Koepke

Koepke v. Loo

Good Law
18 Cal. App. 4th 1444·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 961·23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 34·93 Daily Journal DAR 12187·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7168
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 22, 1993D015560California5,972 words

Opinion

Opinion

Froehlich, J.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of

the defendant in a personal injury lawsuit. The facts of the case are not in dispute, and we state them as reflected in the moving papers in the summary judgment motion, and as set forth in the appellate briefs of both appellant and respondent. The issue is whether the negligent failure of defendant, Lisa Loo (Loo), to warn plaintiff, Carol Koepke (Koepke), of a probable assault from a third party can result in liabililty. The case raises classic issues of duty and proximate cause. We conclude that under the circumstances of this case the defendant had no duty to take any action for the benefit of plaintiff, and therefore even though her lack of action may be deemed careless, it is not actionable negligence.

Facts

Loo was the owner of a typesetting business. Norman Logan (Logan) was employed as a typesetter in the business. Commencing sometime in 1979 and continuing for approximately two years Loo and Logan lived together and were involved in a personal and sexual relationship. During this period Loo became aware of the fact that Logan had a drinking problem. Logan continued to work for Loo after the termination of…

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.