Soldano v. O'Daniels

California Court of Appeal · Torts

Tortsnegligencedutynonfeasanceinterference with rescuewrongful deathdutynonfeasance

Facts

Darrell Soldano was shot and killed at Happy Jack's Saloon. A patron from Happy Jack's went into the Circle Inn, an eating establishment across the street owned by defendant, and told an employee that a man had been threatened at Happy Jack's. The patron asked the employee either to call the police or let him use the Circle Inn telephone to call the police, but the employee allegedly refused both requests. On summary judgment, the court assumed the telephone was in a place accessible to patrons, its use would cause no inconvenience, and the local call would impose no cost on defendant.

Issue

Does a business establishment open to the public incur potential tort liability when its employee refuses either to call the police or to permit a third person to use an accessible telephone to summon police after being clearly told that another person faces imminent physical danger nearby?

Rule

Although the common law generally imposes no duty to affirmatively aid another absent a special relationship, a business establishment open to the public may have a duty not to impede a third person's good-faith effort to summon emergency aid by telephone when imminent danger of physical harm is clearly conveyed, the telephone is in a public area ordinarily accessible to patrons, and allowing the call would impose only a minimal burden. In determining duty, the court applies the Rowland v. Christian factors, including foreseeability, certainty of injury, closeness of connection, moral blame, prevention of future harm, burden and community consequences, and insurance considerations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a diner in Sacramento, Leo Mendez ran in from the sidewalk and told the cashier that a man outside was waving a knife and saying he was about to kill someone. Leo asked either that the cashier call the police or let him use the phone mounted beside the front register, which customers routinely used to call rides. The cashier refused both requests because she did not want to get involved.

If the threatened person is later seriously injured, which is the strongest argument that the diner owed a duty?

Explanation. The majority recognized a narrow duty, not a general duty to rescue. A business open to the public may be liable when it refuses either to place an emergency call or permit use of an accessible telephone by a third person seeking to summon aid, if imminent physical danger is clearly conveyed and the burden is minimal. The other choices state rules the opinion expressly rejected or did not adopt.