|
4051 REVIEW DENIED In the absence of evidence making it foreseeable that a security guard employed by a homeowners' association would be assaulted by persons attending a party given by a resident, the association had no duty to protect the security guard against such an assault; under the firefighter's rule (primary assumption of the risk), a homeowners' association that employed a security service to confront risks associated with violence at parties given by residents would have no duty to protect employees of the security service against such risks; a homeowners' association that employed a security service would not be liable under the doctrine of peculiar risk for passive negligence that exposed an employee of the security service to job-related danger.CitationTILLEY v CZ MASTER ASS'N (Assaulted Guard) 131 CA4 464 [See: Rowland v Christian 69 C2 108; Neighbarger v Irwin 8 C4 532, T/AT 11/94; Herrle v Est of Marshall 45 CA4 1761, T/AT 7/96; Privette v SuperCt 5 C4 689, T/AT 9/93; Toland v Sunland 18 C4 253, T/AT 7/98; Hooker v DOT 27 C4 198, T/AT 3/02]
|
|
