<p><b><i>Margaret W.</i></b><b> <i>v. Kelley R.</i></b></p> <br /> <h1>Filed 5/5/06</h1> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">DIVISION TWO</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p><br /> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p>MARGARET W.,</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Appellant,</p> <br /> <p>v.</p> <br /> <p>KELLEY R.,</p> <br /> <p> Defendant and Respondent.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p> A110054</p> <br /> <p> (Sonoma County</p> <br /> <p> Super. Ct. No. SCV-229662)</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table> <br /> <p><b>Story continued from Part I……….</b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p><a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Plaintiff's theory was that having hired a security guard and having noticed impending trouble, the assault was necessarily foreseeable, and defendant was negligent in not having sufficient security to protect plaintiff</a>. The Court recognized that a business has a special relationship with its patrons that requires it to take reasonable steps to secure common areas against third party crime likely to occur absent such steps being taken (<i>Delgado, supra</i>, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 235) and that it is necessary to balance the degree of foreseeability against the burden of preventing harm and the policy reasons for preventing the harm (<i>id.</i> at pp. 237‑238). Steps as burdensome as hiring a security guard would be required only if there were â€