- April 22, 2010
- In premises Liability
The California Sixth District Court of Appeal recently issued a ruling that said that a homeowner who advertises a party on a social networking site “does not thereby assume a heightened duty to provide security.” The court affirmed the dismissal of a suit by three individuals who claimed that they were beaten and stabbed at the home of a person who had advertised the party on popular social networking site, MySpace.com.
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had subjected them “to an unreasonable risk of bodily harm.” The risk of bodily harm arose from “(1) an unregulated publicly advertised event involving the consumption of alcohol, dancing, live music and DJ services; (2) without restriction on the number or identity of persons attending; and (3) with no attempt to control admission or provide security or protection for attendees.”
The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendant “knew or should have known that such actions were highly likely and substantially certain to attract gang members to defendant’s property, to attract violent youths to defendant’s property, to create a dangerous condition on defendant’s property and to result in injuries to persons attending the party and others.”
In his March 12 opinion, Justice Richard McAdams said that the defendant’s use of MySpace to raise awareness about the party did not increase the risk of harm to the plaintiffs. In his decision, the judge cited Sakiyama v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., 110 Cal.App.4th 398 (2003), in which the owner of a property where a rave party took place was not liable for injuries caused by a driver who attended the party.
The Law Offices of Samer Habbas watched the developments in this case with great interest. Southern California premises liability attorneys like Mr. Habbas represent clients in premises liability every day, and each situation is unique. Generally, when an injury occurs due to hazardous conditions on someone’s property, the property owner holds liability for the injuries. Under the circumstances of this particular case, the court did not agree with the theory of liability that the plaintiff set forth. If you’d like to discuss your case with Southern California premises liability lawyer Samer Habbas, call his law offices today at 888.848.5084.
Tags : premises Liability