|
0698 The risk that defendants' adult son would accidentally shoot someone while intoxicated might have been foreseeable to defendants, who rented him a home and who knew that he had a drinking problem and kept firearms, but, in the absence of knowledge that he had previously acted irresponsibly with firearms while intoxicated, was not sufficiently foreseeable to result in the imposition on defendants of a duty to protect plaintiff against it.
STURGEON v CURNUTT (Alcoholic Tenant) 29 CA4 301 [See: Todd v Dow 19 CA4 253; Portillo v Aiassa 27 CA4 1128; Uccello v Laudenslayer 44 CA3 504]
|
|