I didn't realize that under California law a restaurant or store has no obligation to reasonably cooperate with an armed gunman in order to save a customer's life.
Here is the relevant headnote from Ky. Fried Chicken of Cal. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. 4th 814 (Cal. 1997):
In an action brought by a customer against a restaurant for the restaurant's negligence during the course of an armed robbery on the premises, in which the robber held a gun to plaintiff's back and ordered the cashier to give him all of the money in the cash register, the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a shopkeeper owes a duty to a patron to comply with an armed robber's demand for money in order to avoid increasing the risk of harm to patrons. There is no duty to comply with a robber's unlawful demand for the surrender of property, and the simple refusal to obey such a demand does not breach any duty to third persons present on the premises. In this case, even though the cashier delayed complying with the robber's unlawful demand by telling him that she needed to get the keys to the register, and the robber became agitated and told the cashier that he would kill plaintiff if the cashier did not immediately open the register, the cashier did not engage in active resistance to the robbery. Recognizing a duty to comply with an unlawful demand to surrender property would be inconsistent with the public policy reflected in Cal. Const., art. I, § 1, and Civ. Code, § 50, which recognize a person's right to defend property with reasonable force. Further, recognition of such a duty would be contrary to public policy as it would encourage similar unlawful conduct.
Under circumstances where a gunman is using me as a hostage in a hold-up, I'm thinking that my best option would be to jump over the counter and beat the cr*p out of the clerk until he coughs up the f*cking money, which is f*cking insured and won't f*cking bleed.
Then, we'll talk about Civil Code Section 50 and Cal. Const., art. I, Section 1.
That strikes me as a stupid decision; on which point, the Supreme Court had to reverse the Court of Appeals which had affirmed the denial of summary judgment against the customer's case; so it seems that there were a fair number of lawyers who agree with me.
Posts
