|
1169 REVIEW DENIED In an action for failure to provide adequate security based on the allegation that a security gate was not functioning properly, plaintiff had the burden of establishing that it was more likely than not that her assailant gained entry by way of the non-functioning security gate and would not have gained entry had the gate been functioning properly.CitationLESLIE G v PERRY (Parking Lot Rape) 43 CA4 472 [See: San Joaquin Grocery v Trewhitt 80 CA 371; Brautigam v Brooks 227 CA2 547; Krause v Apodaca 186 CA2 413; Nola M v USC 16 CA4 421, T/AT 8/93; Ann M v Pacific Plaza 6 C4 666, T/AT 2/94; Pamela B v Hayden AT 7/94]
|
|
