Carmichael v. Cafe Sevilla of Riverside CA4/3
G063589
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs attended a nightclub rap concert in Riverside, CA, where a shooting occurred after tensions escalated between rival gang-affiliated performers and attendees.
- Plaintiffs suffered injuries and sued Café Sevilla, the nightclub’s owner/operators, for negligence per se and strict liability under an ultrahazardous activity theory.
- Plaintiffs alleged failures in security measures and violations of the nightclub’s City-issued conditional use permit.
- The trial court granted summary adjudication for defendants on the negligence per se claim and judgment on the pleadings for the ultrahazardous activity claim, entering judgment for defendants.
- Plaintiffs appealed, maintaining triable issues existed for both claims.
- The appellate court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence Per Se | Defendants’ violation of conditional use permit caused injuries | Permit not designed to protect against this type of injury; not a statute | Permit not equivalent to statute/ordinance; even if so, not designed to prevent this injury |
| Ultrahazardous Activity | Concert with rival gangs is inherently hazardous | Concert hosting not inherently dangerous; risks manageable with care | Not an ultrahazardous activity as matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Bologna v. City and County of San Francisco, 192 Cal.App.4th 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (negligence per se requires injury to be of the type statute/ordinance was designed to prevent; incidental protections do not give rise to liability)
- Hulsey v. Elsinore Parachute Center, 168 Cal.App.3d 333 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (articulates ultrahazardous activity factors and liability standard)
- Goodwin v. Reilley, 176 Cal.App.3d 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (activities with socially redeeming purposes, even if dangerous, are not ultrahazardous)