Legal Opinion

Verdugo v. Target Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 28, 2014No. 10-57008Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

Mary Ann Verdugo was shopping with her mother and brother in a Pico Rivera, California, Target when she experienced sudden cardiac arrest. There was no Automatic External Defibrillator (“AED”) in the store, and by the time paramedics arrived, Verdugo had died. Verdugo’s family sued Target, alleging that as a commercial property owner, Target had a common law duty to maintain an AED onsite. Ruling that Target had no such duty, the district court dismissed the Verdugos’ claim. The Verdugos appealed to this court.

We determined that California law did not clearly answer the question…

3Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Coulter v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co.California Supreme Court · 1997

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API