Legal Risk for Ongoing Criminal Activity in Public Spaces

Summary: Plaintiffs brought a wrongful death action against the City of Inglewood after their son was shot and killed by an unknown third party in a City park. They alleged the City created a dangerous condition by failing to install security cameras in an area with known ongoing criminal activity. In Summerfield v. City of Inglewood, (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 983, the Second District Court of Appeal sustained the lower court’s ruling granting the City’s demurrer finding there were insufficient pleading allegations as to the claim for a dangerous condition.

Discussion: On January 5, 2021, Andrew Summerfield went to Darby Park in Inglewood to play basketball. Andrew was shot and killed by an unknown third party while sitting in his car in the parking lot. Andrew’s parents and his estate filed a complaint against the City alleging dangerous condition of public property and general negligence. The plaintiffs alleged Darby Park was owned and maintained by the City, and that there had been previous shootings at the park prior to the subject incident. The plaintiffs further alleged that the gym at Darby Park was open to the public on the day of the shooting in violation of the City’s COVID-19 protocol which was a substantial factor in drawing multiple people to the park. The plaintiffs later allegations that there were no cameras in the parking lot and a lack of any other adequate protections such as attendants, control measures, and security guards. They argued the City had actual or constructive knowledge of at least two previous shootings at the park, and the lack of cameras presented attractive opportunities for criminal activities, creating a dangerous condition of property.

The Court of Appeal found the presence or absence of security guards was not a physical characteristic of property, and thus the allegations were not actionable as a dangerous condition of public property claim. The Court further found reports of prior shootings and inadequate security (such as the lack of security cameras in the parking lot) did not support a claim for dangerous condition or establish either actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. Specifically, the Court pointed out that allegations of two prior shootings, one of which did not take place in the parking lot, did not constitute “ongoing” criminal activity. Finally, the Court found the complaint allegations were insufficient to find the City failed to provide a warning of any actionable dangerous condition. Dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case was proper.

A copy of the case can be found here.

This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Dana K. Oium.