Martinez v. Pacific Bell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting a nuisance claim because it concluded that there was no special relationship between the defendant and the third party and therefore no proximate causation
• rejecting a nuisance claim because it concluded that there was no special relationship between the defendant and the third party and therefore no proximate causation
• “The general rule of law is that no duty to control a third party’s conduct exists in the absence of some special relationship creating such a duty.”
• “Pac Bell did not own, possess, or control, and invited no one onto, the parking lot. It, thus, owed no duty of care to protect appellant at that location.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).