Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which dismissed plaintiff's complaint for damages under the California Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 810 et seq., which arose from an attempted rape on the premises of defendant community college.

Plaintiff brought an action for damages under California's Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 810 et seq., against defendant, a community college and state agency, and its agents, after sustaining injuries as a result of an attempted daylight rape in defendant's parking lot attorney business area. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's complaint and entered a judgment of dismissal. The reviewing court reversed, holding that while a public entity was immune from liability for failure to provide adequate police protection, it was not immune for failure to safeguard against a dangerous condition or warn its students of known dangers from criminals on the campus. Students could be characterized as invitees to whom a duty was owed to make the premises reasonably safe and defendant had a duty to exercise due care to protect students from reasonably foreseeable assaults on the campus.

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which dismissed plaintiff's complaint for damages under the California Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 810 et seq., which arose from an attempted rape on the premises of defendant community college.

Plaintiff brought an action for damages under California's Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 810 et seq., against defendant, a community college and state agency, and its agents, after sustaining injuries as a result of an attempted daylight rape in defendant's parking lot area. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's complaint and entered a judgment of dismissal. The reviewing court reversed, holding that while a public entity was immune from liability for failure to provide adequate police protection, it was not immune for failure to safeguard against a dangerous condition or warn its students of known dangers from criminals on the campus. Students could be characterized as invitees to whom a duty was owed to make the premises reasonably safe and defendant had a duty to exercise due care to protect students from reasonably foreseeable assaults on the campus.

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court.