Law, Business and Society 11th Edition by Tony McAdams

Exercise 54

Justice Hecht
Defendant-appellee Gutterz Bowl Lounge (Gutterz) is a bowling alley and tavern located in Guthrie Center, Iowa. On March 20, 2009, Curtis Hoyt and several members of his construction crew finished work and went to Gutterz for refreshments. Curtis Knapp was also a customer at Gutterz that afternoon. Hoyt soon came to believe that Knapp was scowling at him. Hoyt and Knapp had formerly been friendly, but tension had arisen between them as a result of Hoyt's alleged mistreatment of the sister of Knapp's friend.
[T]he staff of Gutterz had [no] knowledge of this history between Hoyt and Knapp.
After consuming a few beers, Hoyt and coworker Chris Brittain approached and verbally confronted Knapp. Knapp did not respond and continued to scowl at Hoyt. The waitress serving Hoyt and Brittain observed their behavior with concern and threatened to discontinue serving them unless they calmed down. Hoyt and Brittain ignored the waitress's warning, and thus she requested and secured permission from Gutterz's owner, Rodney Atkinson, to discontinue serving them. Atkinson, who had been preparing food in the kitchen, went to the bar area to assess the situation. Hoyt and Brittain complained to Atkinson that they were no longer being served and continued to taunt Knapp.
Shortly thereafter, Atkinson grew concerned that an altercation might occur. He requested that Hoyt and Brittain leave.
Hoyt finished his beer and exited the tavern. As Hoyt walked through the parking lot toward his vehicle, [Knapp]... struck him in the back of the head, knocking him unconscious. Hoyt suffered several injuries including a compound fracture of his ankle. Knapp admitted to police who later arrived on the scene that he had struck Hoyt, but claimed he had done so in self- defense.
Hoyt filed this action alleging that Knapp and Gutterz were liable for the injuries he sustained when Knapp assaulted him. Gutterz moved for summary judgment, alleging Gutterz owed Hoyt no duty of reasonable care, there was no evidence of a breach of any duty, and the assault by Knapp and Hoyt's injury were not foreseeable. The district court granted Gutterz's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Gutterz from the lawsuit.
The court of appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment ruling.
III.DISCUSSION
Hoyt contends the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that Gutterz did not breach a duty of reasonable care under these circumstances. Further, Hoyt contends, the district court erred in its consideration of foreseeability of injury to Hoyt in making its summary judgment ruling.
A. Duty
[T]he determination of whether a duty is owed under particular circumstances is a matter of law for the court's determination.
Traditionally... a property owner "is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care until he knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur."
That general proposition was subject to the caveat that a duty would be imposed in scenarios where the property owner knew or had reason to know of a likelihood of third party conduct that could endanger visitors or where the place or character of the business was such that the property owner should reasonably anticipate careless or criminal conduct by third parties.
Recently... we examined a scenario in which the trampoline of a landowner had been blown by high winds into a nearby roadway, obstructing the travel of and causing injury to a driver-We questioned and then rejected an assessment of foreseeability of risk in determining whether the landowner owed the driver a duty.
Instead... no-duty rulings should be limited to exceptional cases in which "an articulated countervailing principle or policy warrants denying or limiting liability in a particular class of cases."
Removing foreseeability from the duty analysis, we must consider whether some principle or strong policy consideration justifies exempting Gutterz, or the class of tavern owners in general, from the duty to exercise reasonable care … [W]e cannot discern … any such considerations compelling exemption of tavern owners from the duty.
Accordingly, we conclude Gutterz owed Hoyt a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances presented here. We now turn to the question of whether Hoyt raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the alleged breach of this duty.
B. Reasonable Care
While taverns are not insurers of patrons' safety against third-person criminal attacks, various jurisdictions have explained taverns must make reasonable efforts to maintain order and supervise and control patrons.
That a tavern may create a physical environment where instances of misconduct are likely to take place raises converging questions of reasonable care and the appropriate scope of liability for the defendant.... In a tavern, for example, the environment may foreseeably bring about the misconduct of a third party, resulting in injury to a plaintiff. While the foreseeability of misconduct raises an issue of the appropriate level of care, it also raises the issue of whether the harm suffered by the plaintiff is within the range of risks that may make the defendant's conduct neg­ligent in failing to exercise that care.
Here, the district court found that Gutterz exercised reasonable care as a matter of law, based largely on the notion that the information available to Gutterz at the time failed to suggest any possibility of harm to Hoyt.
[W]e disagree that the record established as a matter of law that an injury to Hoyt was unforeseeable. Gutterz's duty of reasonable care applied... to risks arising from Hoyt's conduct, as well as those created by a third party's conduct, whether innocent, negligent, or intentional.
[B]ars are business venues in which alcohol-fueled disturbances causing injury and even death are known to occur.
Given the.… general tenor of bar behavior, and Atkinson's own testimony regarding concern about a physical altercation, we conclude that a reasonable person might find the risk of harm to Hoyt foreseeable. Accordingly, that Hoyt may have initiated the conflict cannot serve as the basis for summary judgment that Gutterz acted reasonably under the circumstances.
Hoyt contends that Gutterz could have exercised reasonable care by any of the following: (1) calling the police when the conflict developed, (2) escorting Hoyt to his vehicle in the parking lot, or (3) verifying that Knapp was not lying in wait in the parking lot. Gutterz contends that it did escort Hoyt to his vehicle, and that its precautions here were reasonable as a matter of law… [Resolution of the factual dispute is best left to the fact finder....
[Reversed]
DISSENT
WATERMAN, Justice joined by Cady, C. J., and Mansfield, J.
I respectfully dissent.… Uncontroverted facts establish the defendant acted reasonably as a matter of law.
There is no evidence or claim that prior fights or third- party criminal acts showed a need for a bouncer or other security at Gutterz. Bars are not insurers strictly liable for injuries on their premises inflicted by others.
Having kicked out the troublemakers-Hoyt and his companion-what else should Gutterz have done How was the bar negligent The majority concludes a jury could find Gutterz negligent for failing to call the police. But, no crime had (yet) been committed, and Hoyt exited the bar when told to leave. Knapp was not threatening anyone or misbehaving in any way. At that point, why call the police From Gutterz's standpoint, the incident had been defused by Hoyt's departure. The majority also argues Atkinson should have done more to ensure Hoyt left the parking lot safely. This theory assumes Atkinson reasonably should have foreseen Knapp would attack Hoyt. Knapp had not so much as even raised his voice.
I would affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor of Gutterz.
Why did the Iowa Supreme Court conclude that Gutterz owed a duty of reasonable care to Hoyt According to the Court, when would a landowner not owe a duty of reasonable care to a plaintiff Describe a scenario in which a landowner would not owe -such a duty to an injured party.