Rosemary Verdugo v. Target Corporation

CA, Burbank, Defendants-Appellees, Tim

City of Burbank and Stehr.

D.C. No. 2:09-CV-08453-MMM-JEM.

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Judge: Chief

Upon majority the vote of a of nonre- judges,

cused active it is ordered that this pursuant

case be reheard en banc to Fed- 35(a) Appellate

eral Rule of Procedure three-judge panel

Circuit Rule 35-3. The

opinion precedent by shall not be cited as

or to court of the Ninth Circuit. VERDUGO,

Michael brother of Dece

dent; Rosemary Verdugo, mother, Mary

successor and heir of Ann Ver

dugo, Decedent, Plaintiffs-Appellants, CORPORATION,

TARGET corporation,

Minnesota

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-57008. Appeals,

United States Court of

Ninth Circuit.

Dec. VERDUGO, brother of De O’Neill, Roth, MICHAEL Tarkington, A. Robert VERDUGO, CA; cedent; Berkeley, David G. ROSEMARY Chong, Barrack & Eisenstein, mother, Mary David G. Eisen- Ann Law Offices of successor and heir of Carlsbad, stein, P.C., Decedent, for Plaintiffs- CA Plaintiffs-Appel Verdugo, Appellants. lants, Ryan M. R. Trachtman and

Benjamin Trachtman, Mission Trachtman & Craig, CORPORATION, a Minneso TARGET Defendant-Appellee. Viejo, CA for Defendant-Appellee. corporation, ta 2:10-cv-06930-ODW-AJW, No. of counsel are: D.C. The names and addresses California, Angeles. Los Central District Roth, Robert A. Verdugos: For the O’Neill, Chong, Barrack & Tarkington, PREGERSON, HARRY Before: CA; David Griffith Eisen- Berkeley, GRABER, and MARSHA S. P. SUSAN stein, of David G. Eisen- Offices Law BERZON, Judges. Circuit P.C., Carlsbad, stein, CA. Benjamin R. Target Corporation: For Order; by Judge Concurrence Trachtman, Trachtman Ryan Craig, M. GRABER; by Judge Dissent Trachtman, Viejo, Mission CA. PREGERSON. ORDER II Rule 8.548 of the California Pursuant to QUESTION OF LAW Court, the request we California Rules of question to decide Supreme Court an- of law we wish question The II of this forth in Part law set swered is: from sub- case is withdrawn order. This circumstances, ever, if does In what court, further order of this mission until proper- a commercial common court proceedings in this and all further aid to emergency first ty owner to action the Cali- stayed pending final are an Auto- require invitees fornia (“AED”) for Defibrillator matic External resolv- controlling precedent no There is cardiac arrest? cases of sudden The we set forth below. ing the outcome answer will determine III ques- phrasing of present appeal. Our to restrict is not meant tion below FACTS OF STATEMENT consideration Supreme Court’s shop- Verdugo, age Mary to follow agree involved. We of the issue Rivera, in Pico store ping at Su- by the California provided the answer on California, mother and brother with her preme Court. sudden when she suffered August collapsed. response arrest and cardiac I call, dispatched paramedics were to a 911 AND COUNSEL CAPTION Depart- County Fire Angeles from a Los para- It took the nearby. ment station con- Rosemary Verdugo are Michael and store, minutes to reach several medics request in this be- petitioners sidered minutes to reach Verdu- more and several court’s the district they appeal from cause paramedics By the time go inside. specified issue. ruling adverse and could not arrived, was dead Verdugo caption of this case is: be resuscitated. did not have IV AED in its store. STATEMENT OF REASONS 300,000 Americans Nearly suffer REQUEST THE FOR every year, only sudden cardiac arrest question pre The resolution of the eight percent cardiac ar- survive. Sudden by problem by implicates rest is caused a with the sented strong