Liability & LegalQuestion 108 of 200

California 'special relationship' doctrine recognizes that certain relationships impose an affirmative duty to protect from third-party harm. Which is a recognized special relationship most relevant to security work?

a.Stranger-to-stranger interaction in a public street
b.Casual social acquaintances at a private dinner
c.Driver-to-pedestrian where the driver has no contact with the pedestrian
d.Business owner (or its agent, including a contracted PPO) to business invitee, with duty contoured by foreseeability under Ann M. and Delgado

Explanation

California recognizes special relationships that create affirmative duties to protect another from third-party harm. The business-invitee relationship is most relevant for security: owners and their agents owe invitees a duty of reasonable care, including foreseeable third-party criminal conduct, with scope shaped by Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666 and Delgado. Other recognized special relationships include innkeeper-guest, common carrier-passenger, school-student, and therapist-patient (Tarasoff duty to warn). Strangers in public (a), casual social contacts (b), and uncontacted pedestrians (d) lack the special-relationship trigger.

Law Reference: Tarasoff v. Regents (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425; Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666

Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.

Related questions on this topic

Last reviewed: · editorial process

PrepPass Editorial Team · Verified against California BSIS Guard Card Exam · How we review
Report