Cal. Litig. 2015, Volume 28, Number 1
- A Fond Vaarwel...
- A Path to Writeousness: What the Seven Deadly Sins Might Teach Us About Written Advocacy
- Adr Update: Dealing with Ab 2617
- Be Prepared: Your Week in Legal London Jurisdiction is no bar - the English barrister is abroad
- Editor's Foreword Class Without Ostentation
- Employers Take Note: the U.S. Supreme Court Has Entered the Digital Age
- Forfeiture at the Pleading Stage: Ask Permission First, Don't Apologize Later
- Litigation Section Executive Committee Past Chairs
- McDermott On Demand: Pass the Scalpel, Please
- Past Editors-in-Chief
- Reclaiming Our Noble Profession: Civility in the Practice of Law
- Table of Contents
- The Disentitlement Doctrine: a Trap for Unwary Judgment Debtors in Civil Appeals
- The Fine Line Between Protected Demand Letters and Extortion
- The Litigator's Must-Know Lexicon of Idioms Used by Young Business Professionals
- Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame: Being a Trial Lawyer
- "I Learned About Litigating from That" Adapt and Take Advantage of Opportunities
"I Learned About Litigating from That" Adapt and Take Advantage of Opportunities
By Bruce M. Brusavich
Bruce M. Brusavich
Iwas about to start a trial in a third-party liability action for criminal conduct against a supermarket chain representing a woman who was mugged and beaten as she was about to enter a market with her children. The mugger was standing next to the entrance pretending to use a pay phone, waiting for a suitable victim.
Just before trial, the Supreme Court decided Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, which clarified that the determination of duty, including the analysis of foreseeability of harm, is a question of law to be determined by the court. The Supreme Court also ruled that if plaintiff is attempting to impose a duty to hire security guards, a high degree of foreseeability was required, which would almost always require prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landlord’s premises.