The Law

Center Security Guard Injuries not Tenant’s Responsibility by Ron Davis A security guard at a California shopping center has failed in efforts to blame a tenant for injuries he suffered during a fracas on center property. The shopping center is Clayton Fair, in the Bay-area city of Concord. And the security guard, while on duty at Clayton Fair, was located in the parking area when the fracas occurred. Two patrons of a bowling alley/pool hall tenant, while obviously intoxicated, had begun a disturbance that escalated to a brawl. The security guard, employed by a security service under contract to the center’s owners, was at first apparently unaware of the disturbance inside the tenant’s business. His job duties primarily consisted of patrolling the parking lot to discourage thefts, vandalism, and other damage to shopping center businesses. But he was also assigned to investigate suspicious activity and to request loiterers, such as teenagers, to leave the premises. The purpose of such duties: to safeguard center patrons as they entered and left the businesses. On occasion, however, the guard would enter the bowling alley/pool hall to deal with unruly customers. The disturbance in the tenant’s business began with a fight between a pair of intoxicated patrons and others there. It is questionable whether the tenant’s employees made an effort to protect the tenant’s patrons from the two men. And apparently no employee of the tenant summoned police. But some of the tenant’s patrons apparently fought with the two men and ejected them from the premises. After their ejection, the two men began damaging vehicles in the shopping center parking lot. Then they hopped into the truck that brought them to the shopping center, apparently intending to flee from the premises. In so doing, however, they struck the security guard, who had heard the commotion and had responded. The guard suffered injuries from the impact with the truck. And he subsequently sued the bowling alley/pool hall tenant on grounds of negligence in failing to try to control the fracas. Under California law, generally a business must protect its customers from third-party conduct because of their “special relationship.” The security guard argued that because of that requirement, the bowling alley/pool hall tenant owed him a measure of protection. And because such protection was not offered, he added, the tenant is responsible for his injuries. A California court ruled, however, that the security guard had no special relationship with the tenant and therefore “the tenant owed him no duty of care to protect him from third-party criminal assaults.” The security guard appealed that ruling. A California appellate court upheld the lower court decision, agreeing that the security guard was not an invitee of the tenant and so was not subject to the tenant’s protection. (Arnold v. Clayton Valley Bowl, Inc., 2011 WL 5520375 [Cal.App. 1 Dist.]) Decision: November 2011 Published: November 2011