im sure some well to do family would have loved to make that that house their home but .....

https://sfist.com/2019/11/01/will-airbnb-or-homeowners-get-sued-over-halloween-mansion-party-shooting/

going4roses said:

---

im sure some well to do family would have loved to make that that house their home but .....

https://sfist.com/2019/11/01/will-airbnb-or-homeowners-get-sued-over-halloween-mansion-party-shooting/

---

Whoever fired the gun and whoever fired the gun.

but they dont have any $$$

I also don't see how the store that sold the gun is any less responsible than the people that rented the house.

Rent your property on AirBnB at your own risks.

so no responsibility on those that primed and facilitated the crime ?

he or she holding the bag is gets all the blame ?

do you think this changes property owners minds at all ?

going4roses said:

---

do you think this changes property owners minds at all ?

---

No, not really but there are risks with dealing with unknowns.

going4roses said:

---

so no responsibility on those that primed and facilitated the crime ?

he or she holding the bag is gets all the blame ?

---

I don't really see how renting a place on AirBNB is priming and facilitating a crime.

Also, I don't think the victim's families are entitled to financial compensation from anyone other than the person that actually killed the victim.

On a related note, i found this article compelling. If I ever travel, I'm sticking with a hotel.

Heirs will sue Police, owner, and Airbnb with the hope of getting a settlement. If no settlement, a jury at Contra Costa County Superior Court in Martinez will decide unless defendants can get case tossed on a motion for summary judgment. The jury in Martinez will be a tough sell for the plaintiffs.

bearister said:

---

Heirs will sue Police, owner, and Airbnb with the hope of getting a settlement. If no settlement, a jury at Contra Costa County Superior Court in Martinez will decide unless defendants can get case tossed on a motion for summary judgment. The jury in Martinez will be a tough sell for the plaintiffs.

---

why the hell didn't orinda police shut it down they got the call an hour before shooting ? scared or ??

i wonder how demographics played/ or will play a role

going4roses said:

---

bearister said:

---

Heirs will sue Police, owner, and Airbnb with the hope of getting a settlement. If no settlement, a jury at Contra Costa County Superior Court in Martinez will decide unless defendants can get case tossed on a motion for summary judgment. The jury in Martinez will be a tough sell for the plaintiffs.

---

why the hell didn't orinda police shut it down they got the call an hour before shooting ? scared or ??

i wonder how demographics played/ or will play a role

---

I heard the calls to Orinda PD was at first a noise complaint about the gunfire, not knowing there was murder. There was suppose to be a priority call that superseded this.

I heard opd got a noise call around 930ish ... shooting 1030ish . That is second hand/not verifiable info.

Would opd even have the man power to disperse a crowd that size.

I would have never attended such an event and as former promoter I would not have even attempted such an even in that location without heavy security presence

Yeah, OPD probably isn't a large department, and what's the population, like 35k? They might get assistance from the CoCo sheriffs.

bearister said:

---

Heirs will sue Police, owner, and Airbnb with the hope of getting a settlement. If no settlement, a jury at Contra Costa County Superior Court in Martinez will decide unless defendants can get case tossed on a motion for summary judgment. The jury in Martinez will be a tough sell for the plaintiffs.

---

The property owner should instead sue the families of the shooters for their poor upringing of the criminals who turned his house into a ghetto shooting gallery.

Cal88 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Heirs will sue Police, owner, and Airbnb with the hope of getting a settlement. If no settlement, a jury at Contra Costa County Superior Court in Martinez will decide unless defendants can get case tossed on a motion for summary judgment. The jury in Martinez will be a tough sell for the plaintiffs.

---

The property owner should instead sue the families of the shooters for their poor upringing of the criminals who turned his house into a ghetto shooting gallery.

---

Please tell me you are joking

okaydo said:

---

On a related note, i found this article compelling. If I ever travel, I'm sticking with a hotel.

---

I have used VRBO (now owned by Homeaway) for years. Years before Airbnb existed. Frankly, I never knew what the big deal was with Airbnb since they were just doing what VRBO had done for years. Airbnb's thing is clearly marketing. I have never had the slightest issue with a VRBO listing. The first time I checked out Airbnb, I ran into what became obvious a scam. No reviews. Trying to get a deposit outside the system when I checked I found multiple listings with the same pictures. Airbnb didn't much care. After that I have been more careful how I rent. Definitely when you look on Airbnb, you see more listings that are too good to be true on their face. I don't see that on VRBO. I did rent one time through Airbnb when inventory was low at my destination and had a great experience with that homeowner. I only rent units with lots of reviews and I read them all for clues. I laughed at one a few years back that had like five reviews all with the exact same broken english. It was a lame attempt.

