In Sturgeon v. Curnutt (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 301, the Curnutts rented a house to their son Thomas. While under the influence of alcohol, Thomas waved a gun around; it went off and struck a visitor, Lisa Sturgeon. ( Id., at pp. 303-304.) Sturgeon sued the Curnutts, asserting a premises liability theory. The trial court granted a nonsuit. ( Id., at p. 305.) The appellate court held: "The Curnutts did not owe a duty of care to Sturgeon because the injury was not foreseeable." ( Sturgeon v. Curnutt, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 303.) "The evidence established the defendants knew Thomas had a problem with alcohol; he was convicted of driving under the influence and attended a rehabilitation program. They also knew Thomas had firearms. What was missing . . . was any evidence these two factors created a dangerous condition for those entering the premises. Sturgeon offered no evidence Thomas ever harmed anyone due to either his problem with alcohol or his possession of firearms or that he handled firearms in an unsafe manner while drunk." ( Id., at p. 307.) "While a logical possibility of harm attends the combination of firearms and alcohol, nothing put the defendants on notice a visitor might be injured. The presence of firearms, alone, also raises the logical possibility of harm to visitors, but it would be unreasonable to attach a duty simply because the landlord knew about the firearms. The defendant's additional knowledge of Thomas's drinking problem did little to increase the foreseeability of harm to visitors since there was no evidence he handled firearms while drinking." (Sturgeon v. Curnutt, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 308.) "When there is no evidence a tenant has violent propensities or handles firearms unsafely while drinking, a landlord's knowledge that the tenant misuses alcohol and possesses firearms is not a cue the landlord needs to protect visitors from injury." (Ibid.)