In Summerfield v. City of Inglewood, published October 25, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 8 affirmed dismissal of a wrongful death suit after demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. In January 2021, the plaintiffs' decedent drove to a park in the defendant city to play basketball. While he was in his vehicle, he was shot and killed. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action against the city, which owned and operated the park, for dangerous condition of public property and negligence. The operative First Amended Complaint alleged that the park was supposed to be closed to the public due to COVID-19, but a city employee opened the park gym to the public in violation of the city's COVID protocol, which was a substantial factor in drawing the decedent and the perpetrator to the park. The FAC alleged there were no security cameras in the parking lot, and a lack of attendants, control measures, and security. The FAC alleged there had been "multiple shootings" at the park before the incident, but described only two incidents, in 1997 and 2012. The FAC alleged that considering the multiple shootings, the lack of cameras presented attractive opportunities to criminals. It asserted the city was liable under Government Code sections 815.6 (violation of mandatory duty). The trial court ruled that the complaint, as amended, failed to identify a dangerous condition of public property.
The appellate court agreed. Case law establishes that the presences or absence of security guards is not a physical characteristic of public property and thus not actionable as a dangerous condition of public property. Further, public entities are immune under Government Code section 845 for alleged failure to provide security services or police presence. The plaintiffs therefore cannot support their claim that failure to provide security at the parking lot was a dangerous condition. The alleged failure to take adequate precautions from employees opening the gym to the public is also not a dangerous condition or defective in a way that foreseeably endangers those using the property. Dangerous condition claims must be specifically pleaded, and must specify in what manner the condition constituted a dangerous condition. The FAC failed to allege sufficient facts that the city's failure to provide adequate precautions was a dangerous condition of public property. The allegation that the city failed to provide security cameras despite ongoing criminal activity failed because the FAC identified only two crimes over a 23-year span. Further, third party criminal activity does not constitute a dangerous condition of public property unless the property itself is in a dangerous condition and that condition increases or intensifies the risk of injury to the public. A parking lot is not dangerous because it lacks surveillance cameras; it needs surveillance cameras if it is dangerous. The FAC failed to plead sufficient facts to show a causal connection: that the absence of security cameras created a substantial risk of being shot. The theory that the city failed to provide adequate warning about the dangerous condition failed because the FAC failed to allege a dangerous condition. Further, a public entity has no duty to warn against criminal conduct. Because a city cannot be held liable for nonstatutory negligence, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer against the negligence cause of action. The plaintiffs failed to adequately show they could amend the complaint to state a claim.
One justice wrote a concurring opinion asserting that to establish a novel theory of tort liability, a plaintiff must establish the benefit would outweigh the burden. The plaintiffs cannot establish that imposing a duty on public entities to place surveillance cameras and other security wherever crime has occurred would outweigh whatever benefit might result.
Comments