Facts

Two patrons of the bowling alley were served alcohol and became involved in a verbal and physical altercation with other patrons at defendant bowling alley. The offenders were ejected from the bowling alley, and they went into the adjacent parking lot and started to damage vehicles. The offenders drove away in a pick-up truck, but returned moments later. The victim, plaintiff Michael Arnold, was the on-duty security guard who was on patrol in the parking lot. He heard the commotion caused by the offenders, and came to the scene when he was intentionally run over by the offender's pick-up truck in the parking lot. One of the offenders was charged with five felony counts, including assault with a deadly weapon with intent to cause great bodily injury, and served time in prison.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The victim sued the bowling alley alleging that lack of internal security at the bowling alley emboldened the felonious actions. Victim also asserted that employees of the bowling alley made no attempt to disrupt the offenders' actions at the parking lot. Victim sued offenders for civil damages as well.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The bowling alley demurred, twice, contending that it did not owe plaintiff a duty of care to protect plaintiff from third-party criminal actions. He was the on-duty security guard charged (in part) with protecting the patrons of the bowling alley. It was further argued that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury, as inherent in his occupation as a private security guard, analogous to the "firefighter's rule." Finally, it was asserted that serving alcohol to an adult does not equate to civil liability for their later actions. [Cal. Business and Professions Code section 25602 (the proximate cause of alcohol-related offenses is the alcohol consumer, not the person serving the alcohol)].

Damages

Plaintiff allegedly incurred more than $225,000 in past medical costs and substantial time off from work due to multiple surgeries necessitated as a result of the incident.

Result

The Court agreed that, "[p]laintiff has failed to allege facts showing a "special relationship" between plaintiff and defendant giving rise to a duty to prevent third-party conduct; plaintiff was neither a patron nor an "invitee" of defendant's business. (Compare, Morris v. De La Torre (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 260, 271-273 ["invitee"]; Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 4th 224, 241-242 ["patron"].)" The Demurrer was granted without further leave to amend, after plaintiff was allowed to amend once in response to defendant's first Demurrer. Defendant received a judgment and cost award against plaintiff Arnold.

Other Information

The case has been appealed by plaintiff. The parties have filed their briefs. The oral hearing date has not yet been set.