this case impulses, causing heart’s electrical it to state interests and could have wide-reach stop pumping myocardial blood. a Unlike ing effects in the state of The California. (a attack), infarction heart sudden cardiac Verdugos seek the announcement of a with prior symp- arrest often strikes no require many common-law rule that would can toms and strike heart that is other- retail establishments across the state to healthy. A shock from an AED wise can acquire Target suggests AEDs. that by correcting misfiring restart a heart many such a rule would burden it and effective, impulses. of its electrical To be it, companies like that California common immediately. the AED must be used rule, support law does not such a surviving chance of sudden cardiac arrest preclude that the California statutes percent every decreases minute imposition of such a common law rule. passes that rhythm before the heart’s maintains broadly, Target More that Cali restored. Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of support any fornia common law does not 402(5), § Pub.L. No. 114 requirement property that owners Stat. 2314. It is estimated that percent beyond calling first aid to invitees 911 to experience of those who cardiac arrest summon As a assistance. matter of comi could be saved if an AED were used imme- ty, we consider the California 402(4). diately. §Id. positioned Court better to address these Target sells AEDs on its website for major questions of California tort law $1,200. approximately AEDs can be used than this court. See Klein United untrained, by the as the devices (9th States, Cir.2008) 537 F.3d oral instructions to users and “are de- (order). signed not to allow a user to administer a shock until after the analyzed device has A rhythm victim’s heart and determined that parties agree Both that there is no required.” electric shock is Id. statutory duty in requiring business Target like to obtain a defibrilla Verdugo’s mother and brother filed a tor. legislature The California has enact wrongful against Target death action ed a governing series of statutes AEDs Court, Superior re- acquired by that are building owners and moved federal court. then filed managers. See Cal. a motion to pursuant dismiss to Federal (West 2012); § 1797.196 Cal. Civ.Code 12(b)(6), Rule of Civil Procedure which the 1714.21(d)(West 2012) (providing immu granted, holding district court that Target nity liability from civil for those who ac acquire had no and install an AED. quire long they comply AEDs as with The Verdugos appealed, arguing maintenance, specified testing, and notice duty does exist under California common requirements). These statutes “reflect and, alternative, asking that the legislative policy encourage the avail question be certified to the California Su- preme ability Target opposed providing immunity certifica- AEDs tion. acquire those who install and maintain liability for those who Sports & v. San Jose Rotolo devices.” LLC, any Entm’t, Cal.App.4th properly, as business them a common law tort an AED under install statutory im- theory entitled to would be time, has legislature At same analysis, the existence of munity. On this ... “[n]othing in this section declared statutory is not deter- scheme California’s building require may be construed to minative as to whether a common law manager a building owner or exists. AED in build- have installed an Safety Code ing.” Cal. Health 1797.196(f). B the AED statutes Whether 1797.196(f), pre- whole, including as a accept the If the court to were duty a common law the existence of clude Verdugos’ relationship view of the between in AED one of the issues an is acquire

