Neiman

INTRODUCTION

Appellant/plaintiff Phillip Neiman (plaintiff), sued respondent/defendant Motel 6 (defendant)1 for personal injuries he suffered in an attack by a third party assailant in his motel room.2 Plaintiff alleged that defendant‟s lack of security was the legal cause of his injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment, determining that defendant owed plaintiff no duty to hire security guards or install security cameras because no sufficiently similar prior incidents had occurred on defendant‟s premises. While we question the trial court‟s ruling, we do not definitively resolve the issues of foreseeability and duty. Instead, we hold that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material on the element of causation. (See Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763 (Saelzler).) We therefore affirm, albeit on different grounds than cited by the trial court. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (m)(2).)

BACKGROUND

On July 16, 2009, plaintiff returned to Motel 6 after getting breakfast.4 Plaintiff exited his vehicle and a man named Leroy Johnson (Johnson) walked toward him. Johnson did not display a threatening manner, and plaintiff did not consider him a…