In Trujillo v. G.A. Enterprises, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1105, a fast-food restaurant hired a private guard as a security precaution even though no prior incidents of violence had occurred on the premises. When a fight broke out at the restaurant, the security guard took one youth away, leaving the other youthful patrons to continue fighting. One of the injured youths sued the restaurant in a premises liability action. In moving for summary judgment, the restaurant argued, and the trial court agreed, the restaurant owed no duty to protect patrons in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent conduct. The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment, holding that, although it had no duty to do so, once the restaurant hired the security guard, it assumed a duty to protect customers from criminal attack and could be liable for the guard's unreasonable behavior under the circumstances. (Ibid.) In short, a patron in a fast food restaurant was accosted by a fellow patron. The court noted, "the security guard did not extricate the victim from the threatening situation, tell the threatening group to leave, immediately call the police or return quickly to quell the disturbance." ( Id. at p. 1109.)