Wingard

Wingard v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 3d 37·176 Cal. Rptr. 320·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2092
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 29, 1981Civ. 20512California2,158 words

Opinion

Opinion

Blease, J.

Plaintiff Mollie Wingard appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained the motion of defendant, Safeway Stores, Inc., for summary judgment. At issue is whether Safeway, which contracted with a security service for a security guard to protect its warehouse against theft, owed a duty to protect the guard against rape by an intruder. We affirm the judgment.

Facts

Plaintiff, an employee of American Patrol Service, a security guard service, was assigned by her employer to patrol a warehouse owned by Safeway. The specific nature of plaintiff1 s duties is not shown by the record; it contains no job description and no contract between Safeway and the patrol service.

While on duty in a guardhouse inside the warehouse, plaintiff was sexually assaulted by an unidentified assailant who severely injured her physically and psychologically. The record shows that a door to the warehouse was left open and there were several other possible means of entry by the assailant. The record does not show whether plaintiff’s responsibilities included securing the warehouse.

Police reports show that the extent of criminal activity at the warehouse was limited to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.