to AED common the statutes Rotolo, at Cal.App.4th 151 case. this See law, would be pertinent question then the 325, 770. Cal.Rptr.3d duty had a Target come whether Stores court argues, and the district to an common law have under California held, has “occu- statutory scheme that the is under California AED available. There field,” a com- imposing and that pied the relationship” between busi “special law a un- the duty here “defeat mon law would invitees, which cre owners and their ness 314, “ Id. at derlying legislative purpose.” ... duty provide [to] to ‘assistance ates proposition, For this Cal.Rptr.3d 770. ill or need medical who customers become Rotolo, which held ” largely on Target relies Grill, Trax Bar & Delgado attention.’ rink acquired an hockey had that where notify invitees of its failed to but (2005) (alteration original) in location, hockey player and a existence Gino’s, Inc., 153 Cal. (quoting Breaux v. result, pre- statutory scheme died as a (1984)). Cal.Rptr. 260 App.3d there law where cluded common in Beyond principle, this basic California’s statutory compliance with had been in some tension as precedents are vitee 322-23, immunity. Id. at requirements for in this case. they pertain to the issue 770. first, duty to that the Target suggests, maintain, contrary, to the Verdugos to invitees medical assistance legislative thrust of California’s that calling simply by uniformly discharged encourage is to regarding AEDs scheme Breaux. proposition on relying for this immunity availability by providing their Breaux, held that a Appeal the Court of comply them and those who duty to a chok- had its restaurant fulfilled require- and maintenance training with ser- summoning emergency ing patron 319-20, 770. at ments. Id. fur- to required and was not vices Verdugos, the statutes According to the 381-82, Cal.App.3d at ther assistance. own- which business deal with situations in Verdugos point Cal.Rptr. 260. The apply not to acquire AEDs and do ers do however, in its out, relied that Breaux here, a busi- presented where the situation to statutory similar scheme reasoning on AED. acquired an has ness owner not Rotolo: California implicated in the one acquire duty law Imposing a common in restaurants posting law circumstances, Verdugos AED in these victims choking first aid instructions legisla- maintain, frustrate the would not liability for from created a safe harbor acquisition promote ture’s desire 2,n. at 381 & did Id. that so. from restaurants a safe harbor by providing AEDs Gino’s, plaintiff in CaLRptr. raped shopping the defendant center Breaux, posted had the instructions re- where she worked. Ann 6 Cal.4th at harbor. those quired for the safe Under 863 P.2d 207. circumstances, imposing common Noting hiring security guards would would, duty beyond calling 911 as Roto- burdensome, relatively the court con- lo, legislative have contradicted plain- cluded that the harm that befell the Here, contrast, Target scheme. did not tiff sufficiently jus- was not foreseeable to premises, have an AED available on the tify imposing duty. this Id. steps necessary and so had not taken the CaLRptr .2d 863 P.2d 207. trigger immunity under statute While the court laid has thus out basic liability. iramework for analyzing Breaux, Just as relies on so the invitees, duty prevent harm to neither rely Verdugos Delgado, maintaining Delgado nor Ann M. involved the any categorical it refutes rule that invitees, provide first aid to much less summoning emergency always services is here, decided the precise presented issue sufficient to fulfill a business’s of care duty the to have AEDs available on one’s patrons. Delgado, to its In the court held premises. applying business Nor does the duty that a bar a had to do more than general Delgado provide test articulated in simply police call the a fight when broke controlling “clear precedent.” California out between several of its customers. 36 Klein, (internal 537 F.3d at quotation 1030 145, at Cal.Rptr.3d Cal.4th 30 113 omitted). marks In determining scope P.3d 1159. the of invitees, duty Delgado owed to ob hand, On one it was not foreseeable to “ served, foreseeability injury of is a ‘cru Target Verdugo herself would suffer ” 237, cial factor.’ Id. at Cal.Rptr.3d 30 Target cardiac and so was not 145, 113 (quoting Ann M. v. Pac. aware of specific danger, which the Ctr., 666, 676, Shopping Plaza 6 Cal.4th 25 Delgado bouncers in were. On the other (1993)). 137, Cal.Rpt r.2d 863 P.2d 207 The hand, considering California courts fore foreseeability harm must be bal seeability aspect duty as an of often focus “against anced duty the burden of the on type whether the of harm suffered was M., 678, imposed.” be Ann 6 at 25 Cal.4th “ foreseeable, not particular whether ‘a 137, 863 P.2d 207. Where plaintiffs injury reasonably foresee burden great, the harm is a light able in a particular defendant’s higher degree foreseeability required, ” conduct.’ Sopp Carrera v. Maurice J. and where “the harm can prevented by be Son, Cal.App.4th 99 Cal. means, simple degree a lesser of foresee Rptr.3d (Cal.Ct.App.2009) (emphasis in ability 679, may required.” be Id. at Uribe, original) (quoting Ballard v. (internal 137, 863 P.2d 207 6, Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d 572 n. omitted). quotation Applying marks this (1986)). sense, P.2d In this it could be analysis, Delgado the court in reasoned foreseeable to that one of its cus that the bar’s bouncers could foresee that might tomers suffer sudden cardiac arrest and, fight a was about in erupt shopping, given while the fact that more situation, “reasonable, there were relative people than 700 die of ar sudden cardiac ly simple, minimally burdensome in every day. rest the United States Car they steps” prevent could have taken to it. diac Arrest Survival Act Even Delgado, at so, it is not clear to holding, 113 P.3d 1159. In so us under California distinguished court in precedents foreseeability which the in- whether store-by- store-by-store to be on a or a on a evaluated is to be undertaken quiry basis, or what company-wide a company-wide store or basis. a likely particular occurrence of degree of sum, uncertainty in given that occurrence sufficient to make

