Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church
224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 846
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Vasilenko) was injured crossing Marconi Avenue, a public street, to reach a swim school/Church parking lot the Church directed invitees to use.
- The Church owned/maintained the parking lot on one side of the street; the swim school/entrance was on the other side.
- County traffic study declined to place a crosswalk at the relevant midblock location; the nearest controlled crossing was about 100 feet away.
- Plaintiff did not allege hazardous conditions in the Church lot (e.g., poor lighting, obstructions) or that he was unusually vulnerable or misled by attendants.
- Lower courts found a duty; the Supreme Court of California reviewed whether a landowner owes a duty to protect invitees crossing a public street to reach its premises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a landowner who directs invitees to a parking lot across a public street owes a duty to protect invitees from ordinary dangers of that public street | Church should owe a duty because it directed invitees to use its lot and could effectively "move" invitees' access route | No duty: landowners generally have no duty to maintain or make safe adjacent public streets they do not control; imposing such duty would be unduly expansive | No duty: court held Church owed no duty to protect from obvious dangers of crossing the public street |
| Whether Bonanno/Schwartz/Bigbee (mobile-location-based duties) apply where the defendant can influence where invitees cross a public street | Plaintiff: those cases apply because the Church could direct invitees to use the plaza lot, thus effectively controlling approach | Defendant: Bonanno/Schwartz/Bigbee involve movable business locations (bus stop, vendor truck, phone booth) that could be relocated to safer spots; fixed landowners and parking lots differ | Distinguishable: cases about movable fixtures do not apply to fixed parking lots; landowner cannot as readily relocate or control public-street conditions |
| Whether California should follow authorities from other jurisdictions finding duties in similar facts | Plaintiff relied on out-of-state cases finding duty where landowners could mitigate pedestrian risk | Defendant cited contrary authorities and California precedent limiting landowner duty for adjacent public streets | Court aligned with jurisdictions declining to impose such a duty; California precedent bars extending duty absent creation of the danger |
| Whether the Church voluntarily assumed a duty to assist invitees crossing the street by its actions | Plaintiff argued alternatively that the Church voluntarily undertook to assist crossings | Defendant contested; issue was not properly presented or decided below | Court declined to decide on voluntary-assumption theory and remanded for consideration if raised on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, 30 Cal.4th 123 (discussing duty where movable bus stop could be placed adjacent to safer crosswalk)
- Schwartz v. Merchants' Baking Co., 67 Cal.2d 219 (liability for a street vendor who could choose business location and approaches)
- Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 34 Cal.3d 49 (noting telephone company likely owes duty in siting booths; main issue foreseeability)
- Seaber v. Community Dev. Agency, 1 Cal.App.4th 481 (no duty where landowner lacked control over public street)
- Davis v. Westwood Group, 420 Mass. 739 (no duty for racetrack to protect invitees crossing public street)
- Sexton v. Bethany, 39 Cal.2d 153 (landowner generally not liable for conditions on adjoining public streets absent creation of danger)
- Donavan v. Pointe Coupee Parish School Board, 658 So.2d 755 (finding duty where access to crosswalk was obscured by hazardous parking lot conditions)
- Warrington v. Bird, 204 N.J.Super. 611 (held restaurant had duty to patrons crossing public highway; court noted conflicts with California law)