Plaintiffs, a wife and a husband, attended a football game. After the game, the husband was involved in a physical altercation with another fan, in which he sustained a brain injury, was rendered unconscious, and never worked again. Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging claims for negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium. Three years after the incident, the husband suffered an asthma attack and died. The family alleged that the asthma attack would not have been fatal but for the head trauma that resulted from the altercation at the football game. Shortly thereafter, the wife filed a second amended complaint, alleging defendants were negligent in failing to provide adequate security and prevent the altercation resulting in the husband’s injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment and plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed because there was no reasonable probability that defendants’ alleged failure to provide adequate security at the football game caused the altercation resulting in the husband’s injuries. In doing so, the court rejected plaintiff’s expert testimony on causation as wholly speculative, and clarified the legal boundary between mere speculation and evidence that a defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. The Court of Appeal’s opinion provides a useful summary of leading California case law on causation.
