp.)  Torts, § 596, p. 302.)
                

Of particular relevance to our discussion of the defendants' duty is Campodonico v. State Auto Parks Inc. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 803, 89 Cal.Rptr. 270. In Campodonico, plaintiff alleged that a parking lot was constructed and maintained so as to encourage the presence of persons of degenerate tendencies, and that as a proximate result of defendant's negligence plaintiff was assaulted. The court noted at the outset: "Defendant admits that plaintiff was lawfully upon the premises and that a legal duty was owed to her. The nature of that duty has been clarified, simplified, and stated succinctly ... in ... Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561, as follows: 'It bears repetition that the basic policy of this state set forth by ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
208 cases
  • Univ. of S. Cal. v. Superior Court of Cnty. of L. A.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 27, 2018
    ..., supra , 4 Cal.5th at p. 623, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 413 P.3d 656 ; italics added.) Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 799, 205 Cal.Rptr. 842, 685 P.2d 1193 ( Peterson ) held that a community college district owed a duty to warn its students of known dangers p......
  • Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation, No. CV-F-91-048 OWW.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • May 28, 1993
    ...determination of whether a condition is dangerous is generally one of fact for the jury. Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist., 36 Cal.3d 799, 810, 205 Cal.Rptr. 842, 685 P.2d 1193 (1984). The issue can only be determined as a matter of law if reasonable minds can come only to o......
  • Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 1, 2016
    ...safe and habitable homes, significant moral blame attaches to defendants' conduct."]; Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 799, 814, 205 Cal.Rptr. 842, 685 P.2d 1193 [failure to take intervening action to improve safety of facilities "if established, also indic......
  • Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1985
    ...to the landowner's invitation and between a psychiatrist and his or her patients. (Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 799, 806, 205 Cal.Rptr. 842, 685 P.2d 1193; Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 436, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Real property torts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • March 31, 2022
    ...In General (§1-1:00). • Ultrahazardous Activities (§1-11:00). • Premises Liability ( Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist. , 36 Cal. 3d 799, 205 Cal. Rptr. 842 (1984); Butcher v. Gay , 29 Cal. App. 4th 388, 398-99 (1994)). • Intrusion (§12-4:00). • Stalking (§3-3:00). §1:80 FORM......
  • Taking a Bullet: Are Colleges Exposing Themselves to Tort Liability by Attempting to Save Their Students?
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 29-2, December 2012
    • Invalid date
    ...some circumstances. 120. See, e.g., Vega v. Sacred Heart Univ., 836 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D. Conn. 2011); Peterson v. S.F. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 685 P.2d 1193 (Cal. 1984); Furek v. Univ. of Del., 594 A.2d 506 (Del. 1991); Stanton v. Univ. of Me. Sys., 773 A.2d 1045 (Me. 2001); Sharkey v. Bd. of Rege......
  • Sovereign Immunity and the Uses of History
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 81, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...the role imposed on it by law, and the limitations imposed on it by budget. See, e.g., Peterson v. San Francisco Cmty. Coll. Dist., 685 P.2d 1193 (Cal. 1984); Thompson v. Alameda, 614 P.2d 728 (Cal. 1980);.Hernandez v. Pomona, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 406, 409-10 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996); Smith v. Alam......
  • The Unidentified Wrongdoer
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Georgia Law Review (FC Access) No. 56-3, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...1993) (same); Butler v. Acme Mkts., Inc., 445 A.2d 1141, 1143-44 (N.J. 1982) (same). 110. See, e.g., Peterson v. S.F. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 685 P.2d 1193, 1195, 1197-98 (Cal. 1984) (finding a community college liable for injuries sustained by a student in an attempted rape in defendant college......
  • 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