Verdugo v. Target Corp.
59 Cal. 4th 312
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Mary Ann Verdugo collapsed from sudden cardiac arrest while shopping at a Target store; Target had no AED on the premises and paramedics arrived minutes later; Verdugo died.
- Plaintiffs (Verdugo’s family) sued Target for negligence, alleging Target breached its common-law duty to patrons by failing to acquire and make available an AED.
- District court dismissed for failure to state a claim; Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court asking whether California common law requires commercial property owners to provide AEDs.
- California statutes (Civ. Code § 1714.21; Health & Saf. Code § 1797.196) provide immunity to AED users and set prerequisites for acquirers; Health & Saf. Code § 104113 mandates AEDs in health studios.
- Supreme Court: statutes do not preclude courts from recognizing a common-law duty, but California common-law duty principles do not support imposing a duty on Target to acquire and provide an AED; that policy choice is for the Legislature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California common law requires a business to acquire and make available an AED for patrons | Verdugo: Given AEDs’ lifesaving role, foreseeability of cardiac arrest in public stores, and relative affordability, Target had a duty to provide an AED | Target: AED statutes either explicitly or implicitly preclude a common-law duty; even if not, established common-law duty principles do not require businesses to obtain AEDs | No — California common-law duty of care to patrons does not include an obligation to acquire and make available an AED |
| Whether Health & Safety Code § 1797.196(f) expressly bars recognition of a common-law AED duty | Plaintiffs: § 1797.196(f) doesn’t foreclose common-law duties beyond statute | Target: § 1797.196(f) shows Legislature intended to preclude any judicial duty to require AEDs | § 1797.196(f) does not expressly preclude courts from applying common-law duty analysis; it only prevents construing those statutes themselves as imposing a requirement |
| Whether California AED statutes occupy the field and implicitly preclude a common-law duty | Plaintiffs: Statutes don’t occupy the field; courts may still find common-law duties in appropriate circumstances | Target: The statutory scheme and immunity regime indicate legislative intent to occupy the field | Statutes do not “occupy the field”; they coexist with common law, but are relevant to policy analysis and demonstrate legislative preference for statutory solutions and immunity for acquirers |
| Whether policy, foreseeability, and burden factors support imposing a judicially created AED duty on a large retailer | Plaintiffs: Foreseeability and low cost (per plaintiffs) make duty reasonable for well-resourced retailers | Target: Burden (maintenance, training, placement, staffing) is significant; no heightened foreseeability specific to Target stores; such line-drawing is for the Legislature | Court: The burdens are substantial and plaintiffs did not show heightened foreseeability; public-policy considerations counsel leaving the question to the Legislature; no common-law duty imposed on Target |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (recognizes factors for determining existence/scope of common-law duty)
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal.4th 224 (businesses’ special relationship to patrons can create duty to assist ill patrons)
- Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, 6 Cal.4th 666 (duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts; foreseeability/burden analysis)
- Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.4th 814 (common-law duties can coexist with statutory schemes)
- Castaneda v. Olsher, 41 Cal.4th 1205 (approach to duty analysis; foreseeability and burden considerations)
- I. E. Associates v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 39 Cal.3d 281 (statutes occupy the field only when Legislature clearly intended to do so)
- Rotolo v. San Jose Sports & Entertainment, LLC, 151 Cal.App.4th 307 (court denied liability where defendant had acquired AED and complied with statutory requirements; some language was dictum)
- Breaux v. Gino’s, Inc., 153 Cal.App.3d 379 (restaurant-first-aid duty case; court relied on statutory context but did not adequately address common-law alternative)