illness is precedents as applicable most Moreover, parties dis- foreseeable. circumstances, applied present to the foreseeability degree to which the pute weighing of the harm influenced the location issue should be by Verdugo against the burden to suffered shop- a Target store—-in particular of this imposed does not size, large both ping center—or its clear answer to the of whether the likelihood that factors which increase under law to Target had will other outside assistance 911 or purchase AEDs. patrons suffering sud- not be able to reach in them. cardiac arrest time to save den C analysis is simi- burden side of the Delgado The court in both Ann M. and existing prece- under the larly debatable also mentioned the factors listed Row ap- AEDs online for Target sells dents. Christian, 108, 112-13, land v. 69 Cal.2d $1,200 property each. For proximately (1968), Cal.Rptr. 443 P.2d 561 im- statutory for the eligible owner to be “ being determining useful ‘in the existence AED, pur- once munity liability, [to invitees] chased, every days, checked must be particular Delgado, case.’” must be trained its employee and one use. 237 n. 113 P.3d Cal. 1797.196(b)(2). to Requiring M., at 675 n. (quoting 1159 Ann 6 Cal.4th AED of 207).1 and maintain an for each purchase 5, 137, P.2d Cal.Rptr.2d 25 863 economically its California stores would be burden, foreseeability and addition to than, example, requir- less burdensome these factors are: ing it to Sharon preventive purchases it occurs. See bouncers to intervene 47, densome than crime. See Moreover, 1190, Cal.Rptr.2d (1999). 30 91 On P. v. hire Cal.Rptr.2d as with the the other Ann 137, 863 P.2d requiring already-employed security guards Delgado, Arman, M., 145, hand, requiring foreseeability prong, 6 Cal.4th at appears more bur- 35, 36 Cal.4th 21 stop 113 989 207; a P.3d 1159. to fight see also prevent at 246- 679, 1181, such once 25 Rowland, 443 P.2d 561. fendant’s conduct fered, the defendant’s plaintiff ness of the surance ^[1] availability, ^[3] 69 for the risk involved. degree suffered the moral blame attached Cal.2d future connection cost, conduct, of at harm, injury, and the 113, Cal.Rptr. certainty that prevalence between 70 ^[4] ... and ^[2] injury policy the de ^[5] close suf 97, in pro- not these factors also does Applying provide not precedents do California question to the wheth- burden is vide a clear answer guidance as to whether the clear 97, 112, Cal.Rptr. 443 P.2d 70 originally articulat- 69 Cal.2d at 1. seems to have Rowland Nevertheless, determining helpful Supreme ed these factors as the California 561. general exception “the whether to make an factors as considered those Court has since injuries person principle that a is liable for Delgado, 36 purpose. See “useful” for this by his failure to exercise reasonable caused care,’’ 15, 145, 113 237 n. 30 Cal.4th at determining purpose and not for the 5, 1159; at 675 n. 25 P.3d that precise of care 137, P.2d 207. 863 Rowland, special relationship. arises from 610, (2004); 622, N.E.2d duty to have an AED Ill.Dec. had a er Club, Inc., premises. Without Gulph on its Tennis available Atcovitz v. Mills on-site, virtually certain that it was (2002); AED Pa. 812 A.2d Defibrillation is the Verdugo would die. Club, Inc., Ctr. Court Rutnik Colonie cardi- only treatment for sudden definitive A.D.2d 672 N.Y.S.2d “every passes minute that ac courts, however, al Other have a normal returning the heart before go jury, AED suits to to the lowed similar of survival rhythm decreases the chance duty question that turns concluding .on Arrest Survival by percent.” Cardiac case-specific Aquila factual matters. See hand, it far Act On the other Fitness, L. Rptr. 52 Conn. v. Ultimate immediate treatment from certain (Conn.Super.Ct.2011); WL particular pa- with an will revive L. Ksypka v. Malden Mass. YMCA may two factors thus tient. While first (Mass.Su Rptr. 2007 WL 738463 imposition duty, they of a do support the Bally Fowler v. Total Fit per.Ct.2007); only mildly. weighs The third factor so (Ill.Cir.Ct. L Corp., ness No. 07 Oct. against finding duty, Target’s as failure 2007). morally an AED was not blame- Thus, precedents neither nor worthy in the sense that term is used Rotolo, 151 Cal. from other courts us with California courts. See cases App.4th guidance impor- to answer the sufficient strongly supports finding The fourth factor pre- tant tort duty, doing help prevent as so would sented this case. We therefore re- by increasing harm future spectfully ask the California supports of AEDs. The final factor also guidance and will follow that Court provided a safe duty, as California has once received. guidance harbor from for businesses AEDs, so no insurance would be V long as the conditions for in- voking the safe harbor were met. Cal. Rule of Pursuant to California Court 1714.21(b). Civ.Code 8.548(d), the of this court shall for- Clerk original copies ward an and 10 of this

