Barber

Barber v. Chang

Good Law
151 Cal. App. 4th 1456·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 971·60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 760
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 13, 2007G036448California12,278 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

I concur. But I write separately to note that it was because of the limited scope of the landlord’s duty that was presented to the trial court that I agree to reverse the judgment. Not only the existence of a landlord’s duty, but also the scope of that duty, is a question of law. “Foreseeability, when analyzed to determine the existence or scope of a duty, is a question of law to be decided by the court.” (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 678 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137 , 863 P.2d 207 ], italics added.)

In his motion for summary , judgment defendant did not contradict that other measures he might have taken would also exceed the scope of his duty. He only asserted that he had no duty to provide guard service. I agree *1471 that to impose a duty to provide 24-hour guard service at this four-unit apartment complex because of the brandishing incident would be unreasonably burdensome.

In Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, supra, 6 Cal.4th 666 , the plaintiff, who worked in a shopping center, was raped inside her store. In the suit against the owner of the center, she claimed it negligently failed to provide security sufficient to prevent the rape. The…

Opinion

Leroy Barber appeals from the trial court's entry of summary judgment on his negligence claim against William Wu-Ye Chang, the owner of a small apartment complex where a tenant shot Barber. Barber contends Chang had a duty to adopt measures to reduce the risk of harm posed by a potentially violent tenant, and claims triable issues of fact exist on whether Chang responded reasonably to written notice the tenant had recently brandished a shotgun at another visitor and tenant. We conclude Chang failed to carry his initial burden on summary judgment to show he owed no duty to undertake minimally burdensome measures to alleviate the risk posed by a violent tenant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

Barber and his longtime companion, Chanda King, moved into one of the four units in Chang's apartment complex in 1995. The couple had two young children, and Chanda's 6-year-old son, Christopher, also lived with them. That same year, Carol Gray and her son, Daniel, moved into another unit in the complex. Daniel was about 12 years old at the time. Chanda's mother, Jean King, moved into her own unit in Chang's complex in 1996. Jean described Daniel Gray as "an odd kid." Over…

Lead Opinion

Aronson, J.

Leroy Barber appeals from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on his negligence claim against William Wu-Ye Chang, the owner of a small apartment complex where a tenant shot Barber. Barber contends Chang had a duty to adopt measures to reduce the risk of harm posed by a potentially violent tenant, and claims triable issues of fact exist on whether Chang responded reasonably to written notice the tenant had recently brandished a shotgun at another visitor and tenant. We conclúde Chang failed to carry his initial burden on summary judgment to show he owed no duty to undertake minimally burdensome measures to alleviate the risk posed by a violent tenant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Barber and his longtime companion, Chanda King, moved into one of the four units in Chang’s apartment complex in 1995. The couple had two young children, and Chanda’s 6-year-old son, Christopher, also lived with them. That same year, Carol Gray and her son, Daniel, moved into another unit in the complex. Daniel was about 12 years old at the time. Chanda’s mother, Jean King, moved into her own unit in Chang’s complex in 1996. Jean described…

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.