In the recent decision of Stokes v. Forty Niners Stadium Mgmt., No. H050639 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2024) the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the family of Mark Stokes, who died following an assault in the Levi's Stadium parking lot. The court concluded that there was no evidence to prove that the stadium's management and security companies’ alleged negligence was a substantial factor in failing to prevent the sudden and unforeseen attack. Plaintiffs argued that additional security measures could have either removed the assailant from the premises before the incident occurred or deterred the attack altogether. However, the court determined that these assertions were speculative and lacked substantial evidence to prove that the defendants' alleged negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries resulting from a third-party assault.
Background Facts
After attending a San Francisco 49ers game at Levi Stadium in Santa Clara, Mark Stokes was assaulted in the parking lot by fellow fan David Gonzales. The altercation began when Stokes kicked a glass bottle that struck Gonzales's car, leading Gonzales to punch Stokes twice in the face. Stokes lost consciousness, suffered a brain injury, and was unable to work thereafter. Stokes passed away in March, 2021 following a severe asthma attack, which his family claimed was fatal due to the head injury he sustained in the assault by Gonzales. Gonzales faced criminal felony charges, pleaded no contest to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and received a one-year county jail sentence.
In October, 2019, Stokes and his wife, Jessica, filed a lawsuit against Forty Niners Stadium Management ("Stadium Management") and Landmark Event Staffing Services ("Landmark") alleging negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium. After Stokes' death, Jessica, acting as guardian ad litem for their two minor children, filed a second amended complaint claiming the defendants failed to prevent the assault by not providing adequate security.
Stadium Management and Landmark each filed motions for summary judgment, arguing there were no factual disputes indicating they breached a duty of care or that any alleged breach caused Stokes' injuries. Landmark also argued it had no duty to prevent Gonzales's unforeseen criminal actions and could not be liable for premises liability, as it did not own, operate, or control the parking lot.
The trial court granted both motions for summary judgment. Upon appeal, the court found no substantial evidence suggesting the defendant's' actions or inactions caused Stokes' injuries. As the plaintiffs could not establish causation, the appeals court upheld the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
The Plaintiffs' Theory of the Case
The plaintiff argued two theories to support their claim that the defendants' actions or omissions led to Stokes' injury - the ejection theory and the deterrence theory.
Under the ejection theory, plaintiffs argued that, had security had been present near Gonzales's vehicle between the time his group returned to the parking lot and the time of the incident, Stokes likely would not have been assaulted. Plaintiffs argued that security present in the area would have noticed the group loitering, drinking, etc. and asked them to leave, thus preventing Gonzales from being in the parking lot when Stokes arrived. The court, however, rejected this theory, as it required reliance on a series of speculative assumptions.
Plaintiffs’ deterrence theory argued that, if security had been visibly present in the parking lot at the exact time of the incident, Gonzales would have been less likely to attack Stokes. Plaintiffs attempted to support this claim with testimony that Gonzales’s group did not see security in the area, evidence that a member of the Stokes group could not quickly find security after the incident, and an alleged eight-minute delay in security response. However, defendants provided direct evidence that security personnel were assigned to patrol the lot, making it unreasonable to infer that no security was present. The court noted that, even if plaintiffs could establish a lack of security presence, their argument remained speculative, as there was no concrete evidence showing that a security presence would have prevented the assault.
Ultimately, the court found both theories relied on conjecture and speculation, rather than the substantial proof of causation required to successfully establish negligence.
Casual Connection Between the Injury and the Alleged Breach of Duty is Required
To prove negligence, "A plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a legal duty of care, the defendant breached that duty, and the breach was a proximate or legal cause of the injury." Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763. The court went on to state that "Although a premises owner is not an insurer of the safety of its patrons, [he or she] does owe them a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe." Id.
In its analysis the court relied heavily on a long line of relevant precedent and detailed the outcomes of those cases with great specificity. The common themes running through this precedent was that a defendant landowner—or, here, a party charged with providing security for a facility:
- Is not an insurer of the safety of invitees against injuries inflicted by third parties,
- Is not responsible for third-party criminal conduct simply due to a failure to provide adequate deterrence of misconduct generally,
- May be liable for negligent security efforts only if they were a substantial factor in causing the injury to the plaintiff inflicted by a third party, and
- May be found to have caused the harm only if such causality is proved by substantial, nonspeculative evidence that a causal connection between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s injury is more probable than not. See Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763; Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472; Nola M. v. University of Southern California (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 421; Noble v. Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d; Constance v. State of California (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 200; Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181; Romero v. Los Angeles Rams (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 562; Thompson v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1352.
Applying these principles here, the evidence did not show that it was more probable than not that there was a causal connection between defendants’ alleged breach of duty and Stokes’s injury. The court noted that this decision and others like it reinforce the principle that liability for third party criminal acts requires a clear causal connection between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s injuries.
Here, the plaintiffs were unable to establish that any alleged breach of duty by Stadium Management or Landmark was a substantial factor in causing Stokes' injuries. The evidence supported the defendants' contention that an adequate amount of security was present both inside the stadium and in the surrounding parking lots. These security measures were in place and in full force at the time of the incident. In addition, the entirety of the incident took less than five minutes and the evidence showed that the actual altercation lasted only seconds. The defendants successfully demonstrated that, even had a security officer witnessed the altercation as it occurred, there would have been little security could have done to stop the incident before the injury occurred.
Further, the evidence did not support the contention that either defendants’ actions or omissions were a substantial factor in causing Stokes' injuries. Before the incident, there was no indication of a potential altercation- Stokes and Gonzales had no prior interaction inside the stadium and neither had drawn security's attention. The confrontation occurred suddenly and lasted only about nine seconds, as captured in security footage. Witnesses from both groups confirmed that the assault happened too quickly for anyone to intervene.
Given the lack of evidence establishing that the defendants' alleged negligence directly contributed to the incident, the court found that summary judgment was appropriate. Therefore, the decision of the lower court granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment was affirmed.