January 2014 - Parks & Recreation - 29

lar instance, the court stated that Munoz had not alleged sufficient facts to
establish the requisite high degree of
foreseeability to impose a legal duty to
1) provide " adequate security " at Calas Park and 2) warn plaintiff of the
potential danger there. In particular,
the court noted that Munoz had not
specified what defendants should do
to provide adequate security against
criminal attacks in Calas Park.
Although the complaint states
plaintiff is " informed and believes "
that " prior assaults had taken place
in the same general area under similar circumstances, " it does not include any specific allegations, such as
the dates, number, specific locations
and particular circumstances of the
prior alleged assaults.
Moreover, in the opinion of the
court, " the burden on the City and
negative consequences on the community would be considerable " if
the court imposed a legal duty on the
City to provide security under the circumstances of this case.
Presumably the City can station police officers or private security guards at the park during the
hours it is open, or during every organized recreational event. But this
would impose a substantial financial burden on the City at a time
when pressures on the public fisc[al
budget] are greater than ever. The
monetary costs of security guards
is not insignificant.
Moreover, the obligation to provide patrols adequate to deter criminal conduct is not well-defined. No
one really knows why people commit
crime, hence no one really knows
what is " adequate " deterrence in
any given situation. Accordingly,
imposing a duty on the City to provide " adequate security " in public
parks would be very burdensome.

Similarly, the court found the claim
that the City had a duty to warn Munoz of potential criminal activity to
be " equally unpersuasive. " In so doing, the court cited Hayes v. State of
California (1974) 11 Cal.3d 469. In
Hayes, the plaintiffs were attacked
and beaten by unknown persons on
a beach on the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara. The plaintiffs argued that the
university had a duty to warn them
against potential criminal conduct.
As described by the court, the California Supreme Court rejected this
argument for the following reasons:
The first was that a warning
would have served little purpose because the public is aware of the incidence of violent crime, particularly
in unlit and little used places. The

court further stated that " determining and regulating the use of public
property are better left to legislative
and administrative bodies, rather
than to the judiciary. " Finally, the
court noted that " the disquieting
spectre of warning signs hanging in
areas where crime has occurred -
not unlike the leper's bell - manifests the unreasonableness of the
duty sought to be imposed by plaintiffs on their government. "
As a result, the appeals court concluded " [t]he holding and reasoning
of Hayes control here. " In the opinion
of the appeals court, " [a] warning on
the City's website or on onsite signs
stating that crime may occur in public parks would serve little purpose
because the public is aware of this
unfortunate problem. "

W W W. N R PA . O R G | J A N UA R Y 2 0 1 4 |

Parks & Recreation

27
January 2014 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of January 2014 - Parks & Recreation
