duty to take reasonable and minimally burdensome measures to protect customers from ongoing criminal activity extends “to areas within the proprietor’s control ” (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- duty to take reasonable and minimally burdensome measures to protect customers from ongoing criminal activity extends “to areas within the proprietor’s control ” (emphasis added)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*279 KENNARD, J., Concurring.
As I pointed out in my dissenting opinion in Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 244, 250 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 113 P.3d 1159 ] (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.), anyone reading this court’s recent decisions in Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137 , 863 P.2d 207 ], and its progeny, would conclude that (1) the prior-similar-incident rule applies to premises liability claims against business owners for failing to take precautions against possible future criminal conduct of third parties when the conduct is a criminal assault by a third party, and that (2) as suggested in Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal.4th 814, 823-824 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 756 , 927 P.2d 1260 ], the totality of circumstances rule applies when the criminal conduct is ongoing or imminent. This case, involving an ongoing criminal assault, falls within the totality-of-circumstances rule. (Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 823 .)