Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Ctr.,., 6 Cal.4th 666, 25 Cal. Rptr. 137, 863 P.2d 207 (1993).

Issue:
Whether a shopping center landlord's duty to maintain reasonably safe common areas includes providing security guards to police those areas?

Facts:
Plaintiff was an employee of a commercial tenant in defendant's shopping mall. Although there had been numerous complaints of criminal conduct in the mall, the landlord refused to hire security guards because of the cost. During business hours, plaintiff was raped in her place of employment, The trial court held on summary judgment that defendant owed no duty of care. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that although defendant owed a duty to take reasonable precautions to maintain common areas against foreseeable criminal activity by third parties, defendant's failure to hire security guards was not unreasonable.

Holding:
Affirmed. The California Supreme Court held that defendant had no duty to provide security officers because plaintiff's injury was not reasonably foreseeable. The court modified the "totality of the circumstances" test for foreseeability. The new test balanced the burden of preventing future harm with the degree of foreseeability. Due to the burdensome cost of supplying security guards, a high degree of foreseeability was required in order to find the landlord owed a duty. Because defendant had no notice of similar incidents on the premises, the high level of foreseeability was not met.

Note:
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Mosk argued that the court was reinstating the "prior similar incidents" test for foresee ability, a test that previously had been viewed as fatally flawed. He felt that the test established by the court will rarely, if ever, find the requisite degree of foresee ability, without prior similar incidents of violent crimes on the premises.