Posted on 06/23/2014

SACRAMENTO, CA--In the case of Verdugo v. Target Corporation, the Supreme Court of California ruled today that "Under California law, Target's common law duty of reasonable care to its patrons does not include a duty to acquire and make available an AED for use in a medical emergency."

The question of law asked "In what circumstances, if ever, does the common law duty of a commercial property owner to provide emergency first aid to invitees required the availability of an automatic external defibrillator (AED) for cases of sudden cardiac arrest?" While all parties agreed that "Target has a common law duty to provide at least some assistance to a patron who suffers sudden cardiac arrest in a Target store," the parties disagreed on the scope of that duty.

In a concurring opinion, one of the judges, Kathyrn Werdegar, stated that "It does not appear that cardiac arrest in a large retail store is particularly likely to lead to death," and further, it is clear that "an AED does not provide sure and certain protection from death."

The case arose when Michael and Rosemary Verdugo, brother and mother of Mary Ann Verdugo, filed a lawsuit against Target, maintaining that the store breached the duty of care it owed Verdugo when she suffered sudden cardiac arrest at a large Target department store in Pico Rivera, California in August 2008. It took paramedics several minutes to reach the store and a few additional minutes to reach Verdugo inside the store. They were unable to revive the victim, who was 49 at the time of her death. Target did not have an AED in the store, even though it sold the devices on its website.

The Sudden Cardiac Arrest Foundation had filed an amicus brief on behalf on the plaintiffs.

For more information about the case, click here.

For a related analysis, click here.

See attached ruling.

 

 

 

Documents Size
verdugo_vs._target.pdf 326.66 KB

Share