Company and gas station employee sued but court rules attendant shielded from liability under 'Good Samaritan' rule
The plaintiff in a recent case claimed that a Costco Wholesale Corporation’s employee intentionally harmed him by pulling him away from a man with whom he was engaged in a fistfight. The California Court of Appeal disagreed.
In January 2018, the plaintiff in the case of Valdez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation was at a gas station owned by the defendant, Costco. The second defendant in the case was one of Costco’s gas station attendants who was on duty that day.
A neighbor with whom the plaintiff had an ongoing feud approached and started punching him. A fight ensued. According to the plaintiff, his neighbor struck him several times on the head, while he himself placed his neighbor in a headlock and refused to release him. The gas station attendant physically separated the two men to stop the fight.
The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence; premises liability; negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; and assault and battery. He alleged that Costco breached its duty of care to protect him from third-party assaults on its property. In response, Costco and its employee filed summary judgment motions.
The trial court granted the defendants’ motions and ruled in their favour. The court found that the employee was shielded from liability as a “Good Samaritan” under section 1799.102(b) of the Health and Safety Code. Costco was also not liable because the...
Ken Ranta, CEO of the District of Thunder Bay Social Services Administration Board, is advising the public some election candidates are making inaccurate statements regarding the board and the work...