Summary Judgment Granted in Case Involving Assault

July 17, 2009

Russell S. Wollman and Maria A. Starn won a Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability case involving assault. Plaintiff, a professional truck driver, filed a suit against defendant, the owner and operator of a truck stop, for the alleged failure to provide adequate security on the premises to prevent his being assaulted. Plaintiff claimed that while walking his dog on the property, he was struck on the back of the head by unknown assailant(s) and knocked unconscious. Plaintiff claimed significant personal injuries, including brain injury and resultant loss of earnings in excess of $200,000.

In support of plaintiff’s claim that the alleged assault was reasonably foreseeable, thereby imposing a duty on defendant to provide additional security measures, plaintiff produced police records evidencing numerous reports of prior criminal activity on the premises and officer testimony that truck stops, in general, are known for being high crime facilities.

Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on grounds that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff was assaulted on the premises; (2) assuming assault, defendant did not owe a duty to provide additional security measures in the absence of prior similar incidents of assault; and (3) plaintiff could not prove what, if any, additional security measures would have prevented the alleged assault from occurring.

On July 17, 2009, the Kern County Superior Court granted defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff was injured by violent assault and battery; (2) assuming assault, the admissible evidence did not support reasonable foreseeability so as to give rise to a duty to provide additional security; and (3) plaintiff could not establish causation of injury as a result of an alleged lack of security.