|
3560 A security company hired by the operator of a party venue to prevent minors from entering and drinking alcohol there did not thereby acquire a duty to the minors; the statute imposing liabilty for injuries resulting from the sale of alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor requires actual malfeasance, rather than mere inaction or acquiescence, so a security company that was present when such sales were taking place but was not selling or furnishing alcohol was immune from liability under the statute.CitationELIZARRARAS v LA PVT SECURITY SVCES (Intoxicated Minors) 108 CA4 237 [See: B&PC 25602, 25602.1; Marois v Royal 162 CA3 193; Mata v Mata 105 CA4 1121, T/AT 3/03; Hernandez v Modesto Portuguese 40 CA4 1274, T/AT 1/96]
|
|
