Verdugo

Verdugo v. Target Corp.

Good Law
770 F.3d 1203·2014 WL 5438376·2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20671
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 28, 2014No. 10-57008California17,521 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sakauye, J.

Mary Ann Verdugo was shopping with her mother and brother in a Pico Rivera, California, Target when she experienced sudden cardiac arrest. There was no Automatic External Defibrillator (“AED”) in the store, and by the time paramedics arrived, Verdugo had died. Verdugo’s family sued Target, alleging that as a commercial property owner, Target had a common law duty to maintain an AED onsite. Ruling that Target had no such duty, the district court dismissed the Verdugos’ claim. The Verdugos appealed to this court.

We determined that California law did not clearly answer the question whether Target was required to have AEDs in its stores and viewed “the California Supreme Court [as] better positioned to address [this] major question[] of California tort law than this court.” Verdugo v. Target Corp., 704 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir.2012). Accordingly, we certified a question to the California Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 8.548 of the California Rules of Court. Id. at 1045 . That court construed the certified question as follows: “[Wjhether, under California law, the common law duty of reasonable care that defendant Target Corporation (Target) owes to its business customers…

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.