Verdugo v. Target Corp.
59 Cal. 4th 312 · California Supreme Court · 2014
Facts
Mary Ann Verdugo was shopping at a large Target department store in Pico Rivera, California, with her mother and brother when she suffered a sudden cardiac arrest and collapsed. Paramedics were dispatched in response to a 911 call, but it took them several minutes to reach the store and Verdugo inside. The paramedics were unable to revive Verdugo, who was 49 years of age at the time of her death. Target did not have an automated external defibrillator (AED) in its store. After the incident, Verdugo’s mother and brother (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Target, maintaining that Target breached its duty of care by failing to have an AED on hand for use in a medical emergency.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs initially filed their lawsuit against Target in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, but Target removed the proceeding to federal district court. The federal district court granted Target’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Target had no duty to acquire and make available an AED. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which then certified the question of state law regarding the existence of such a duty under California common law to the California Supreme Court.
Issue
Does the common law duty of reasonable care that Target Corporation owes to its business customers include an obligation to obtain and make available an automated external defibrillator (AED) for use in a medical emergency on its business premises?
Holding
The court concluded that, under California law, Target’s common law duty of care to its customers does not include a duty to acquire and make available an AED for use in a medical emergency.
Rule
While a business has a common law duty to aid patrons due to a "special relationship," this case concerns the duty to take precautionary steps before an incident occurs. To impose a common law duty for such precautionary measures, courts consider the foreseeability of the danger and the relative burden of providing the measure. If the precautionary measure is costly or burdensome, a "heightened" or "high degree" of foreseeability of the danger is required. The court found that acquiring and maintaining an AED, including training and staffing, imposes a significant burden. Absent heightened foreseeability of sudden cardiac arrest at Target or an increased risk of death there, the policy decision to mandate AEDs in such settings is appropriately left to the Legislature.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.