248 Cal. App. 4th 146
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Aleksandr Vasilenko parked in an overflow lot (Debbie Meyer Swim School) provided and staffed by Grace Family Church (GFC) when the church’s main lot was full; the lot was across five-lane Marconi Avenue from the church.
- The swim-school lot lacked a marked crosswalk or traffic signal to reach the church; parking attendants sometimes directed drivers to that lot but did not consistently instruct how to cross.
- While crossing mid-block from the overflow lot to the church, Vasilenko was struck by a car and injured.
- Vasilenko sued GFC for negligence and loss of consortium, alleging GFC created/maintained a hazardous off-site risk by locating/operating the overflow lot where invitees had to cross a busy street.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for GFC, ruling GFC owed no duty because the injury occurred on a public street GFC did not own/control.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a landowner/operator can owe a duty when its control of on-site property (e.g., location/operation of an overflow lot) foreseeably exposes invitees to unreasonable off-site risks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GFC owed a duty of care for an injury occurring off-site (public street) caused by use/location of GFC-controlled overflow lot | Vasilenko: GFC’s control and operation of the overflow lot that required crossing a busy, uncontrolled street created a foreseeable, unreasonable off-site risk and thus a duty | GFC: No duty because injury occurred on a public street it did not own, possess, or control | Reversed trial court: duty may exist where landowner’s control/management of its property foreseeably exposes invitees to unreasonable off-site harm; location not dispositive |
| Whether GFC negated causation as a matter of law (accident would have occurred regardless) | Vasilenko: Operating the overflow lot caused him to be where he was; a juror could find causation | GFC: Plaintiff’s choice where/when to cross breaks causal link; accident could have occurred elsewhere | Court: Causation is triable; GFC did not negate substantial factor causation on summary judgment |
| Whether parking-attendant training/supervision barred liability | Vasilenko: Attendants provided no consistent/written training and failed to instruct crossing safely; triable issue exists | GFC: Attendants were sufficient and instructed patrons to cross at intersection | Court: Evidence supports triable factual dispute as to adequacy of training/instructions |
| Whether precedent bars imposing duty for off-premises injuries | Vasilenko: Precedents (Barnes, Bonanno) allow duty when on-site management/location creates off-site hazard | GFC: Steinmetz/Seaber show no duty for injuries on adjacent public property | Court: Distinguished Steinmetz/Seaber; Barnes/Bonanno govern here—duty can be imposed when property management/location creates foreseeable off-site risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Sup. Ct. 1968) (factors for imposing or limiting duty under general negligence rule)
- Barnes v. Black, 71 Cal.App.4th 1473 (Ct. App. 1999) (landowner may owe duty for off-site injuries when on-site maintenance exposes persons to unreasonable off-site risk)
- Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, 30 Cal.4th 139 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (location of property can create a dangerous condition that causes off-site injury)
- Steinmetz v. Stockton City Chamber of Commerce, 169 Cal.App.3d 1142 (Ct. App. 1985) (no duty for criminal assault occurring off premises when defendant did not control or create off-site danger)
- Seaber v. Hotel Del Coronado, 1 Cal.App.4th 481 (Ct. App. 1991) (adjacent landowners generally owe no duty for injuries on public streets they did not create or control)