BABRAB, INC., D/B/A THE GEMINI CLUB AND NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
PEARL ALLEN, APPELLEE
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 owner appeals the denial of his directed verdict motion in a negligence suit filed by a bar patron who was attacked by another patron in the parking lot. The court reversed, holding that a bar owner is not liable for unprovoked attacks by patrons absent notice of the specific danger and opportunity to prevent it.
A bar owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care for patron protection but is not an insurer of patrons' safety. The owner is not liable for a patron's conduct causing injury to another patron unless the owner has notice of the specific danger involved and an opportunity to protect against it. Absent evidence that the attacker had previously created disturbances at the bar or given warning of violence on the particular night, the directed verdict should have been granted.
[1] A tavern owner is not liable for injuries to a patron caused by another patron's conduct unless the owner had notice of the danger and an opportunity to protect against i…
[2] A tavern owner's duty to protect patrons does not extend to insuring their safety.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 owner or operator of a hotel has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of its patrons. However, such owner or operator is not an insurer of the safety of its patrons. Nor is the owner or operator liable for the conduct of another on his premises which causes injury to a business invitee unless the owner or operator has notice of the danger involved and an opportunity to protect against it.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for premises liability of bar/hotel owners regarding patron safety
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA bar patron was attacked by another patron in the bar's parking lot after departing the establishment. The attacker had never previously created a di…
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.
PER CURIAM.
A tavern owner appeals the denial of his motion for a directed verdict in a suit filed against him by one bar patron who was attacked by another. We reverse.
There is no evidence whatever in the record that the attacker had ever before created a disturbance at or near this bar. Even on the evening in question, there was no suggestion of anticipated violence. The victim admitted that the attacker had made no threatening remarks prior to the attack on her which occurred, as she admitted, totally unexpectedly after she had departed the bar and was out in the parking lot en route to her automobile.
All this being so and without further discussion, we are of the opinion that the controlling law of this case is as stated in Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Worth v. Stahl, 388 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) and Highlands Insurance Company v. Gilday, 398 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
We note that the trial judge did not have the benefit of the last of these three cited cases at time of trial wherein Judge Dow-ney, speaking for the court, said:
The owner or operator of a hotel has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of its patrons. However, such owner or operator is not an insurer of the safety of its patrons. Nor is the owner or operator liable for the conduct of another on his premises which causes injury to a business invitee unless the owner or operator has notice of the danger involved and an opportunity to protect against it. (citations omitted) Id. at 835.
The victim argues that the two bartenders, who had known the attacker since he was a child, had knowledge that the attacker “had a reputation as a troublemaker and a fighter.” However, as we have already noted there is absolutely no evidence in the record that he had ever made trouble at this or any other bar, and there was no warning that he would do so on this particular night.
Accordingly, we hold that the motion for directed verdict should have been granted and this cause is remanded for the entry of a final judgment in favor of the tavern owner in accordance herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, C. J., and MOORE and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., 458 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1984)…EHRLICH, Justice. Petitioner seeks review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal, Spillers v. Hall, 428 So. 2d 268 (1982) on the grounds of direct and express interdistrict conflict. Babrab, Inc. v. Allen, 408 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); we have since quashed Babrab, 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla.1983). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. We quash the decision of the district court and remand the case to that court for…
-
Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1983)…McDONALD, Justice. We accepted jurisdiction in this case because the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Babrab, Inc. v. Allen, 408 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), appeared to conflict with Stevens v. Jefferson, 408 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), which we have now approved. Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1983). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the F…
-
Spillers v. Hall, 428 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…unning toward” appellee. The owner of a tavern has a duty to maintain the tavern 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. Bahrab, Inc. v. Allen, 408 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Worth v. Stahl, 388 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Here, however, there is no evidence to support a finding that Billy Jack’s knew or should have known that Spillers would attack appellee without provocation. As stated in Highl…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Highlands Ins. Co. v. Gilday, 398 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Worth v. Stahl, 388 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)