There are circumstances where I opt for the security of a hotel. However, if you don't care about having a front desk, a fitness room, room service, etc. you generally get a much better place for a lower price from a rental. Especially if you are traveling with a family. There are dishonest hotels also. Honestly, even my worst experience was not one where I thought "I wish I had stayed in a hotel".

I also had an experience in France where the homeowner ran her house essentially like a one tenant bed and breakfast. We were treated like family and invited to a dinner they had with family and friends. It was the type of experience you could never have in a hotel.

I feel bad for the people who have been scammed and honestly, my biggest argument with Airbnb is they imply a level of background check and security that they just don't do and that certainly lead me on that first experience to have my guard down more than I should have. It is still basically a rental listing. But I would say that avoiding all rentals is not the best solution.

going4roses said:

---

but they dont have any $$$

---

There will certainly be a lawsuit, and probably a settlement, but I struggle to see much liability for Airbnb or the homeowners to the victims. I could see liability to the neighbors.

The problems I see for the victims families are these:

At law, the shooter is responsible for the shooting. They are the proximate cause of the act. Generally that breaks the chain of responsibility for the shooting itself.

What they could be held responsible for is creating a circumstance where it is reasonably foreseeable that a shooting would occur. It does not appear that Airbnb or the homeowner did anything but rent the house. They didn't advertise a party or for it to be a party house. They had rules against parties and a maximum occupancy. If they want to rent a house, what do you think are reasonable steps to take to prevent their renters from using it for illicit purposes. Think about that for a minute because whatever you are going to make this homeowner responsible for because something did happen at their house, you effectively make every landlord do because it MAY happen at their property. They will argue, correctly in my view, that the people responsible for the party are the renters. In fact, they will probably point out that they don't want their house trashed.

If someone was responsible for providing security, it would have been the renter throwing the party. Further, there is a concept at law when it comes to victims represented by the quote "the timorous may stay at home". In other words, if you engage in something that has obvious risks, you can't blame someone else for the risk. If you go ice skating and break your ankle, that is ice skating (vs. if there is a giant hole in the ice, that is the rink's fault). In this case, Airbnb and the owners will say "we didn't even know a party was going on. The victims knew and participated. They knew this was a basic house party without security. They knew what they were getting into. Shyte happens at house parties.

It seems to me that if Airbnb and the owners failed it is at most in not doing enough to prevent a party at their property. So MAYBE they could be held responsible for a party taking place. But the victims knew a party was taking place and actively and willingly participated because they wanted to. So the victims can't blame the homeowner for injuries suffered doing what they chose to do. It is analogous to the fact that SF could have put up suicide barriers on the GG bridge and stopped suicides, but they aren't legally responsible for people dying when they jump off.

Is there any reason to believe that Airbnb or the homeowners knew a party was going on? If not, they obviously couldn't have taken steps to stop it. I think the other problem is that if they had found out, the only logical thing they could have done was to call the police. if you are correct that the police were called by somebody, that obviously wouldn't have served to stop the shooting.

This is why I say the neighbors might have a claim if they were damaged because they were not willing participants in the party. The shooters are responsible for the shooting. The renters are responsible for having the party and the circumstances around it, including lack of security. Airbnb and the owners COULD be negligent for not doing enough to ensure their property wasn't used for a party, but the partygoers accepted the risk for joining a party.

Lastly, you may want to think about this. What do you want Airbnb and the owners to do? Because then expect it to be done to you when you rent. Do you want to have to go through a full background check when you stay in a rental or a hotel? Otherwise, what would they be responsible for other than setting rules and enforcing them when they find they are broken?

In Alameda County when you sue The Man, all a plaintiff has to do is survive a summary judgment and someone is going to pay the easy way or the hard way. Law and facts can be tissue thin for the plaintiffs. These days if someone dies, someone wants to make bank against a Deep Pocket.

It won't be as easy in Contra Costa County, especially if the jury adds a pinch of racism in the pot.

Oak
I had not put much thought in that regard. But I noticed as usual you posted a thorough (most of the times lengthy) assessment of said situation.

