Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc

In Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 114, the plaintiff met friends in the cocktail lounge of a bowling alley for a few drinks. While at the bar a man asked the plaintiff to take him home so he could have sex with her. She rebuffed the man's advances. The man left but returned two hours later and again made improper advances. The plaintiff reported the man's offensive conduct to the person the establishment employed as a "bouncer." He had been seated at the bar within hearing distance of the man's overtures. The plaintiff prepared to leave as the bar was closing. The bouncer warned her not to go outside because the "goofball" was in the parking lot. The plaintiff ignored his warning, claiming she had to go home to prepare for work in the morning. The man had apparently been waiting for the plaintiff in the parking lot. The man attacked and stabbed the plaintiff and seriously injured her. (Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc., supra, 65 Cal.2d at pp. 117-118.) The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's directed verdict for the defendant. The court rejected the defendant's argument it fulfilled whatever duty of care it owed to the plaintiff by the warning given by its bouncer advising her not to go outside "because that goofball is out there." "Had the warning adequately informed plaintiff of the danger, which it did not, the warning would not have enabled her to avoid the harm without relinquishing the right to enter the parking lot and obtain her car. This is a right which, as an invitee, plaintiff was entitled to receive from defendant. Defendant's failure to secure this right is, in and of itself, a breach of the duty which is defined in section 348 superceded by section 344 of the Restatement Second of Torts. Under such circumstances, including the fact that the bouncer could have easily protected her from the danger he apparently anticipated by simply accompanying plaintiff to her car, it cannot be held that the mere admonition not to enter the parking lot because 'that goofball is out there' satisfied the duty owed plaintiff. A warning will not be sufficient where it is apparent that, 'because of lack of time or the character of the conduct to be expected, it will not be effective to give protection.' " (Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc., supra, 65 Cal.2d at pp. 123-124.)