D order, seal, under official to the California request Pertinent to our for certifica Court, along with a certificate of Supreme tion, jurisdic finally, is that courts in other parties, copies on the of all service applying balancing tions similar or multi- briefs, record, ju- excerpts requests approaches factor have reached notice, post-argument dicial letters confronting when divergent conclusions that have been filed with this court. AED issues similar to the one in this case. parties notify shall the Clerk of this have Some courts to considered matter days any court within 14 decision part have held there is no on the accept Supreme Court to or to AEDs to of business owners request. our If the California Su- decline event of used on their invitees cardi preme accepts, parties shall file Court ac arrest. See Boller v. Robert W. Wood joint report six months after the date of Ctr., Inc., Ga.App. Arts ruff acceptance every six months thereaf- (2011); Int’l, L.A. Fitness S.E.2d of the (Fla. advising pro- ter us of the status v. Mayer, LLC 980 So.2d parties notify also ceedings. The shall Dist.Ct.App.2008); Me Salte YMCA of Found., days trop. Ill.App.3d Chi. 286 Clerk of this court within PREGERSON, opinion by Judge, the California Circuit issuance dissenting: Supreme Court. August 49-year-old Mary On

IT ORDERED. IS SO Verdugo shopping went at a Target Rivera, store in Pico California. While GRABER, Judge, concurring: Circuit store, Mary Ann inside the suffered sud- den cardiac arrest. She died within min- fully certifying in the I concur Order utes. to the California that, only to note in the separately I write promptly. were called But Paramedics guidance, I it took several minutes for absence of court’s would them to arrive view, Target’s I un- curbside and several minutes disagree with the dissent’s Mary Ann big more to reach inside the box law. derstand extant California paramedics attempted store. The to re- First, legislature’s wide-ranging Mary vive Ann. But it too late to concerning and use statute save her life. strongly suggests legis- that the of AEDs 300,000 Nearly Americans victims of are any occupied displaced lature the field and every year. sudden cardiac arrest Victims may duty that a business have under Cali- collapse of sudden cardiac arrest acquire fornia common law to or install an quickly lose consciousness—often without AED. See Cal. warning. Death follows unless normal 1797.196(f) (“Nothing this section or rhythm heart is restored within a matter may 1714.21 be construed to re- Section of minutes. quire building building owner or a man- treatable, Sudden cardiac arrest but ager and have installed an percent more than 95 of cardiac arrest Second, I any building.”). read Califor- die, mainly victims because of the lack of only nia a limited law to establish (“AED”). an available external defibrillator part of a business to come to the aid of Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of physical an invitee who is in distress. 402(3), 106-505, § Pub.L. No. 114 Stat. Third, because the of cardiac (2000). Although may help “CPR universal, arrest is the dissent’s view con- survival,” prolong the window of defibrilla- businesses, limiting principle; tains no all only tion “is the definitive treatment” size, equally can that a foresee sudden cardiac arrest. The American Red might suffer sudden cardiac ar- customer Frequently Questions, Asked Cross Thus, essence, finding in a common rest. http://www.redcrosscny.org/pdfiAED_ duty might well eviscerate California successful, an AED FAQs.pdf. To be 1797.196(f). Code section generally shock must be administered of sud- within five minutes from onset short, dif because reasonable minds den cardiac arrest. apply, fer about the state law we must particularly appropriate certification is Despite frequency of sudden cardiac States, Klein v. 537 F.3d here. See United necessity using arrest and the absolute (9th Cir.2008) (stating that cer minutes, an AED the first few within appropriate tification is if “no clear con equip Pico Rivera failed to its store trolling precedent squarely ad defibrillator. That life-saving with a (internal Verdugo’s before us” life could not be why Mary dresses the omitted)). saved. quotation marks sudden cardiac arrest. More- relationship” could suffer “special

