Foran Glennon partner Laura Malkofsky successfully secured an affirmation of summary judgment in favor of her client, an event security firm contracted by a California stadium management company, in a wrongful death case.
Original Case Background
The case arose from an altercation in the parking lot of Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California, following a 2018 NFL game. Parking lot security videotape of the incident shows the victim kicking an empty glass bottle on the parking lot ground, which struck another fan’s parked vehicle. In response, the fan, who had been standing next to his vehicle when it was hit by the bottle, punched the victim twice in the head, causing him to fall and sustain a serious brain injury from which he never recovered. The fan was arrested the next day and was ultimately sentenced to one year in jail for felony assault.
The victim sued the security company and the stadium management company, alleging claims for negligence and premises liability. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding the vehicle owner as a defendant. Two and a half years later, the plaintiff passed away after suffering an asthma attack. His two children were substituted in as plaintiffs through their guardian ad litem and the case became a wrongful death claim. In the operative second amended complaint, the plaintiffs contended that injuries sustained in the 2018 assault were a proximate cause of their father’s 2021 death. With respect to the two corporate defendants, plaintiffs alleged they were negligent in failing to:
- prevent the assault and
- provide reasonably adequate security.
Laura effectively countered these claims in part by imbedding the parking lot security video footage of the altercation into her brief in support of summary judgment. The video showed the attack on the decedent occurred within a nine second period. She asserted that the security company owed no duty to prevent the attack, as it was a “split-second attack” that was not foreseeable. While the plaintiffs alleged that security took at least 10-15 minutes to arrive, Laura debunked this timeline by imbedding time-stamped photographs into her brief, demonstrating that the assailant drove out of the parking lot less than four minutes after the attack. This evidence cast doubt on numerous eyewitness’s perception of time. She further argued that the plaintiffs’ claim for premises liability was not maintainable because the security company did not own, lease, occupy or control the stadium.
Both corporate defendants moved for summary judgment. On behalf of the security company, Laura contended that:
- the plaintiffs could not establish that it had a duty to protect the decedent from an unforeseeable injury,
- the security company did not breach the duty it owed to all 58,000 fans to protect them from reasonably foreseeable danger and
- even if the security company had breached its duty, the breach was not a substantial factor in the cause of decedent’s injuries and death.
The motion was granted in favor of both corporate defendants on lack of causation grounds.
Appellate Case
The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment, arguing that the trial court erred as there were triable issues for both defendants and the security firm was negligent in carrying out the security plan.
The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that there was no substantial, nonspeculative evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude that the security firm caused the decedent’s injuries. In doing so, the opinion reiterates and clarifies the legal boundary between mere speculation and “substantial evidence” that a defendant’s alleged negligence was a substantial factor in causing a plaintiff’s damage.
This case was covered by Law360. See the article here (subscription required).
Laura is a veteran litigator with diverse experience in complex civil litigation, business and commercial litigation, professional liability, elder care/elder abuse liability, directors’ and officers’ liability, premises liability, employment litigation and landlord-tenant/habitation defense. She has defended commercial property owners in issues related to personal injury disputes, mold contamination, wrongful death and criminal acts committed on the premises.