What am I thinking/questions

With the housing stock woefully short in CA having some temporary rentals (but this is clearly not case) is ok but there needs to be an assigned amount that does not negatively impact the community/neighborhood.

Perhaps in situations like this instance a special type of insurance policy to cover extreme situations like this if the property owner and renter cant afford it tuff.

In my mind it seems financial responsibility should be split three ways owner, Airbnb and the person(s) who rented the house.

Disclaimer: a friend of mine knows the family of two of the victims. Sucks

OaktownBear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

but they dont have any $$$

---

There will certainly be a lawsuit, and probably a settlement, but I struggle to see much liability for Airbnb or the homeowners to the victims. I could see liability to the neighbors.

The problems I see for the victims families are these:

At law, the shooter is responsible for the shooting. They are the proximate cause of the act. Generally that breaks the chain of responsibility for the shooting itself.

What they could be held responsible for is creating a circumstance where it is reasonably foreseeable that a shooting would occur. It does not appear that Airbnb or the homeowner did anything but rent the house. They didn't advertise a party or for it to be a party house. They had rules against parties and a maximum occupancy. If they want to rent a house, what do you think are reasonable steps to take to prevent their renters from using it for illicit purposes. Think about that for a minute because whatever you are going to make this homeowner responsible for because something did happen at their house, you effectively make every landlord do because it MAY happen at their property. They will argue, correctly in my view, that the people responsible for the party are the renters. In fact, they will probably point out that they don't want their house trashed.

If someone was responsible for providing security, it would have been the renter throwing the party. Further, there is a concept at law when it comes to victims represented by the quote "the timorous may stay at home". In other words, if you engage in something that has obvious risks, you can't blame someone else for the risk. If you go ice skating and break your ankle, that is ice skating (vs. if there is a giant hole in the ice, that is the rink's fault). In this case, Airbnb and the owners will say "we didn't even know a party was going on. The victims knew and participated. They knew this was a basic house party without security. They knew what they were getting into. Shyte happens at house parties.

It seems to me that if Airbnb and the owners failed it is at most in not doing enough to prevent a party at their property. So MAYBE they could be held responsible for a party taking place. But the victims knew a party was taking place and actively and willingly participated because they wanted to. So the victims can't blame the homeowner for injuries suffered doing what they chose to do. It is analogous to the fact that SF could have put up suicide barriers on the GG bridge and stopped suicides, but they aren't legally responsible for people dying when they jump off.

Is there any reason to believe that Airbnb or the homeowners knew a party was going on? If not, they obviously couldn't have taken steps to stop it. I think the other problem is that if they had found out, the only logical thing they could have done was to call the police. if you are correct that the police were called by somebody, that obviously wouldn't have served to stop the shooting.

This is why I say the neighbors might have a claim if they were damaged because they were not willing participants in the party. The shooters are responsible for the shooting. The renters are responsible for having the party and the circumstances around it, including lack of security. Airbnb and the owners COULD be negligent for not doing enough to ensure their property wasn't used for a party, but the partygoers accepted the risk for joining a party.

Lastly, you may want to think about this. What do you want Airbnb and the owners to do? Because then expect it to be done to you when you rent. Do you want to have to go through a full background check when you stay in a rental or a hotel? Otherwise, what would they be responsible for other than setting rules and enforcing them when they find they are broken?

---

This analysis seems dead on. One complicating factor is the whether an insurer is present. Most homeowners insurance policies don't cover rentals, unless you get a renter's endorsement, and pay for the premium, which could be real money (thousands) depending on circumstances. Most homeowners don't think about this before renting nights. However, if there is an insurer involved, there is more chance of a settlement with the homeowner.. Airnbnb will probably litigate this into the ground and force a settlement by the victims heirs. Query, why in no one thinking about suing the party runners? No assets?

A judgment is just a piece of paper against a defendant that has insufficient assets to satisfy the judgment.

4 Ways To Tell If There Are Hidden Cameras In Your Airbnb

Airbnb Has a Hidden-Camera Problem

that was my next train of thought ... if owned property that i was renting out on short term basis im going to have cameras on the property in common use areas front door and walk way etc maybe the garage. i would pay somebody to monitor the situation a party 20 -30 people ( acting like they have sense and are of age to be drinking etc kool) other wise im calling the police to shut it down and remove them (but then is that police depts responsibility ?)

airbnb opened the rabbit hole so they should be responsible to some point imo then the owners you want to play with fire at some point you will be burned .. find another way to increase you wealth

going4roses said:

---

Perhaps in situations like this instance a special type of insurance policy to cover extreme situations like this if the property owner and renter cant afford it tuff.

