## Facts

- Allen V. Weidenfeller was assaulted without provocation by an armed assailant in the parking lot of the Star & Garter bar.
- Weidenfeller sued the assailant for intentional tort and the bar and its owners for negligent premises management, alleging inadequate parking-lot lighting and lack of security.
- The jury found the bar negligent and found its negligence was a proximate cause of Weidenfeller’s injuries.
- The jury awarded $122,500 in economic damages and $250,000 in noneconomic damages.
- The jury allocated fault at 75% to the assailant, 20% to the bar, and 5% to Weidenfeller.
- The trial court applied Civil Code § 1431.2 to make the bar severally liable for noneconomic damages only in proportion to its fault (20% of $250,000 = $50,000) and reduced total damages for Weidenfeller’s comparative fault, entering judgment for $166,375 plus interest and costs.
- The bar appealed (duty, evidence of breach/causation, evidentiary error), and Weidenfeller cross-appealed (asserted misapplication of § 1431.2 in a mixed intentional/negligence apportionment).

## Issues

1. Whether a bar proprietor owed a duty of reasonable care to protect patrons in its parking lot from third-party criminal assault, and whether substantial evidence supported breach and proximate causation findings.
2. Whether Civil Code § 1431.2 limits a negligent defendant’s liability for noneconomic damages to its percentage of fault when the remaining fault is assigned to an intentional tortfeasor.
3. Whether claimed evidentiary errors required reversal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court upheld the negligence verdict, concluding the proprietor owed a duty of reasonable care in managing its premises and substantial evidence supported the jury’s breach and causation determinations.
- The court held Civil Code § 1431.2 applied and properly limited the bar’s noneconomic damages liability to its 20% share despite the assailant’s intentional conduct and inability to pay.
- The court rejected the evidentiary challenges as nonprejudicial.

## Legal Principles

- Business proprietors owe invitees a duty of reasonable care in maintaining premises, including adjacent areas under their control such as parking lots, and may be liable where reasonable safety measures (e.g., lighting and security) are omitted and a foreseeable criminal act results.
- On appeal, a negligence verdict is upheld if supported by substantial evidence; appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence on breach or causation.
- Civil Code § 1431.2 makes each defendant severally liable for noneconomic damages only in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault in comparative-fault personal injury actions.
- Section 1431.2 applies even when fault is apportioned between negligent and intentional tortfeasors; an intentional tortfeasor’s share is not reallocated to increase a negligent defendant’s noneconomic liability due to the intentional actor’s insolvency.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a premises-liability judgment arising from a parking-lot assault and held that, under Civil Code § 1431.2, a negligent defendant’s noneconomic liability is limited to its percentage of fault even when most fault is assigned to an intentional tortfeasor.


Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter, 1 Cal. App. 4th 1, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 14 (Ct. App. 1991)