Not really true - that case was an urban myth I believe from my own searching (as I heard about it when I grew up). Would like sources if it's true.
What I did look up:
"Premises liability laws generally do not extend to trespassers, such as burglars, because they do not have a legal right to be on the property. However, property owners in California may be liable for injuries caused by a crime on their property if they should have reasonably foreseen the crime and failed to take steps to reduce the risk. This is known as negligent security and can apply to crimes such as burglary, theft, and robbery. Factors that may contribute to a negligent security claim include: Broken or missing surveillance cameras, Lack of security guards, and Broken or inadequate locks."
What I did look up:
"Premises liability laws generally do not extend to trespassers, such as burglars, because they do not have a legal right to be on the property. However, property owners in California may be liable for injuries caused by a crime on their property if they should have reasonably foreseen the crime and failed to take steps to reduce the risk. This is known as negligent security and can apply to crimes such as burglary, theft, and robbery. Factors that may contribute to a negligent security claim include: Broken or missing surveillance cameras, Lack of security guards, and Broken or inadequate locks."