Industry News
Security Guard Murdered in Parking Lot
Facts: Reyes Garcia worked as a doorman and bouncer at a sports bar located in a strip mall. As part of his duties, Garcia patted down patrons to ensure they did not have weapons, patrolled the bar and the strip mall’s parking lot, and escorted or physically removed drunk or disorderly patrons from the bar. On one occasion, Garcia was instructed to patrol the parking lot because people were loitering outside of the club and drinking. Garcia approached a group of men, including Jose Nunez, who were drinking in the parking lot. The men argued with Garcia. Nunez retrieved a gun from his car and shot and killed Garcia.
Garcia’s family sued the bar owner for negligence. Garcia’s family argued that the bar was negligent for improperly training Garcia on how to patrol the parking lot and deal with drunken patrons safely. The bar owner filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not liable for Garcia’s death because: (1) it did not own the parking lot; (2) Garcia was not an employee of the bar, and (3) the bar did not owe a duty to protect Garcia from the unforeseeable violence committed by Nunez. The trial court granted the bar’s motion for summary judgment, and Garcia’s family appealed.
Decision: The state court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the bar. The court of appeal held that the violent attack on Garcia was not foreseeable to the bar owner because there was no evidence of similar attacks near the bar. Reports of prior crimes, which lacked the severity and proximity to the incident at issue, were insufficient to create an issue of fact that would save the Garcias’ claim from summary judgment. Though the Garcias argued that the trial court erred in finding that Nunez’ violent acts were not foreseeable due to the epidemic of random violence in today’s society, the state court of appeal opined that there was no evidence which would indicate that a bouncer who is patrolling the outside of a business would be shot by a drunken patron loitering in the parking lot.
Implications: Liability may be imposed on a business owner for violent acts committed by a third party if the plaintiff can show prior violent acts were of the same character and in the same location as the most recent incident. Here, the plaintiff’s argument that any crime in the area, or that a violent society in general, makes the violence against the victim foreseeable was not persuasive. Garcia v. Oceans Sports Bar Inc., No.B217207. California Court of Appeal Apr. 28, 2010, unpublished.
Source: Security Law Newsletter, published monthly by Strafford Publications, Atlanta, GA. www.straffordpub.com, phone: 800-926-7926 ext. 10 or email: custserv@straffordpub.com.