Romero

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

In ruling on USC’s summary judgment motion, the trial court at least implicitly recognized that a special relationship existed between USC, which manages and controls the Coliseum, and visitors to the Coliseum, such as the Romeros. Such a relationship gives rise to a duty. (See Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 236; Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 214.)

2 The trial court then considered the scope of the duty, an analysis centering around the ameliorative measures a plaintiff contends a defendant should have taken to prevent the plaintiff’s injuries. (Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, 1214.) Ultimately, the trial court rejected those measures. The record in this case clearly shows that in opposition to USC’s summary judgment motion, appellants proposed five specific ameliorative steps which, they contended, would have prevented the assault. We quote from that opposition: “(1) providing enough [Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)] officers and/or [Apex Security Group, Inc. (Apex)] security guards in the seating bowl to ‘maintain order, deter violent fights among the massive crowd of attendees, ensure the safety of…