## Facts

- Dr. Mervyn Isaacs, an anesthesiologist affiliated with a private Pasadena hospital, parked at night in the hospital’s research parking lot across from the emergency room and physicians’ entrance.
- The lot was open to the public.
- When Dr. Isaacs returned to the car around 10:00 p.m., an assailant approached from behind, held a gun to his chest, and shot him; the assailant escaped and was not identified.
- Dr. Isaacs suffered severe injuries, including loss of a kidney.
- Dr. Isaacs and his wife sued the hospital (and separately its insurer) alleging negligent failure to provide adequate security against third-party criminal acts; plaintiffs also alleged the insurer negligently participated in decisions affecting security.
- At trial against the hospital, plaintiffs introduced evidence that the hospital was in a high-crime area and that multiple assaults or threatened assaults had occurred on hospital premises in the prior three years, based on incident reports and police data.
- Plaintiffs also presented evidence of prior disturbances involving threats, fights, and intoxicated persons near the emergency room and parking areas, and that staff had requested increased security.
- Evidence showed the hospital had disarmed its security guards before the shooting and that security coverage of the lot was arguably inadequate.

## Issues

1. In a premises-liability negligence action based on third-party criminal conduct, must foreseeability be proven solely by prior similar incidents on the premises?
2. Did plaintiffs present sufficient evidence of foreseeability and breach to require submission of duty/reasonableness questions to the jury, making nonsuit improper?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of nonsuit for the hospital and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held foreseeability of third-party criminal acts may be established by evidence other than prior similar incidents on the premises.
- The court concluded plaintiffs presented substantial evidence from which reasonable jurors could find the shooting foreseeable and the hospital’s security measures unreasonable under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner owes invitees a duty of reasonable care in property management, which can include taking reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties.
- Foreseeability is evaluated in light of all relevant circumstances; proof is not limited to prior similar crimes on the same property.
- Relevant foreseeability evidence may include the nature and location of the premises, public access and hours of operation, prior incidents (even if not identical), security-related complaints, and expert testimony.
- Foreseeability and the reasonableness of security measures are generally fact questions for the jury; nonsuit is improper when substantial evidence could support a plaintiff’s verdict when inferences are drawn in plaintiff’s favor.

## Conclusion

The court held that a plaintiff alleging negligent security may prove foreseeability through the totality of circumstances rather than only prior similar incidents, and it reinstated the case for jury determination of whether the hospital’s security response to known risks was reasonable.


Isaacs v. Huntington Mem'l Hosp., 695 P.2d 653 (Cal. 1985)