As usual, about 8 a.m. Ann opened the 60-Minute Photo Company store at the 25-store Pacific Plaza Shopping Center for business. She was the only person in the store. Shortly thereafter, a man entered the store. At knife-point he raped Ann.
Ann sued the shopping center owners, alleging they should have hired security guards to protect the tenant’s employees against crime. Although several loiterers had been seen around the complex, there was no evidence they committed any crimes before Ann was raped.
The shopping center owners presented evidence there had been no serious crimes in the complex. They felt there was no need for hiring security guards to protect against third-party crime.
Are the shopping center owners liable to Ann for damages due to failure to hire security guards?
The judge said no.
For the shopping center owners to be liable to Ann for her damages, the judge began, she must prove they were negligent in failing to provide a security patrol to prevent crime by third persons.
Since there was no evidence of foreseeable violent crime at this shopping center which could have been prevented by a security guard, there was no duty, so the owners had no liability to Ann, the judge ruled.
Based on the 1994 California Supreme Court decision in Ann M. vs. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, 6 Cal 4th 66, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137.
Demolition order valid
In early 1987, a county building inspector visited the empty house at 9766 Nolte St., found it to be in a state of disrepair and posted notices declaring it to be a public nuisance. He repeated the posting about three months later and published a declaration of nuisance notice in the local newspaper.
The county then obtained a title report which incorrectly listed Orville and Daisy as the legal owners of the house. In fact, both were deceased. Their heirs had become owners of the fee simple title to the house, but the title report did not reflect the probate transfer to the heirs.
In February 1988, Robert purchased the house from the heirs. He was unaware of the county’s declaration of nuisance and demolition order for the house. The county had failed to record its declaration of nuisance, as required by its local ordinance. In April 1988, the county demolished the house pursuant to its 1987 demolition order.
Robert learned of the declaration of nuisance and demolition order only after the vacant house had been torn down by the county. He sued for damages due to the county’s failure to comply with its ordinance and failure to notify him as the current owner.
The county apologized but argued it did not violate Robert’s rights because he should have known of the nuisance notice and demolition order.
Should the county be ordered to pay damages to Robert?
The judge said no.
It is undisputed that Robert did not acquire the property until after issuance of the demolition order and he did not own the property when the nuisance proceedings began, the judge explained.
Although the county failed to record the notice and order of demolition, its failure to do so in violation of its ordinance is not a due process violation, the judge emphasized.
The due process test for determining adequacy of notice is applied at the time proceedings begin, the judge noted, and does not require notifying any future owners of the affected property. Therefore, the county has no obligation to Robert, the judge ruled.
Based on the recent U.S. District Court decision in Kornblum vs. St. Louis County, MO, 835 Fed.Supp.1127.
