231 Cal. App. 4th 11
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Five-year-old Michael Lawrence fell from a second-story hotel window (sill 25 inches above floor) at La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club after the window was opened; the window screen popped out and Michael suffered severe brain injuries.
- Michael's parents (Nan and Jeff) sued the hotel owners for negligence, dangerous condition of property, and negligent infliction of emotional distress; Michael (by guardian ad litem) filed a separate but consolidated complaint asserting the same claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to install fall-prevention devices, the window complied with building codes, screens are not safety devices, and parents were not guaranteed a ground-floor room.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence: hotel had bars on some other windows; former hotel operations director testified bars were installed because leaning guests had caused screens to fall and to protect against falls; plaintiffs’ expert described available ASTM window-guard standards and opined that simple devices could have prevented the fall.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no duty to take additional protective measures (relying on building-code compliance and analogizing to Pineda); the Court of Appeal reversed, finding triable issues on duty, breach, and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of duty to prevent child falls from hotel windows | Hotel owed duty to protect child guests from foreseeable window-fall risks and to install simple restraining devices | No duty to install safety devices where window complied with building code and was inside private guest room | Court: Duty scope includes measures to protect small children from falling from such windows; defendants failed to meet burden showing no duty |
| Breach—failure to install protective device | Failure to provide bars/opening-control devices where other windows had bars and simple devices were feasible was negligence | Compliance with codes and absence of prior similar incidents show no breach | Court: Triable issue exists whether omission breached duty (fact questions for jury) |
| Causation—whether omission was a substantial factor | If devices were feasible and would have prevented fall, omission was substantial factor | No duty → no causation; parents’ supervision was proximate cause | Court: Same evidence raising breach also raises triable issue of causation; summary judgment improper |
| Foreseeability and reliance on building code | Foreseeability of children in rooms, opened windows, and misuse of screens; code compliance not dispositive | Building-code compliance, lack of prior incidents, and parents’ supervision weigh against foreseeability/duty | Court: Foreseeability and low burden of prevention favor imposing duty despite code compliance; absence of prior incidents not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Pineda v. Ennabe, 61 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. Ct. App.) (landlord generally not required to prevent children from falling out ordinary second-story windows)
- Amos v. Alpha Property Management, 73 Cal.App.4th 895 (Cal. Ct. App.) (triable issue where low, unguarded window in common area posed foreseeable risk to children)
- Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc., 32 Cal.4th 1138 (Cal.) (summary judgment burdens and negligence elements)
- Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc., 118 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App.) (scope of landlord/innkeeper duty requires balancing foreseeability and burden of prevention)
- Baker v. Dallas Hotel Co., 73 F.2d 825 (5th Cir.) (innkeeper may owe heightened duty to child guests; jury questions on screens and foreseeability)
- Crosswhite v. Shelby Operating Corp., 30 S.E.2d 673 (Va. Ct.) (innkeeper liability for insecure window screens; jury questions)
- Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 Cal.App.2d 69 (Cal. Ct. App.) (duty to exercise special caution for immature invitees)