## Facts

- Darrell Soldano was shot and killed by Rudolph Villanueva at Happy Jack’s Saloon.
- Howard O’Daniels owned and operated the Circle Inn, an eating establishment across the street from Happy Jack’s.
- During the incident, a patron entered the Circle Inn and told an employee that a man had been threatened at Happy Jack’s.
- The patron asked the employee to call the police or to allow the patron to use the Circle Inn telephone to call the police.
- The employee allegedly refused both to call the police and to allow the patron to use the phone.
- For summary judgment purposes, the telephone was treated as located in a public area where a patron could use it without inconvenience to the business.

## Issues

1. Whether a business open to the public owes a duty not to unreasonably refuse telephone access to a person seeking to summon police for an explained, ongoing emergency occurring nearby.
2. Whether that alleged refusal could support a negligence claim sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment dismissing the negligence cause of action against O’Daniels.
- The court held that, on the alleged facts, the Circle Inn owed a duty to permit the patron to place an emergency call to the police.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings because duty and breach could not be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Although tort law traditionally distinguishes misfeasance from nonfeasance and often denies a duty to take affirmative rescue action, a defendant may incur liability by unreasonably interfering with another’s attempt to obtain aid.
- Under California’s negligence duty analysis (including the Rowland factors), foreseeability of harm, moral blame, prevention of future harm, and the burden on the defendant can support recognizing a duty in limited settings.
- A business establishment open to the public may have a limited duty not to unreasonably refuse use of a telephone located in an area ordinarily accessible to patrons when a person communicates a genuine, ongoing emergency and seeks to summon police, and allowing the call poses minimal burden or risk.
- The duty is confined to public businesses during business hours and to areas ordinarily accessible to the public; it does not require opening private spaces or creating broad general duties to rescue.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a narrow negligence duty for public businesses to avoid obstructing emergency requests to contact police through an accessible phone, and it held that the alleged refusal could support liability, requiring trial rather than summary judgment.


Soldano v. O'Daniels, 141 Cal. App. 3d 443 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)