## Facts

- Kathy Brown was the sole customer in a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in Redondo Beach, California when an armed robber entered and took her wallet.
- The robber held a gun to Brown’s back and threatened to seriously injure her unless employees gave him money from the cash register.
- The cashier initially stated she did not have the key and would need to go to the back to get it; the robber intensified his threat and pressed the gun harder into Brown’s back.
- Brown urged the cashier to open the drawer and give the robber the money; the cashier opened the register and the robber took the money and left.
- Brown sued Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, Inc. for negligence, alleging inadequate security and training and that employees’ delay and actions increased the risk of harm, causing emotional distress and economic losses.

## Issues

1. Whether a business proprietor owes a duty to a patron to comply with an armed robber’s demand for the proprietor’s money to avoid increasing the risk of harm to the patron.
2. Whether the existence of such a duty is a question of law permitting summary judgment for the proprietor.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and directed that summary judgment be granted for KFC.
- The court held that a shopkeeper does not have a duty to comply with an armed robber’s unlawful demand that property be surrendered, even if the robber threatens a patron.
- The court rejected extending general premises-liability and patron-protection principles to a rule requiring capitulation to criminal demands.
- The court relied heavily on public policy, reasoning that recognizing such a duty would encourage similar criminal conduct.
- Because the claimed duty failed as a matter of law, Brown’s negligence claim could not proceed, making breach and causation issues immaterial for purposes of summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Duty in negligence is a question of law; courts may define and limit duty based on policy considerations.
- A business’s duty to patrons to maintain reasonably safe premises and take reasonable protective measures against foreseeable crime does not include an affirmative duty to surrender the business’s property to an armed robber.
- Tort law generally does not impose a duty to comply with illegal threats or demands (e.g., robbery or extortion) as a means of protecting third parties.
- Public policy may bar recognition of a proposed duty where liability would create incentives for criminal activity.

## Conclusion

The court limited the scope of a proprietor’s duty to patrons by holding that a business is not legally required to comply with an armed robber’s demand for money to protect customers, and it ordered summary judgment for the business because the negligence claim failed on the duty element as a matter of law.


Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. 4th 814 (Cal. 1997)