Delgado

*229 Opinion

It is established that business proprietors such as shopping centers, restaurants, and bars owe a duty to their patrons to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, and that this duty includes an obligation to undertake “reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures.” (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137 , 863 P.2d 207 ] (Ann M.); see also Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 114, 121 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 561 , 416 P.2d 793 ] (Taylor), and cases cited.)

We granted review to address a related issue that has divided the Courts of Appeal. In Mata v. Mata (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1121 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 141 ] (Mata), the appellate court, reversing an order granting summary judgment, held that when a bar proprietor voluntarily employs a guard on its premises, the proprietor has “assumed’ a “duty to protecf’ its patrons from criminal assault “and therefore the issue of foreseeability becomes irrelevant.” (Id., at p. 1128, italics added.) In the present case, which similarly concerns a bar at…

In the area of torts, one of the more difficult issues is determining when a business owner owes a duty to protect others *251 from the criminal acts of third parties. Contributing to the complexity are considerations such as these: (1) the difficulty of predicting when and under what circumstances a criminal might strike; (2) the difficulty of determining whether the business owner should be held civilly liable for the harm caused by the third party’s criminal conduct; (3) the need to avoid imposing a particularly onerous burden on business owners in poor areas where the risk of criminal activity is particularly great, as the owners will pass the burden on to customers who, because of their poverty, are less able to shoulder it; and (4) the concern that imposing too onerous a burden on business owners in poor areas may cause them to close their businesses or relocate to safer and more affluent communities, thus depriving the poor of jobs and essential services.

In this case, as plaintiff Michael Wollery Delgado was leaving defendant’s restaurant, a gang of 10 to 15 men, apparently on a prearranged signal, came out of hiding and brutally attacked him. Unlike the majority, I am of…

I generally agree with Justice Kennard’s dissenting opinion. The attack on plaintiff Michael Wollery Delagado was not foreseeable. Therefore, defendant Trax Bar & Grill had no duty to protect against third party criminal conduct. (Dis. opn. of Kennard, J., ante, at p. 253.).) However, unlike Justice Kennard, for the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Morris v. De La Torre (2005) 36 Cal.4th 260 -279, 280 [30 Ca.Rptr.3d 173, 113 P.3d 1182 ] (conc. opn. of Brown, J.)), I do not believe our decision in Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal.4th 814 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 756 , 927 P.2d 1260 ] imposed a duty on business owners based on ongoing criminal conduct.

It is established that business proprietors such as shopping centers, restaurants, and bars owe a duty to their patrons to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, and that this duty includes an obligation to undertake "reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures." ( Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674 , 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137 , 863 P.2d 207 ( Ann M. ); see also Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 114, 121 , 52 Cal.Rptr. 561 , 416 P.2d 793 , and cases cited ( Taylor ).)

We granted review to address a related issue that has divided the Courts of Appeal. In Mata v. Mata (2003) 105 Cal. App.4th 1121 , 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 141 ( Mata ), the appellate court, reversing an order granting summary judgment, held that when a bar proprietor voluntarily employs a guard on its premises, the proprietor has " assumed " a " duty to protect " its patrons from criminal assault "and therefore the issue of foreseeability becomes irrelevant. " ( Id., at p. 1128, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 141 , italics added.) In the present case,…