McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC
228 Cal. App. 4th 664
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Colonies Crossroads shopping center in Upland had common areas under its control with maintenance charged to tenants; security budgeting initially excluded any security expenditure.
- In January–May 2006, two armed robberies occurred nearby; after this McIntyre pressed management about security and policy restrictions prevented adding security without anchor tenant approval.
- Following the August 16, 2006 jewelry-store robbery, Colonies hired an unarmed security guard to patrol the common areas.
- Plaintiffs allege negligence and premises liability and sought to admit evidence of the post-robbery security measures to prove causation rather than breach.
- The trial court granted a motion in limine under Evidence Code section 1151 to exclude post-robbery security evidence as improper showing of negligence; jurors were instructed on negligence and causation.
- The jury found Colonies negligent but the conduct was not a substantial factor in causing damages; judgment entered for Colonies, which the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1151 excludes post-robbery security evidence from proving causation | McIntyre argues §1151 is inapplicable because evidence shows causation, not breach | Colonies argues §1151 bars such evidence as to negligence to avoid discouraging remedial efforts | Yes; §1151 excludes such evidence; not admissible for causation beyond breach evidence. |
| Whether the causation exception should apply despite §1151’s policy | McIntyre treats causation as admissible under §1151 | Colonies emphasizes public policy discouraging post-accident improvements | No; public policy supports exclusion and prevents causation-focused use. |
| Whether the post-robbery evidence could rebut opening statement | McIntyre sought admission to counter perceived credibility issues from lease renewal comment | Trial court may exclude such evidence as not evidence itself | No reversible error; court properly excluded and gave proper curative instructions. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion given standard of review | Wrongful exclusion harmed trial on causation | Ruling aligned with §1151 and public policy | No abuse of discretion; ruling consistent with law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Helling v. Schindler, 145 Cal. 303 (Cal. 1904) (admissibility of post-accident repairs to prove negligence barred by public policy)
- Dow v. Sunset Telephone & Telegraph Co., 157 Cal. 182 (Cal. 1910) (exception to exclusion not controlling here; conditions differed)
- Ault v. International Harvester Co., 13 Cal.3d 113 (Cal. 1974) (recognizes public policy against disincentivizing remedial measures)
- Alcaraz v. Vece, 14 Cal.4th 1149 (Cal. 1997) (limits §1151 applicability to purposes other than negligence)
- Baldwin Contracting Co. v. Winston Steel Works, Inc., 236 Cal.App.2d 565 (Cal. App. 1965) (recognizes limited exceptions to exclusion rule)
- Candelaria v. Avitia, 219 Cal.App.3d 1436 (Cal. App. 1990) (miscarriage of justice analysis for evidentiary error)