Melissa R. v. Kinaleek Stables Inc., Dean Hall, Jennifer Ross, Michael Ross
Published: Apr. 8, 2000 | Result Date: Apr. 21, 1999 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 401716 Bench Verdict – $0
Facts
At 6:15 p.m. on Feb. 13, 1997, plaintiff, a 35-year-old software executive, arrived at Kinaleek Stables with her dog to exercise her horse, as she typically did three to four days a week. At approximately 8 p.m., plaintiff finished exercising her horse and returned him to his paddock. The plaintiff then began walking down a dirt road which bisects the clear-cut paddock area of the ranch, leading to the main house and parking area. When plaintiff was about 75 yards from the main house, her dog made a low growling noise and plaintiff turned to see a man sitting along the side of the dirt road. The plaintiff said ôhiö to the man and he smiled back at her. The plaintiff then continued walking down the main road. Moments later, plaintiff heard heavy footsteps approaching from behind. Immediately, shebegan to run down the road toward the main house, calling for help. Approximately 50 yards from the main house, the man overtook plaintiff, grabbing her from behind. A struggle ensued and they fell to the ground. During the struggle, plaintiffÆs dog was growling, barking and biting the assailant. The assailant eventually overpowered plaintiff, however, and dragged her back up the dirt road and into the bushes near the water towers. Although plaintiffÆs dog continued growling and biting the assailant, he was not deterred. He continued the attack, violently beating and then raping the plaintiff. The assailant was never apprehended or identified. The plaintiff offered unrefuted evidence that the resident stable manager was intoxicated and passed out, and therefore did not hear her calls for help. The plaintiff also presented evidence that only four months earlier, police raided a methamphetamine lab that was set up in a barn on KinaleekÆs premises less than 100 yards from the site of the attack. The plaintiff filed suit claiming that defendants had a duty to police the dirt road in the middle of the field where the assault occurred, and to provide security patrols on the premises. The plaintiff also contended that defendants had a duty to level the dirt road which bisects the paddock area, claiming that ruts in this dirt road prevented her from escaping the assailant. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that sexual assault was not reasonably foreseeable on the premises on this rural stable. Accordingly, they claimed that they owed plaintiff no duty to prevent the attack. The defendants further argued that plaintiff could not establish causation as a matter of law, since it was pure speculation to posit that lights or a smooth path would have prevented the attack. Further, defendants maintained that it was speculative to say that security would have prevented the attack, since stable personnel were not required to be stationed in the area of the attack. Therefore, stable personnel could have been anywhere on the ranch when the assault occurred. The parties entered mediation at JAMS after moving and opposing papers were filed on the motion for summary judgment. Both parties walked away from settlement discussions after one full day of mediation.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $2 million, which she reduced to $750,000 at the JAMS mediation with Hon. Daniel H. Weinstein, retired. The defendant offered $100,000, with an indication of more, but revoked the offer after the summary judgment was granted.
Other Information
DefendantÆs motion for summary judgment was granted on April 12, 1998, on the basis that plaintiff could not establish causation as a matter of law. PlaintiffÆs motion for a new trial was denied and plaintiff then appealed. The Court of AppealÆs (First Appellate District, Division 1) unanimous opinion, which was issued on April 21, 1999, affirmed the summary judgment, but on the basis of lack of duty. The court determined that sexual assault was not reasonably foreseeable in this location and thus defendants owed no duty to prevent the assault. PlaintiffÆs motion for rehearing was denied, as was her petition for review to the California Supreme Court.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390