Jabo

Jabo v. Ymca of San Diego Cnty.

Good Law
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588·27 Cal. App. 5th 853
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 2018D072613California16,858 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Huffman, J.

Defendant and respondent YMCA of San Diego County (Respondent or the YMCA) provides a number of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) on its premises, for the emergency use of its members, employees and users of the premises. ( Health & Saf. Code, 1 § 1797.196, subd. (b) [regulatory scheme when AEDs are provided on premises].) Plaintiffs and appellants are the Jabo family, whose 43-year-old husband and father, Adeal Jabo (Jabo) died of sudden cardiac arrest on July 12, 2016, after playing soccer at an enclosed East County field owned by Respondent and regularly rented to a private organization of which Jabo was a member, the Over 40 Chaldean Soccer League of San Diego (the League). 2 We are required to consider whether additional statutory or common law duties were owed by Respondent to ensure that its trained staff members utilize and apply AEDs under circumstances in which an adult is having an on-site *593 medical emergency that appears to be sudden cardiac arrest, while the adult is a permissive user of the facility whose group rented an outdoor portion of Respondent's sports facilities, a soccer field. (§ 104113 [duty of health studio to provide AED]; Civ. Code, § 1714.21,…

Dissenting Opinion

Aaron, J.

I agree with the majority that Verdugo v. Target Corp. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 312 , 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 662 , 327 P.3d 774 ( Verdugo ) provides the appropriate analytical framework for resolution of this appeal. However, I would conclude that that Respondent is clearly a health studio within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 104113, subdivision (h), and that a proper application of Verdugo demonstrates that, in view of the statutory mandates applicable to health studios with respect to the acquisition of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) and the training of health studio employees in the use of AEDs, such entities have a common law duty to reasonably use such devices in a medical emergency.

The majority states that it "evaluate[s] Appellants' challenge to the grant of summary judgment to Respondent in light of the analytical guidance provided by Verdugo ." (Maj. opn., ante , at p. 594.) In applying Verdugo , the majority concludes that Respondent's common law duty of reasonable care to patrons who suffer injury or become ill on its premises to provide first aid assistance does not include a duty to use an AED to assist "an adult ... having an on-site medical emergency…

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.