California Supreme Court Denies Plaintiff’s Petition to Reverse Order Sustaining Demurer in Defendant Homeowner’s Favor in Criminal Home-Invader Case
Scott L. Macdonald and Edye A. Hill secured an appellate victory in a homeowner personal injury case. On November 13, 2024, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s petition to review the Appellate Court’s order affirming the Trial Court’s Order that sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. Both higher courts approved and affirmed the ruling in Defendant’s favor.
Plaintiff was a social, overnight guest at Defendant’s residential home. During Plaintiff’s stay, a criminal trespassed into the house, killed Defendant’s spouse and child in their beds, and stabbed Plaintiff multiple times. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was liable for the personal injuries that she suffered from the attack by a third-party criminal because Defendant was the last adult to arrive home the night before; Defendant failed to ensure the sliding glass door and windows were locked; and Defendant failed to set the house alarm. The uninvited third-party admitted to law enforcement that he would not have entered the home if the sliding glass door was locked. Defendant has no pre-existing relationship with the third-party trespasser. There were no prior instances of criminal activity or violence at the residential home prior to the subject incident. The operative complaint alleged that Defendant discussed his prior purchase of a gun during dinner with Plaintiff because Defendant was aware of increasing crime rates; that Defendant’s Chinese heritage made the house a target for robbery due to the stereotype of Asians keeping their jewelry and valuables at home; and the rise of Anti-Asian hate in the community, State, and nationwide.
Defense Counsel successfully obtained a demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against the sole cause of action for negligence and persuaded the Trial Court to deny leave to amend to Plaintiff. The Trial Court agreed that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts showing that Defendant homeowner owed a legal duty to prevent the criminal actions of a third-party and in particular the lack of factual allegations that Defendant had any notice or warning about impending criminal activity at the residence was detrimental to Plaintiff’s case. The Trial Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
Plaintiff pursued an appeal of the Trial Court’s ruling. The appeal was taken up by the Fourth Appellate District Court. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the burden on the homeowner Defendant was zero because the sliding glass door already had a lock; a house alarm was already installed; and Defendant would have incurred no additional financial costs to simply turn the lock on the door and to push the alarm button “on”.
Defense Counsel prepared a detailed appellate response brief. Defendant argued that Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff to protect Plaintiff from the criminal actions of a third-party. Defendant’s appellate brief argued that: heightened foreseeability is required for third-party criminal conduct; that judicial precedent in homeowner cases required actual knowledge of crimes before imposing a duty for to protect against third-party conduct; there were no facts of prior crime at Defendant’s residence alleged in the operative complaint; Plaintiff’s citation to statistical reports, government records, and new articles about crime and Anti-Asian hate do not give rise to a new duty to protect; that casual dinner table talk does not establish actual knowledge of criminal threats; the third-party’s actions were not foreseeable; and that Defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to ensure the doors were locked and the alarm set did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant also argued that public policy factors did not favor imposing a new duty to lock all doors and windows and to always set the house alarm on residential homeowners.
Both Defense Counsel and Plaintiff Counsel presented oral argument before the Appellate three-judge panel. Plaintiff Counsel argued that Defendant has an affirmative duty to use the safety precautions of locks and the house alarm that were already in place. Plaintiff contended that but for Defendant’s failure to engaged the lock and alarm that had “zero burden”, the stabbing by the third-party invader would not have occurred. Defense Counsel argued that the burden on the homeowner Defendant was high because the imposition of a new duty to protect social guests would require all homeowners to serve as a bodyguard and sentry against any violent actions by unknown, surprise attackers. Defense Counsel argued that imposing a new duty to guarantee absolute security by locking all doors and setting alarms was susceptible to a wide range of passive human error such as where the homeowner fell asleep watching television or a guest or child unlocked a window or opened a door without the homeowner’s knowledge.
The Appellate Court agreed with Defendant finding that even under the assumption that there was a special relationship between a homeowner and overnight guest, the Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 factors could not be satisfied by Plaintiff. The reviewing judicial panel found that light of the absence of facts to establish prior notice of criminal acts and that there was no causal nexus between the homeowner’s omissions and the injury suffered, the third-party’s criminal acts were not foreseeable. The Appellate Court ruled that Defendant’s failure to check the door and set the alarm were not sufficiently likely to result in the attack on Plaintiff and the death of Defendant’s spouse and child. The Appellate Court affirmed in Defendant’s favor.
Plaintiff then petitioned the California Supreme Court for higher court review of the Appellate Court’s ruling. Plaintiff argued that both the Appellate Court and the Trial Court erred in holding that Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff. Defense Counsel prepared and filed an extensive Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition arguing that the Appellate Court correctly affirmed the demurrer because the criminal acts were not foreseeable; the Defendant homeowner did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries; there is no duty for affirmative preventive measures on homeowners; imposing a duty to ensure that the residence is fortified against crime is not workable; even a low financial burden does not justify the imposition of a new duty on homeowners; the social burden would be onerous; a duty to lock all doors and set all alarms would not likely change future behavior; and the availability of insurance would be adversely affected. Without permitting further briefing or any oral argument, the Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s petition.
Result: The Trial Court’s Order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend remains in place and the judgment in Defendant’s favor becomes final. Defendant was awarded costs of appeal.