A has a business relationship over, cardiac special This if a customer suffers sudden with its invitees. duty requiring the affirmative Pico Rivera in large creates an arrest in the first aid to its invitees business to paramedics cannot reach an area where injured premises, on the ill or minutes, who become likely five she will die her within they can until be and “to care for them there is an accessible defibrillator unless (Sec by others.” Restatement cared for count when the life of the store. Seconds ond) 314A; v. Delgado § see also of Torts victim is in the balance. a cardiac arrest 224, 241, Grill, Trax Bar & “[E]very passes minute that before re- (2005). 145, 113 P.3d rhythm to a normal de- turning the heart by per- chance of survival creases the of a business’s by balancing Act at part care is “determined cent.” Cardiac Arrest Survival added). against 402(5) of the harm (emphasis But the harm imposed.” Ann burden of the to be easily by quick use of a can be reduced Ctr., 6 Shopping M. v. Plaza are defibrillator. When “CPR and AEDs Pacific three to five minutes from the used within burden of “[W]here collapse, the survival rate of a onset of great, high preventing future harm is high arrest victim is as sudden cardiac foreseeability may required.” be degree of percent.” 50 to 70 Automatic External omitted). (citation marks quotation Id. Hearing on S.B. Be- HS6 Defibrillators: Nevertheless, “in where there are cases Comm, Health, on 2011-2012 S. fore reasons for strong policy (Cal. 2012). Reg. 1-2 Sess. harm, prevented or the harm can be relatively inexpensive are Defibrillators means, degree of foresee simple lesser virtually foolproof. Target sells an ability may required.” Id. at $1,199.99. AED on website for AEDs its (citation 863 P.2d 207 effective, even when used are “safe and omitted). “Duty in such quotation marks Act lay people.” Cardiac Arrest Survival by a circumstances is determined balanc 402(8). virtually §at AEDs are fail-safe ‘foreseeability’ against ... the ‘bur- ing of they because do not “allow user to ad- densomeness, efficacy’ vagueness, and until after the device has minister a shock proposed ... measures.” Id. analyzed rhythm and de- victim’s heart (quoting 863 P.2d termined that an electric shock is re- Ticor, Cal.App.3d Gomez quired.” Id. (1983)). Cal.Rptr. periodically an AED Purchasing people More than 700 the United use is not training employee an its every day. cardiac arrest States die of a large much of a burden for store like the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act at Target.1 Providing an AED is Pico Rivera peo- significant Because of the number way remedy a easy and effective ple who suffer sudden cardiac it is harm. In the analo- customer, grave and foreseeable reasonably that a foreseeable Target, gous preventing context of criminals from shopping while at the Pico Rivera Moreover, California, regulations governing placement any plies with 1. business that acquires any Safety & Code an AED is "not civil the AED. Cal. Health liable 1797.196(b). damages resulting California limits the acts or omissions damages any entity acquires rendering emergency in the care” if the for civil business, complies among things, regularly long entity with other main- an AED so defibrillator, requirements employee of Cal. Health tains the trains one non-onerous 1797.196(b). per every usage, AED unit AED and com- invitees, harming training the California employees on how to use the sim- that, in recognized Court has certain cir device, ple and the virtual certainty of cumstances, precautionary some measures death if an AED is not used within min- are onerous. Some measures found oner arrest, utes of the onset of sudden cardiac employing security ous include: guards, Pico Rivera had a duty to have available an AED in its majori- store. The 207; 137, 863 P.2d and providing bright ty refers the to the California lights parking garages, monitoring secu Supreme I believe that in the cir- cameras, rity and requiring existing per case, cumstances of this the California periodic walk-throughs sonnel to make common law for a business to Arman, Ltd., P. Sharon v. property, 21 emergency first requires aid to its invitees of an AED for cases of Thus, sudden cardiac I arrest. would re- remedy But this case is different. The verse the district court’s dismissal of the onerous, is not defibrillator “is the complaint against Target and remand for only definitive treatment for [sudden cardi- further proceedings. ac The American Red arrest].” Cross Frequently Questions, AED http:// Asked

www.redcrosscny.org/pdfiAED_FAQs.pdf. relatively

Acquiring inexpensive AED training employee one it use is not

comparable hiring a security guard or

requiring employee through to walk A

garage. security guard is hired for one America, UNITED STATES Moreover, purpose: guard premises. Plaintiff-Appellee, requiring existing personnel peri- to make walk-throughs odic employee removes that regular from their duties for a significant BUSTOS-OCHOA, Roberto amount of time and A training. Pico Riv- Defendant-Appellant. era Target employee proper trained in however, AED usage, specifi- is not hired No. 11-50471. cally to use the AED device and is not Appeals, United States Court of periodically his or abandon her Ninth Circuit. normal post; employee merely trained on foolproof how use the defi- Submitted Nov. 2012.* Finally, brillator. bright lights, unlike se- Filed Dec. cameras, curity periodic basement walk-throughs, acquiring an AED would extremely effective in death

by sudden cardiac arrest.

Because of the reasonable

that a Pico Rivera customer could

suffer sudden cardiac the insignifi-

cant burden of acquiring an

* 34(a)(2). panel unanimously R.App. concludes this case is See Fed. P. argument. suitable for decision without oral

Case Details

Case Name: Rosemary Verdugo v. Target Corporation

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Dec 11, 2012

Citation: 704 F.3d 1044

Docket Number: 10-57008

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.