VERNON LEE WORTH, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD P. STAHL, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A DUTCHMAN'S RATHSKELLER LOUNGE, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A tavern patron sued the tavern owner for injuries sustained in an assault by other patrons, appealing a summary judgment in favor of the owner. The court held that a tavern owner owes customers a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises and supervise against foreseeable risks, but is not an insurer of patron safety against unforeseeable violent acts.
A tavern owner owes invitees a duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition and to exercise reasonable care in supervising patrons to prevent injuries from risks known to the operator or that should be known through reasonable care. However, the owner is not liable for injuries caused by unforeseeable violent acts of another patron.
[1] A property owner generally has no duty to protect individuals on the premises from criminal attacks by third parties.
[2] A duty to protect against criminal acts may arise when there is a special relationship between the parties or the owner has prior knowledge of the danger.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The operator of a place of public entertainment owes his invitees the duty to use due care to maintain his premises in a reasonably safe condition commensurate with the activities conducted thereon. This includes a duty to exercise reasonable care to supervise the patrons for the purpose of preventing injuries the risk of which was known to the operator or by the exercise of reasonable care should have been known to him.”
Establishes the applicable standard of care for tavern owners—a duty to maintain safe premises and supervise against known or foreseeable risks.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff entered the tavern, left, and returned later. After a discussion with patron Howard Hunt, the plaintiff went to the restroom. Upon exiti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Personal Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
The plaintiff in the trial court sued the owner of a tavern for personal injuries incurred when attacked by another patron. He appeals a final summary judgment in favor of the tavern owner. The sole issue in this appeal involves the standard of care owed by a tavern owner to his customers. Appellant contends that the standard is one of a general duty to protect. Appellee argues that the standard is one of a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, free from those risks which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care, should be known to the owner. Under the facts of this case we agree with the appellee and affirm.
Appellant entered appellee’s tavern, left, and returned sometime later in the evening. After a discussion with one Howard Hunt, he resumed sitting at the bar and then went to the rest room. Upon leaving the rest room he was accosted by Hunt and four or five others who physically assaulted him. He sued the owner for damages and alleged negligence in the following paraphrased particulars:
(a) the owner allowed strangers on the premises when he knew or should have known they were prone to violence toward other patrons, (b) the owner served intoxicating beverages to strangers whom he knew or should have known were prone to violence after partaking of the beverages,
(c) the owner allowed strangers to remain on the premises after they became violent toward other patrons,
(d) the owner failed to aid the plaintiff when he was assaulted, and
(e) the owner failed by exercise reasonable care in protecting the plaintiff from assault by the strangers mentioned above.
Immediately prior to the commencement of trial, the plaintiff sought a ruling from the court on the applicable law. After obtaining a preliminary oral ruling from the court, the plaintiff, in an unusual move, asked for an involuntary dismissal of his suit for the purpose of appealing that ruling. That appeal was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the trial court set aside its oral ruling and the involuntary dismissal, and upon stipulation of counsel, granted the summary judgment from which this appeal stems.
The applicable law regarding the standard of care required of owners of places open for public entertainment is stated succinctly in Warner v. Florida Jai Alai, Inc., 221 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), cert. discharged, 235 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1970):
The operator of a place of public entertainment owes his invitees the duty to use due care to maintain his premises in a reasonably safe condition commensurate with the activities conducted thereon. This includes a duty to exercise reasonable care to supervise the patrons for the purpose of preventing injuries the risk of which was known to the operator or by the exercise of reasonable care should have been known to him. The duty to supervise does not, however, require the operator to furnish each patron with an usher or to guard against the risk created by a specific patron, unless the operator has actual or constructive knowledge of the need for specific supervision and a reasonable opportunity to exercise it. Otherwise, the operator would be in the position of an insuror of the safety of his patrons, (citations omitted). Id at 778.
The appellant conceded to the trial court that he had no proof of the appel-lee’s knowledge of the violent character of Hunt, or that the appellee should have known it. Instead, he argues that there is a general duty to use reasonable care to protect the patrons. We agree that such a duty does, indeed exist; however, the owner of a public place is not liable in damages to one who is injured by the unforeseen, violent acts of another. There was simply no proof that Hunt's acts were foreseeable.
We are urged to adopt the dissent in Warner, supra. This we cannot do. See, Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973). Furthermore, we are not concerned with liability for the acts of an intoxicated person because there was no proof, or suggestion, of such intoxication.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1983)…t court’s order of affirmance reads in its entirety as follows: PER CURIAM. See Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. P.D.R., 402 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). But see Worth v. Stahl, 388 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Warner v. Florida Jai Alai, 221 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), cert. discharged, 235 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1970), which we deem to be in conflict with this decision. AFFIRMED. [*36] Stevens v. Jefferson, 408 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 5th DCA…
-
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…86 (Fla.1984); Highlands Ins. Co. v. Gilday, 398 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 411 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1981); Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), overruled on other grounds, 493 So. 2d 1002 at 1005 (Fla.1986); Worth v. Stahl, 388 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); and Gottschalk v. Smith, 334 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.1976). Appellants rely upon this line of cases, specifically Relyea, Worth and Gottschalk, for the proposition that a landowner must have…
-
Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. P. D. R., 402 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…le Inns Assoc. Ltd. It cannot be said that there was a complete absence of probative facts to support the jury’s conclusion. See Yamada v. Hilton Hotel Corp., 17 Ill.Dec. at 233, 376 N.E. 2d at 232. Appellants rely on cases such as Worth v. Stahl, 388 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), Burnsed v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 393 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) and Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), but they are all distinguishable. In Worth, unlike the case sub judice, there was no proof that the violent…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Warner v. Fla. JAI Alai, Inc., 221 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Warner v. Fla. JAI Alai, Inc., 235 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1970)