Cantwell

Cantwell v. Peppermill, Inc.

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 637·25 Cal. App. 4th 1797·31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 246·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4675
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 21, 1994A062747California1,769 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haning, J.

Plaintiffs and appellants Curtis and Tammy Cantwell appeal a judgment dismissing their premises liability action for personal injury and loss of consortium against defendant and respondent Peppermill, Inc., after respondent’s demurrer was sustained without leave to amend on the ground that appellants’ first amended complaint was barred by Business and Professions Code section 25602. (Hereafter, section 25602.)

Facts and Procedural History

Since this appeal is taken from a judgment of dismissal after a demurrer to appellants’ first amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend, we must accept all material facts properly pleaded as true (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 703 P.2d 58 ]), and we report them accordingly.

Respondent operates a “restaurant, bar and lounge” where alcoholic beverages are sold. While appellants were dining there on November 13, 1991, appellant Curtis Cantwell was assaulted and stabbed by another patron. In their original complaint for personal injury and loss of consortium appellants alleged two causes of action against respondent based on alternative theories: (1) The first cause of action alleged that the…

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.