Millsom

PAMELA W. v. Millsom

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 559·25 Cal. App. 4th 950·30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690·30 Cal. Rptr. 690·94 Daily Journal DAR 7722
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 12, 1994D017060California378 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nares, J.

Pamela W. (Pamela) appeals from entry of summary judgment terminating her suit against her landlords and the condominium association governing the four-unit Pacific Beach complex in which she lived. She asserts the trial court in this case improperly determined the defendants were under no duty to have taken security measures which might have prevented the rapist who assaulted her in her home from having accomplished his crime. The trial judge found that the assault and rape of Pamela were not foreseeable to the degree which would have imposed a legal duty upon the defendants. Pamela asserts this determination was a question of fact, not law, and also that it was erroneously made. Under controlling authority, we reject these challenges, and affirm the judgment.

Facts and Procedure

Beginning on the first of March 1989, Pamela leased from defendants Mark Millsom, Sr., Sharon Millsom, and Mark Millsom, Jr. (collectively, the Millsoms), one condominium unit of a four-unit, two-building project known as Sand Dollar Court, located on Reed Street in Pacific Beach. The units are governed by the defendant Sand Dollar Court Owners Association (Sand Dollar).

Pamela and defendants…

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.