Rosemary Verdugo v. Target Corporation
704 F.3d 1044
9th Cir.2012Background
- Mary Ann Verdugo suffered sudden cardiac arrest in Target Pico Rivera; Target lacked an AED on-site and was unable to save her life.
- Plaintiffs are Mary Ann’s mother and brother, suing Target in California state court for wrongful death; removal to federal court occurred, and Target moved to dismiss for lack of duty to acquire an AED.
- The parties dispute whether California common law imposes a duty to have AEDs, or whether California AED statutes preclude such a duty.
- The district court dismissed; the district court’s ruling is being reviewed by the Ninth Circuit, which certified the question to the California Supreme Court and stayed proceedings.
- The Eleventh Circuit (this court) requests guidance from the California Supreme Court and will follow its answer; no controlling California precedent resolved the issue at the time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California common law requires a business to have an AED on-site | Verdugo argues a duty exists under common law | Target argues the AED statutes preclude such a duty | Question certified to CA Supreme Court; no duty determined here |
Key Cases Cited
- Rotolo v. San Jose Sports & Entm’t, LLC, 151 Cal.App.4th 307 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (statutory immunity for acquiring AEDs; field preemption discussed)
- Breaux v. Gino’s, Inc., 153 Cal.App.3d 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (calling 911 can discharge duty if safe harbor exists for posted AED instructions)
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal.4th 224 (Cal. 2005) (duty determined with foreseeability and burden; non-foreseeability varies by facts)
- Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Ctr., 6 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1993) (multi-factor balancing for duty; foreseeability vs. burden; insurance considerations noted)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (five-factor framework for determining duty to invitees)