The California Supreme Court issued two rulings Thursday making it easier for victims of violent crime to recover damages from the owners of the businesses where the crimes occurred.
The rulings mark a departure from a recent trend in the law and are likely to have significant ramifications, according to legal experts.
"I think it is highly significant," said Sharon Arkin, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in one of the cases and applauded the decisions. "I think the pendulum is swinging back a little" in favor of victims after a number of adverse rulings, Arkin said.
Attorney Deborah J. LaFetra, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, who filed friend-of-the-court briefs in both cases, decried the decisions. LaFetra said she felt the rulings imposed new, unwarranted duties on California business owners and would increase their costs.
In the first case, local gang members assaulted Charles E. Morris IV in August 2000 outside a 24-hour Mexican restaurant near Imperial Beach in San Diego County.
Morris was challenged by Richard Cuevas and Saul De La Vega in the parking lot of Victoria's Mexican Food at 1 a.m. When Morris said he was from Imperial Beach, Cuevas punched him. Morris' friends jumped into the fight, and Cuevas ran into the restaurant and grabbed a 12-inch knife from the kitchen. He stabbed Morris twice in the back, then once in the neck.
Morris was hospitalized and suffered nerve damage. Cuevas was arrested months later.
According to the opinion, employees watched the attack through a large plate glass window and did nothing. Morris sued, contending that the workers at the very least should have called 911.
The California Supreme Court agreed. In a 7-0 decision, the court ruled that the restaurant had a special duty to its customers and that placing a call to 911 was a "minimal safety measure that imposes no undue hardship on a business owner."
The court said the attack was clearly foreseeable, distinguishing the case from other recent rulings in which the court said business owners were not held liable because they could not have predicted a crime would be committed.
"It requires no mastery of metaphysical philosophy or economic risk analysis to appreciate the strong possibility of serious injury to persons against whom such imminent or ongoing criminal conduct is aimed," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the court.
