Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 10 - Commentary on Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd.

  • from Part IV - Negligence and Vicarious Liability
  • Edited by Martha Chamallas, Ohio State University, Lucinda M. Finley, University at Buffalo, State University of New York
  • Book:
    Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tort Opinions
    Published online:
    28 November 2020
    Print publication:
    10 December 2020, pp 217-236

  • Summary

    Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. is representative of a line of cases refusing to impose a duty of reasonable care on defendants in third-party rape cases. The plaintiff in Sharon P. was raped by an unknown assailant in an underground parking garage owned by the defendant. The California Supreme Court ruled that no duty should be imposed because the rape was not reasonably foreseeable, even though conditions in the garage had been allowed to deteriorate and the underground location invited criminal activity. The rewritten feminist opinion unpacks the concept of foreseeability to uncover hidden male bias in its application. Arguing that women’s experiences of rape and the fear of rape must be taken into account, the feminist opinion concludes that the risk of rape is objectively foreseeable. To conclude otherwise would ignore the systematic vulnerability of women plaintiffs and allow gender bias to infiltrate tort law. The accompanying commentary updates developments in California and elsewhere and argues for extending a duty of reasonable care to all third-party rape cases.