Kentucky Fried Chicken Of California v. Superior Court

14 Cal.4th 814 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Kathy Brown (P) sued D seeking general and special damages for emotional distress, hospital and medical expenses, loss of wages, and loss of earning capacity. While P was a customer at a restaurant operated by D, she was seized and held at gunpoint by an unidentified person who threatened to seriously injure her if employees of D did not give him the money in the cash register. P complied with the robber's demands and surrendered her cash and her wallet to him. He then demanded that a clerk open the cash register and give him all of the money. The clerk did not do so. Instead, she said she would have to go to the back of the restaurant for a key. The robber then became extremely agitated, shoved his gun harder into P's back, and told the employee he would shoot P if the employee did not 'quit playing games' and open the cash register immediately. P, who believed she was going to die because of the employee's actions, then 'screamed' at the clerk to open the drawer and give the money to the robber, at which point the clerk complied and opened the cash register drawer. The robber seized the money and fled. The robber did not become agitated and angry until the cashier told him that she would have to get the keys to the register. The complaint alleged that an employee did not comply promptly with the robber's demands and that her delay and other actions caused further injury to P and resulted in additional threats of grave injury to P. P alleged that D failed to provide proper security, and failed to properly train its employees in how to respond to criminal activity to avoid endangering or further endangering its customers. D claimed that P failed to state a cause of action because it had no duty to P to comply with a robber's unlawful demands. D moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion. D petitioned for a writ of mandate. The appeals court held that the value of human life and safety outweighed the interest the retailer had in frustrating the robber's efforts to take property.