Case Name: Tayler Williams v. Jacob Capital Group, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 1-14-CV-262382

Demurrer by Defendants Jacob Capital Group, Inc. and Oliver Jacob to the Complaint of Plaintiff Tayler Williams

This is an action for assault and premises liability. On April 1, 2012, Plaintiff and his two friends were brutally attacked outside a bar “owned, managed, controlled and /or operated” by Defendants. (See Complaint at ¶¶ 10, 29, 37, and 39.) During the attack, Plaintiff was struck in the face by one of the assailants, resulting in serious and life-threatening injuries. (Ibid.)

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) assault; and (4) battery.

On April 23, 2014, Defendants filed the motion presently before the court: a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the first and second causes of action fail to state a claim for relief. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e).) Defendants also argue that the second cause of action fails for uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (f).)

With respect to the first and second causes of action, Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing the existence of a legal duty or causation to support negligence and premises liability.

“To state a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must allege (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached the duty, and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s damages or injuries.” (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 62 [internal citations omitted].) Similarly, the elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) “The existence and scope of duty are legal questions for the court.” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 477.)

With respect to the first cause of action for negligence, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to others. (See Complaint at ¶ 27.) More specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants owed him a duty to keep and maintain the bar and premises in a reasonably safe condition for use by the public, including a duty to take precautions to protect Plaintiff from the negligent/criminal acts of third parties which were reasonably foreseeable. (Id. at ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached this duty by: (1) failing to provide adequate security; (2) failing to monitor the entrances and exits to the bar; and (3) failing to have proper lighting for the bar and premises. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ breaches were a substantial factor in causing his injuries. (Id. at ¶¶ 34-35.) Such allegations are sufficient to state a claim for negligence and must be accepted as true for purposes of demurrer. (See Olson v. Toy (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 818, 823 [for purposes of demurrer, the court must accept these allegations as true]; see also N.V. Heathorn, Inc. v. County of San Mateo (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1531 [on demurrer, it is not the function of the court to speculate on the ability of a plaintiff to support, at trial, allegations well pleaded].)

With respect to the second cause of action for premises liability, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance, control, management, and operation of the bar and premises. (See Complaint at ¶ 40.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants breached this duty by: (1) failing to have adequate security for customers and invitees of the bar and premises; and (2) failing to have proper lighting of the parking lot and adjacent areas. (Id. at ¶ 41.) As a result of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiff suffered injuries to his health and body. (Id. at ¶ 44.) Again, such allegations are sufficient to state a claim for premises liability for pleading purposes.

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the first and second causes of action for failure to state a claim is OVERRULED.

Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action for premises liability on the ground of uncertainty is OVERRULED. In general, “a demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Here, the moving papers fail to present any legal argument to support the demurrer for uncertainty with respect to the premises liability claim.