|
3802 Although they were aware that a driver who resided in a housing development had been arrested or convicted of several driving and drug-related offenses and had been ticketed within the development for speeding, erratic driving, and running stops, neither the development nor its security company owed a duty to a resident who was a passenger in the driver's car to prevent him from driving while intoxicated on roads within the development.CitationTITUS v CANYON LAKE POA (Intoxicated Resident) 118 CA4 906 [See: Rowland v Christian 69 C2 108; Hansra v Superior Court 7 CA4 630; Madhani v Cooper 106 CA4 412, T/AT 3/03]
|
|
