Court Opinion

ID: 9746300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:11:24.366773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:11.635576
License: Public Domain

GRIGNON, J.
I concur in the judgment. I also concur in the majority opinion with the exception of the final two paragraphs, the “two final observations.” In my view, the first observation is gratuitous and unnecessary. Plaintiff tried her negligent hiring and retention cause of action to a jury and lost. The issue of the security guard’s liability is not before us.
As to the second observation, it is pure dicta. We have been presented with a factual scenario in which the employer adopted and enforced written *151policies. We need not speculate for future cases as to what the result might be in the absence of written policies or upon the failure to enforce written policies.
On December 20, 2000, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 21, 2001. Mosk, J., and Werdegar, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.