In Lopez v. McDonald's Corp. (1987) 193 Cal. App. 3d 495, a restaurant had been the site of several crimes, including robbery, petty theft, vandalism, and grand theft. Crime statistics showed that numerous assaults and batteries had been committed in the surrounding area. The crime problem was so serious that a private security company contacted McDonald's corporate office, recommending that security guards be hired. A McDonald's official declined, saying, "'We don't want to spend any money. There is no problem, we don't need it anyways.'" ( Id. at p. 502.) A nearby Jack-in-the-Box employed security guards. Two months after McDonald's decided not to hire security guards, an individual armed with a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic pistol, and a 12-gauge shotgun entered the restaurant and immediately opened fire, killing 21 people and wounding 11 others. In a suit brought by survivors and surviving family members of the victims, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of McDonald's. The Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground that "the Rowland factors and specifically the unforeseeability of the unique, horrific ... event require negligence liability to be restricted here. First, as to the foreseeability of harm to plaintiffs, the theft-related and property crimes of the type shown by the history of its operations, or the general assaultive-type activity which had occurred in the vicinity bear no relationship to purposeful homicide or assassination. ... The likelihood of this unprecedented murderous assault was so remote and unexpected that, as a matter of law, the general character of McDonald's nonfeasance did not facilitate its happening. ... " Plaintiffs' reliance on the evidence of mostly theft-related crimes on and nearby the ... restaurant's premises and the crime rate in the surrounding area, to show the event here was reasonably foreseeable, is misplaced. ... The predominantly theft-related character of the crimes is simply probative of the foreseeability of such crimes .... Not only was the assailant's crime not theft-related, but the narrow focus on slaughter and the assailant's ... motive are unrelated to the area's general crime rate as a matter of law. ... "Within the context of the third-party criminal conduct involved here, no moral blame attaches to McDonald's nonfeasance. Further, although the policy of preventing future harm is great, the extent of the burden to McDonald's and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty to protect against heavily-armed ... murderers is onerous." ( McDonald's, supra, 193 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 509-512.)