Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763

In Nola M. v. University of Southern California (USC) (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 421, we obtained the reversal of a $1.2 million judgment against USC in a premises liability case involving a rape committed on campus. The plaintiff contended that inadequate campus security was a contributing cause of the attack. The Court of Appeal (Second District, Division One) reversed the jury verdict for the plaintiff, finding there was no evidence of causation because the plaintiff could not show through expert testimony or otherwise that additional campus security would have prevented the attack. The court held broadly that to establish causation in a premises liability case based on a third party criminal act, the plaintiff must demonstrate that additional security probably would have prevented the crime.

In Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1001, a different division of the same Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Seven) rejected the rule enunciated in Nola M. The court held that a presumption of causation arises whenever a plaintiff offers evidence that a landowner provided inadequate security, shifting the burden to the defendant to disprove that the particular crime at issue would have occurred even if the plaintiff's proposed security measures had been in place. The Supreme Court granted review.

Horvitz & Levy LLP filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of the defendant landowner and on behalf of a number of universities (including USC, Stanford, CalTech, Pepperdine, and the University of California) and various insurers. (Click to see an Adobe Acrobat version of our AC brief. ) In our amicus brief, we argued that the new rule adopted by the Court of Appeal would make responsible landowners (such as hospitals and universities) virtual insurers against criminal acts perpetrated by third parties.

In a close 4 to 3 decision issued on May 1, 2001, the Supreme Court agreed, reversing the lower appellate court and reaffirming the principles enunciated in Nola M. (Saelzer v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763.) Specifically, the Supreme Court held that in a premises liability action based on a third-party crime, the burden of proving causation remains with the plaintiff. That burden cannot be met by any presumption that added security would have prevented the particular crime; rather, the plaintiff must offer concrete evidence that the crime was caused by the lack of additional security.

Download free Adobe Acrobat Reader software for viewing Adobe Acrobat files.

Home | Firm Directory | About H & L | Practice Areas | H & L News
Seminars | Publications | Recruiting | Directions | Links | Site Map