stating that one who “under- takes to provide protective services to another” must exercise a duty of care
How later courts described this case
- stating that one who “under- takes to provide protective services to another” must exercise a duty of care
- “A defendant may owe an affirmative duty to protect 22 another from the conduct of third parties if he or she has a ‘special relationship’ with the other 23 person.” (citations omitted)
- proprietor who serves intoxicating drinks must exercise reasonable care to protect patrons from injury at hands of fellow guests
- “[a] restaurant or bar 25 proprietor also has a duty to warn patrons of known dangers. . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*259 BROWN, J., Dissenting.
I generally agree with Justice Kennard’s dissenting opinion. The attack on plaintiff Michael Wollery Delagado was not foreseeable. Therefore, defendant Trax Bar & Grill had no duty to protect against third party criminal conduct. (Dis. opn. of Kennard, J., ante, at p. 253.).) However, unlike Justice Kennard, for the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Morris v. De La Torre (2005) 36 Cal.4th 260 -279, 280 [30 Ca.Rptr.3d 173, 113 P.3d 1182 ] (conc. opn. of Brown, J.)), I do not believe our decision in Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal.4th 814 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 756 , 927 P.2d 1260 ] imposed a duty on business owners based on ongoing criminal conduct.