In my mind it seems financial responsibility should be split three ways owner, Airbnb and the person(s) who rented the house.

Disclaimer: a friend of mine knows the family of two of the victims. Sucks

---

G4r, the thing is, you have a good heart. This is a tragedy and you want to see the victims' families compensated. I would like that too. However, the point of our legal system is not to compensate victims. It is for people who suffer damages to be compensated by those who are at fault. You know who is at fault here. It is the shooter. It is just that the shooter likely doesn't have money. Some times, in fact most of the time in the case of a major tragedy, misfortune happens and there is either no one at fault or the person at fault does not have the means to pay appropriate damages.

What do you think Airbnb or the owner did wrong other than exist? They have a right to run a business. A crazy shooter can go anywhere and shoot someone. What did this being an Airbnb house have to do with anything? A homeowner could have had a party. The real estate agent that sold them the house isn't responsible. A long term renter could have had a party. The landlord isn't responsible. You could go on vacation and ask someone to house sit and they have a party. You aren't responsible. Why is Airbnb more responsible for this than say when Oakland rents out picnic facilities at its parks, facilities that are often used for social gatherings, sometimes raucous ones. Or Cal having facilities for pre and post game parties? Where you have a business that invites in people, you can't stop bad people from acting badly.

There is a thing at law called proximate cause. You aren't liable for butterfly effect damages. The shooter was responsible for the damages. Maybe the renter who lied to the owner about why they were renting the house and broke the rules of their contract has responsibility by virtue of creating a dangerous situation (though doubtful it is like any other social gathering where shooting breaks out). The owner's actions weren't negligent. It is not reasonably foreseeable that if I rent my house in a normal fashion someone is going to get shot. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that Airbnb has data that demonstrates no higher crime rate at their rentals than in the general population. What you are asking is no different than blaming the owner of a convenience store if one of his customers gets shot in a robbery. They are just running a business. A bad person showed up through no fault of theirs. They are not responsible for making you safer in their house than you are in your own.

You are making a mistake that people make when something tragic occurs. You work back from the tragedy and see every link in the chain as leading to it. But millions of rentals happen with no issue. At the point that the owner took on the renter, there was absolutely no reason to think someone would get shot. The thing is, you want this for the one time something happens, but you are not thinking about what it does to legitimate businesses and legitimate renters.

As for requiring insurance, I have no problem with that, but understand, if the homeowner or Airbnb have insurance that covers this, the insurance provider represents them not the victims. They will not pay money that their customer is not legally liable for. Having insurance doesn't mean the victim will get compensated. It just means there is a pot of money to draw from.

going4roses said:

---

Oak
I had not put much thought in that regard. But I noticed as usual you posted a thorough (most of the times lengthy) assessment of said situation.

What am I thinking/questions

With the housing stock woefully short in CA having some temporary rentals (but this is clearly not case) is ok but there needs to be an assigned amount that does not negatively impact the community/neighborhood.

Perhaps in situations like this instance a special type of insurance policy to cover extreme situations like this if the property owner and renter cant afford it tuff.

---

I think each community needs to decide for itself what policies to put in place. Obviously, a beach community in San Diego that relies on vacation dollars is going to view rentals differently than a residential community in Orinda. I think it is a local issue. I certainly think it is reasonable to put rules and restrictions including insurance requirements on short term rentals. My community doesn't allow them. I would caution you, though. Where short term vacation rentals are appropriate, the problem has not been individuals who rent their house (which is the original intent of VRBO/Airbnb). It is larger entities buying properties up and running them like some de facto hotel without regulation. And large hotels are dying to squash the individual rental market. It would be a shame to create rules that basically only serve to make it impossible for anyone but a corporation to play. The vast majority of landlords and renters are responsible people who do not cause any problems in the community.

Well

https://sfist.com/2019/11/01/will-airbnb-or-homeowners-get-sued-over-halloween-mansion-party-shooting/

bearister said:

---

Heirs will sue Police, owner, and Airbnb with the hope of getting a settlement. If no settlement, a jury at Contra Costa County Superior Court in Martinez will decide unless defendants can get case tossed on a motion for summary judgment. The jury in Martinez will be a tough sell for the plaintiffs.

