CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ISSUES IMPORTANT DECISION ON SCOPE OF LANDOWNER'S DUTY TO PROTECT AGAINST GANG-RELATED CRIME

On July 30, 2007, in Castaneda v. Olsher (Case No. S138104), the California Supreme Court issued an important decision in the area of landowner liability for third party criminal conduct. The Court's decision dealt with gang-related violence and a landowner's duty to protect against such violence occurring on his or her premises.

In Castaneda, plaintiff was injured by a stray bullet from a gang shooting that occurred on defendant's property, a mobile home park. At trial, plaintiff presented evidence of two prior shootings near the premises, one of which may have been gang related, as well as complaints by tenants and the manager about suspected gang members living in the mobile home park. Plaintiff also presented evidence of prior property-related crimes, assaults, and drug sales occurring on the premises. Plaintiff presented no evidence, however, that the residents involved in the shooting that caused plaintiff's injuries were involved in the prior two shootings, the property-related crimes, the assaults or drug sales. The trial court granted non-suit for the defendant landowner and the Court of Appeal reversed.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the grant of non-suit for the defendant. In the first part of the Court's three-part decision, it held that a landowner does not have a duty to refuse housing to suspected gang members "absent circumstances making gang violence extraordinarily foreseeable." Although the Court did not elaborate on what type of evidence would make gang violence "extraordinarily foreseeable" in this context, the opinion makes clear that looking and dressing like a gang member is insufficient. In the second part of the Court's decision, it held that a duty to evict a vicious or dangerous tenant exists only in cases where violence is highly foreseeable. Although there was evidence of property-related crimes, assaults, and a nearby gang-related shooting, plaintiff's injury was not highly foreseeable because these prior crimes were not committed by the residents who took part in the shooting that injured plaintiff. In the third section, the Court held that security guards and additional lighting would have been ineffective in preventing the type of escalation and shooting that occurred in this case.

Over the last several years, the Court has taken a keen interest in the area of premises liability. This decision continues the Court's measured and thoughtful approach toward landowner liability for third party criminal conduct.

Click here to read the Supreme Court's decision.

Horvitz & Levy LLP represented the defendant landowner in the Supreme Court. For additional information, contact Barry Levy or Kim Nguyen at (818) 995-0800 (or by e-mail: blevy@horvitzlevy.com or knguyen@horvitzlevy.com).

www.horvitzlevy.com

If you do not wish to continue to receive these informational bulletins,
please e-mail jpaul@horvitzlevy.com with a subject line "UNSUBSCRIBE."