The Law

Fatal Shooting Unforeseeable by Ron Davis A shooting death at a California shopping center offers some guidelines for protection measures that may be necessary. The shopping center is Rio Rancho Discount Mall in Rialto. And the shooting resulted from a confrontation between two male youths who were visiting there and a gang of seven other youths. At the time of the confrontation, two security guards, who were employed by a security firm, were on duty, and after spotting the seven-member gang, they followed them to learn their intentions. The two guards later said such a practice was called for “to make sure they [the seven youths] were not going to steal anything.” When the two youths and the seven other youths encountered one another, words were exchanged. They parted briefly, but the group of seven and the two youths soon again confronted one another. A fight ensued, and one youth from the seven-member group pulled a gun and shot one of his two opponents. The gunshot wound resulted in his death. The mother of the deceased later sued the shopping center and the security firm for failure to protect her son. She alleged that they “negligently caused, maintained, managed, controlled the area inside the shopping center…such that seven individuals wearing gang apparel were allowed to enter past security personnel, [but] failed to prevent one of the seven from entering the premises with a weapon,…rendering the area on such premises dangerous and legally causing the injuries [to her son].” The shopping center owner responded that he did not owe a duty to protect against the unanticipated criminal acts of a third person and, moreover, his (the center owner’s) conduct was not a substantial factor causing the youth’s death. Under California law, a property owner owes a duty to protect patrons from “foreseeable” criminal acts, with “foreseeable” defined as a history of such incidents. A California court pointed out that any further measures than those provided by security guards, “needed to prevent this incident, would be unduly intrusive and beyond those required of a property owner.” Accordingly, the court ruled in favor of the shopping center and the security firm. The mother of the deceased youth appealed that ruling, but a California appellate court noted that a successful negligence claim requires a showing of legal duty that was breached, causing damages or injuries. Added the court, “It is unreasonable in this case to assume the security guards could have anticipated a fatal shooting. Moreover, we decline to impose a duty to physically intervene in an ongoing criminal attack. Where the police cannot win the war on crime, it is illogical to assume a property owner could by imposition of a duty. Police protection is, and in our view should remain, a governmental and not a private obligation.” (Crouch v. Rio Rancho Discount Mall, 2013 WL 4406503 [Cal.App. 4 Dist.]) Decision: August 2013 Published: August 2013