56 Cal.App.5th 590
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Live Nation produced the two-day 2015 HARD Summer electronic music festival at the Pomona Fairplex (≈65,000/day) and anticipated widespread illicit drug use and heat-related medical risks; it obtained permits and an approved county medical action plan and implemented security/medical staffing and protocols.
- Attendee Katie Dix (19) collapsed at the festival after ingesting MDMA and ethylone; onsite security and medical response was delayed or allegedly inadequate, she was transported to a hospital, and died from acute drug intoxication.
- Katie’s parents sued Live Nation for negligence, premises liability, nuisance, wrongful death and survival, alleging Live Nation knew of foreseeable drug use and failed to provide adequate security, medical staffing, water, and timely care.
- Live Nation moved for summary judgment arguing no duty to protect attendees from their voluntary ingestion of illegal drugs and that, in any event, it met the applicable standard and causation was lacking.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Live Nation. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the operator of a large electronic music festival owes a duty of reasonable care to attendees based on a special-relationship analysis and that triable issues of breach and causation precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of duty | Festival operator owes duty to invitees—control, dependency, foreseeability of drug overdoses justify affirmative duty | No duty to prevent voluntary illegal drug use; analogous to social-host/no-duty precedents | Duty exists: operator–invitee special relationship; foreseeability and policy factors do not justify a categorical no-duty rule |
| Breach and causation on summary judgment | Evidence raises triable issues: security/medical protocols not followed, delays in response, expert opines timely advanced care would have saved Katie | Even if duty, Live Nation took substantial precautions; plaintiff cannot prove breach or that festival acts were a substantial factor—proximate cause was victim's voluntary ingestion | Triable issues exist as to breach and causation; Live Nation failed to carry its initial summary judgment burden to negate causation |
| Voluntary drug use / comparative fault | N/A (plaintiff stresses operator responsibility once duty exists) | Decedent's voluntary ingestion severs liability or negates duty | Decedent's volitional act is relevant to causation and comparative fault but does not eliminate the operator’s duty |
| Evidentiary rulings at summary judgment | Deposition excerpts were timely and should have been considered; expert may rely on hearsay in forming opinion | Objected to uncertified deposition excerpts and to expert reliance on hearsay | Appellate court: exclusion of uncertified deposition excerpts was improper; expert’s reliance on hearsay was permissible under Evidence Code and Sanchez precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (duty factors for negligence and when exceptions to general duty apply)
- Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (duty analysis and Rowland factors explained)
- Regents of Univ. of California v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 607 (special relationship—business invitees—and applying Rowland policy analysis)
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal.4th 224 (business proprietor–patron special‑relationship duty)
- Verdugo v. Target Corp., 59 Cal.4th 312 (limits on imposing burdensome medical‑precaution duties on businesses)
- Weirum v. RKO General, 15 Cal.3d 40 (foreseeable third‑party misconduct can support duty when defendant’s conduct creates ongoing involvement)
- Sakiyama v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., 110 Cal.App.4th 398 (no duty for remote post‑event harms; distinguished on facts)
- Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (adoption of comparative‑fault framework)