AED Requirements Under California Common Law

Download pdf

Verdugo v. Target Corp. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 312

The provision and use of automated external defibrillators (“AEDs”) in community associations has been a topic of interest for managers and boards since Health and Safety Code § 104113 required every “health studio” to acquire and maintain an AED onsite and to train personnel in the use of the AED. It is not clear whether community associations with fitness facilities are subject to the requirement to have an AED onsite. The Attorney General’s office issued an opinion that community associations are not subject to the requirement but this area of the law remains unsettled. If you have questions about the requirements for any particular fitness facilities, please contact the association’s legal counsel.

In the recent case of Verdugo v. Target Corp. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 312, the California Supreme Court clarified a corporation’s common law (as opposed to statutory) duty to its customers with regard to the provision and availability of an AED. While this case dealt specifically with a for-profit business’ duty to its customers and does not directly deal with a common interest development’s duties under California law (nor does it change the statutory requirement for AEDs in health studios), it provides a reading of the general temperature of the California Supreme Court with regard to the common law duty to provide AEDs to the public when not required to do so under statute.

In Verdugo, the California Supreme Court considered the question of whether the common law duty of reasonable care that Target owed to business customers includes an obligation to obtain and make available an AED for use in a medical emergency. The Court concluded that it does not.

In this case, Verdugo, age 49, was shopping at a Target store when she suffered a sudden cardiac arrest. Target employees contacted 911, and paramedics were on scene several minutes later; it took them an additional few minutes to locate Verdugo inside the store. Paramedics were unable to revive Verdugo, and she died. There was no AED in the store. Verdugo’s mother and brother, who were with her at the store, sued Target alleging that Target breached its duty of care to Verdugo, its customer, by failing to have an AED at the store. Plaintiffs claimed that an AED was essential life-saving first aid item and Target was obligated to provide one for its customers.

In reaching its decision, the Court considered the current law on AEDs: Civil Code § 1714.21, which provides immunity to persons who render emergency care by use of an AED and to persons or entities who acquire an AED for emergency use, and Health and Safety Code § 1797.196, which sets forth a number of prerequisites for persons or entities who acquire AEDs to qualify for the immunity afforded under the Civil Code.

Target argued that Health and Safety Code § 1797.196 expressly provides that nothing in either that statute or in the Civil Code may be construed to require a building owner or manager to acquire or install an AED in the building. (Note, however, under Health and Safety Code § 104113, every “health studio” is required to acquire and maintain an AED onsite and to train personnel in the use of the AED.) While the Court acknowledged the statutory limitation set forth in Health and Safety Code § 1797.196, it found that the statute did not limit a potential duty to provide an AED under common law.

Nevertheless, the Court found that even under common law, Target did not have a duty to provide an AED to its customers. While all parties agreed that Target has a common law duty to provide at least some assistance to a patron in medical need, they disagreed as to the scope of that duty. In deciding whether Target had a duty to take the precautionary step of providing an AED in advance of a medical emergency, the court considered 2 factors: (1) the degree of foreseeability of the danger, and (2) the burden of providing the precautionary measure. The Court found that with the regular maintenance and training required to maintain an AED on the premises, the burden on a business was not minor or minimal. Additionally, the Court found that there was no greater foreseeablilty that a cardiac arrest would occur in a Target store than anywhere else open to the public. Moreover, the Legislature has not imposed a statutory duty to provide AEDs on any other type of business or facility other than health studios. The Court felt the Legislature was in the best position to create such a requirement and it had not done so. Therefore, the Court found that Target had no common law duty to provide an AED to its customers as a precautionary measure.

For community associations not currently required to maintain an AED under Health and Safety Code § 104113, this case would appear to support the position that an AED is not required as a precautionary measure under common law. While the duties of a commercial entity such as Target are no doubt different from the duties owed to residents and their guests by a community association in many respects, it is wise to understand where the law generally stands on important topics such as AEDs.