25 Cal. App. 5th 826
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Plaintiff Carolyn Staats was attacked by a swarm of yellow jackets while on the fairway of the fifth hole at Vintner's Golf Club; she suffered 50+ stings, was hospitalized, and became highly allergic thereafter.
- The Club had no written inspection policy for insect nests and had no actual or constructive knowledge of any yellow jacket nests on the course before the attack, though employees had seen stray yellow jackets previously.
- After the attack, a pest-control employee located and sprayed an underground hole consistent with a yellow jacket nest near the sand trap where the attack occurred; traps were then placed.
- Staats sued the Club for negligence and premises liability; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Club, holding no duty existed absent prior knowledge of nests or swarms.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding as a matter of law that a golf course operator’s duty to keep premises reasonably safe can include reasonable measures to discover and abate yellow jacket nests; questions of breach and causation remain for the trier of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a golf-course operator’s general duty to keep premises reasonably safe includes protecting patrons from yellow jacket nests | Duty includes inspecting for and removing/controlling nests and using traps to prevent nests; nests on the premises are foreseeable risks | No categorical duty; no duty without actual/specific notice of a nest or swarm; burden to inspect whole property would be immense | Yes: duty can include reasonable measures to protect patrons from yellow jacket nests on the premises; scope and breach are fact questions |
| Whether prior observation of insects is required to impose a duty | Not required; presence of nests is a condition of the property that creates foreseeable risk even if no prior swarm occurred | Relied on cases limiting duty where insect presence was unknown (Brunelle, Butcher) to argue no duty without prior notice | Past observation is relevant to reasonableness of measures but does not categorically bar duty; foreseeability can exist without prior incidents |
| Whether imposing the duty would impose an unreasonable burden on operators | Reasonable mitigation (e.g., traps, periodic pest-control inspections) is feasible and not shown to be prohibitively costly | Inspections of every hole/crevice would require additional staff and impose overwhelming costs | Burden factor does not outweigh public policy favoring protection of patrons; record does not show prohibitive burden |
| Whether public-policy factors (moral blame, prevention, insurance) counsel against imposing duty | Operators are better positioned to mitigate risks; preventing serious injury supports imposing duty | Argued animal-protection and ferae naturae concerns might counsel restraint | Policy factors overall support recognizing duty to take reasonable measures against nests on premises |
Key Cases Cited
- Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (Cal. 2016) (principles for duty analysis and Rowland factors)
- Brunelle v. Signore, 215 Cal.App.3d 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (no duty for homeowner against harmful insects where insect not known to be indigenous and no notice)
- Butcher v. Gay, 29 Cal.App.4th 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (declined to impose duty where homeowner lacked actual or constructive knowledge of ticks carrying Lyme disease)
- Coyle v. Historic Mission Inn Corp., 24 Cal.App.5th 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (restaurant owners owe reasonable care regarding black widow spiders; defendant’s lack of awareness relevant to breach, not categorical duty)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (framework of public-policy factors for imposing or limiting duties)