---

" But real estate lawyer Daniel Bornstein tells the Chron that a case civil liability is more than likely going to arise, with Airbnb, the renters, and the homeowners all named as defendants. "Someone will have to compensate someone for the harm that was generated in that house," Bornstein says" SF Chronicle

OaktownBear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Perhaps in situations like this instance a special type of insurance policy to cover extreme situations like this if the property owner and renter cant afford it tuff.

In my mind it seems financial responsibility should be split three ways owner, Airbnb and the person(s) who rented the house.

Disclaimer: a friend of mine knows the family of two of the victims. Sucks

---

G4r, the thing is, you have a good heart. This is a tragedy and you want to see the victims' families compensated. I would like that too. However, the point of our legal system is not to compensate victims. It is for people who suffer damages to be compensated by those who are at fault. You know who is at fault here. It is the shooter. It is just that the shooter likely doesn't have money. Some times, in fact most of the time in the case of a major tragedy, misfortune happens and there is either no one at fault or the person at fault does not have the means to pay appropriate damages.

What do you think Airbnb or the owner did wrong other than exist? They have a right to run a business. A crazy shooter can go anywhere and shoot someone. What did this being an Airbnb house have to do with anything? A homeowner could have had a party. The real estate agent that sold them the house isn't responsible. A long term renter could have had a party. The landlord isn't responsible. You could go on vacation and ask someone to house sit and they have a party. You aren't responsible. Why is Airbnb more responsible for this than say when Oakland rents out picnic facilities at its parks, facilities that are often used for social gatherings, sometimes raucous ones. Or Cal having facilities for pre and post game parties? Where you have a business that invites in people, you can't stop bad people from acting badly.

There is a thing at law called proximate cause. You aren't liable for butterfly effect damages. The shooter was responsible for the damages. Maybe the renter who lied to the owner about why they were renting the house and broke the rules of their contract has responsibility by virtue of creating a dangerous situation (though doubtful it is like any other social gathering where shooting breaks out). The owner's actions weren't negligent. It is not reasonably foreseeable that if I rent my house in a normal fashion someone is going to get shot. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that Airbnb has data that demonstrates no higher crime rate at their rentals than in the general population. What you are asking is no different than blaming the owner of a convenience store if one of his customers gets shot in a robbery. They are just running a business. A bad person showed up through no fault of theirs. They are not responsible for making you safer in their house than you are in your own.

You are making a mistake that people make when something tragic occurs. You work back from the tragedy and see every link in the chain as leading to it. But millions of rentals happen with no issue. At the point that the owner took on the renter, there was absolutely no reason to think someone would get shot. The thing is, you want this for the one time something happens, but you are not thinking about what it does to legitimate businesses and legitimate renters.

As for requiring insurance, I have no problem with that, but understand, if the homeowner or Airbnb have insurance that covers this, the insurance provider represents them not the victims. They will not pay money that their customer is not legally liable for. Having insurance doesn't mean the victim will get compensated. It just means there is a pot of money to draw from.

---

agree with the all of this with a proviso. Airbnb might be willing to accept a nuisance settlement, but if that is not possible, understand they as the insured, may get to make the call to fight the suit, if they feel a large settlement will impact their business model. This is most likely the case if an attorney like Oak, acting as something called a "Cumis counsel", thinks there should be no liability.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/los-angeles-landlord-accused-of-abusing-eviction-process-to-replace-apartments-with-airbnbs/?__twitter_impression=true

Lawsuit number #1

Family of Orinda Shooting Victim Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Family-of-Orinda-Shooting-Victim-Files-Wrongful-Death-Lawsuit-564648261.html?akmobile=o

https://sfist.com/2019/11/12/gilroy-garlic-festival-shooting-lawsuit/

So will their case get any traction?

going4roses said:

---

https://sfist.com/2019/11/12/gilroy-garlic-festival-shooting-lawsuit/

So will their case get any traction?

---

Depends on the facts. I'd say they had a duty to provide reasonable security. The question is whether they did

OaktownBear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

https://sfist.com/2019/11/12/gilroy-garlic-festival-shooting-lawsuit/

So will their case get any traction?

---

Depends on the facts. I'd say they had a duty to provide reasonable security. The question is whether they did

---

I see. Next thought does the expectation reasonable security apply to the house party gone wrong... in that case are both the party promoters and the homeowners responsible?