Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Davidson v. City of Westminster

649 P.2d 894 (1982)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Davidson v. City of Westminster

Supreme Court of California

649 P.2d 894 (1982)

Facts

Yolanda Davidson (plaintiff) was stabbed in a laundromat. In the days prior to the stabbing, three other women had been stabbed in the same laundromat or nearby laundromats. The City of Westminster (City) (defendant) had dispatched two police officers (defendants) to watch the laundromat in question in case the perpetrator returned. The officers saw a man matching the description of the perpetrator enter the laundromat while Davidson was inside. The man entered and left the laundromat several times. The officers did not warn Davidson, and she was eventually stabbed by the man. Davidson brought a negligence suit against the City and the officers for the officers’ failure to warn her of the perpetrator’s presence. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the officers did not have a duty to warn Davidson. Davidson appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kaus, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 518,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership