In Mukthar v. Latin American Security Service (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 284, a convenience store employee blocked the store's exit in an attempt to stop three people from shoplifting. (Id. at pp. 286-287.) Two of the shoplifters "rushed" at the employee, and the third shoplifter struck the employee's eye. (Id. at p. 287.) The employee claimed that he was temporarily totally disabled by the injuries sustained during the battery. Latin American Security Service, Inc. (Security Service) had been hired to provide security at the convenience store; however, a guard was not present at the time of the incident. (Ibid.) Security Service moved for summary judgment, and argued that the store employee could not show that Security Service's negligence was the cause of the assault. (Id. at p. 286.) The trial court granted the motion. (Id. at p. 288.) The appellate court reversed. (Id. at p. 286.) The appellate court focused on whether there was evidence that the assault would not have occurred if the guard had been present, i.e., whether Security Service's failure to exercise reasonable care resulted in the employee's injuries. (Mukthar, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 291.) The appellate court noted that the security guard was supposed to stand next to the door that the employee blocked. The appellate court concluded that it was "more likely than not" that the shoplifter would not have struck the employee if an armed guard had been standing next to the doorway. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the appellate court concluded that it would not be conjecture for a trier of fact to find that the security guard could have prevented the assault, because a reasonable inference could be drawn from the evidence. (Ibid.)