18 Cited authorities

  1. Ballard v. Uribe

    41 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 1,089 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting new trial motion and additur request because failure to include transcript or settled statement precluded review to determine whether it was "reasonably probable" juror misconduct or instructional error affected damage award
  2. Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center

    6 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 567 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to impose duty without requisite degree of foreseeability would force landlords to become insurers of public safety
  3. Rowland v. Christian

    69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 1,243 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 1714 superceded prior common-law negligence rules
  4. Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill

    36 Cal.4th 224 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 217 times
    Finding restaurants, bars, and shopping centers have affirmative duty to reasonably secure premises against reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties
  5. Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club

    571 Pa. 580 (Pa. 2002)   Cited 184 times
    Holding a tennis club owed no duty to a member having a heart attack to have or maintain an a defibrillator
  6. Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd.

    21 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 185 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Sharon P., the plaintiff sued the owner of the parking garage of her work building after she was attacked and sexually assaulted there.
  7. Fitness v. Mayer

    980 So. 2d 550 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that duty is a "question of law to be determined solely by the court."
  8. Rotolo v. San Jose Sports & Entertainment, LLC

    151 Cal.App.4th 307 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that special relationship between operators of sports facility and hockey players did not create a duty to notify users of the facility of the existence and location of AEDs at the facility
  9. Gomez v. Ticor

    145 Cal.App.3d 622 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 52 times
    Suggesting that, unlike operational security monitors and intercoms, light bulbs may have no appreciable effect in preventing or warning of crimes
  10. Carrera v. Maurice J. Sopp & Son

    177 Cal.App.4th 366 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 16 times
    Applying special circumstances where a thief driving a stolen tow truck struck several vehicles parked near the truck and eventually drove through a crowded bus stop
  11. Section 1797.196 - Liability for civil damages resulting from acts or omissions related to AED

    Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 1797.196   Cited 7 times

    (a) For purposes of this section, "AED" or "defibrillator" means an automated external defibrillator. (b) (1) In order to ensure public safety, a person or entity that acquires an AED shall do all of the following: (A) Comply with all regulations governing the placement of an AED. (B) Notify an agent of the local EMS agency of the existence, location, and type of AED acquired. (C) Ensure that the AED is maintained and tested according to the operation and maintenance guidelines set forth by the manufacturer

  12. Section 1714.21 - Immunity for rendering emergency care or treatment by use of AED at scene of emergency

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.21   Cited 5 times
    Providing immunity from civil liability for those who acquire AEDs as long as they comply with specified maintenance, testing, and notice requirements
  13. Rule 8.548 - Decision on request of a court of another jurisdiction

    Cal. R. 8.548   Cited 208 times

    (a)Request for decision On request of the United States Supreme Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the court of last resort of any state, territory, or commonwealth, the Supreme Court may decide a question of California law if: (1) The decision could determine the outcome of a matter pending in the requesting court; and (2) There is no controlling precedent. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b)Form and contents of request The request must take the form of an order of the requesting