EUGENE HALL, PETITIONER,
v.
BILLY JACK'S, INC., RESPONDENT
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.
Eugene Hall sought damages against Billy Jack's Lounge for injuries sustained in an assault by another patron. The Florida Supreme Court reversed a district court decision that had rejected Hall's negligence claim, holding that a tavern owner owes business visitors a duty of reasonable care and that foreseeability of harm is a question for the jury.
A tavern owner owes business visitors a duty of reasonable care against reasonably foreseeable risks of harm, including risks of assault. Foreseeability may be established by showing actual or constructive knowledge of an assailant's violent propensities or of dangerous conditions on the premises. The question of foreseeability is for the trier of fact, not the court.
[1] A tavern owner owes business visitors a duty of reasonable care for their safety, which includes a duty to protect against reasonably foreseeable risks.
[2] Foreseeability of harm to a patron may be established by proving the proprietor's actual or constructive knowledge of a particular assailant's inclination toward violence…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A tavern owner is not required to protect the patron from every conceivable risk; he owes only a duty to protect against those risks which are reasonably foreseeable.”
Establishes the standard of care owed by tavern owners to patrons
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEugene Hall was assaulted at Billy Jack's Lounge on November 9, 1978, by another patron, Wayne Spillers, who struck him with a pool cue taken from the…
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 Foreseeability Of Risk cases and more on FLexlaw
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 reconsideration.
' As Eugene Hall watched a pool game in Billy Jack’s Lounge on November 9, 1978, he was assaulted by another lounge patron. The fight moved outside. When it was over Hall rose to his feet and turned to face Wayne Spillers, a lounge patron, and George McGuire, the lounge manager. Spillers hit Hall over the head with a pool cue he had taken from the lounge in violation of posted rules. Hall testified that the blow was without provocation; Spillers testified that it was in self-defense. Hall sought damages against Billy Jack’s for the November 9 assault on a negligence theory.
The jury found in favor of Hall and against Billy Jack’s on all issues and awarded Hall $240,000 against Spillers and Billy Jack’s jointly.
The district court affirmed as to Spillers but reversed as to Billy Jack’s. The court held that Billy Jack’s was not shown to have breached its duty to Hall in that no evidence supported a finding that Billy Jack’s knew or should have known that Spillers would attack Hall without provocation.
Although some of the facts are disputed, the parties agree on all material points. Hall was a business visitor in Billy Jack’s Lounge; the lounge owes business visitors a duty of reasonable care for their safety. A tavern owner is not required to protect the patron from every conceivable risk; he owes only a duty to protect against those risks which are reasonably foreseeable. Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1983).
Forseeability may be established by proving that a proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of a particular assailant’s inclination toward violence or by proving that the proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on his premises that was likely to cause harm to a patron. Fernan dez v. Miami Jai Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).
A dangerous condition may be indicated if, according to past experience (i.e., reputation of the tavern), there is a likelihood of disorderly conduct by third persons in general which might endanger the safety of patrons or if security staffing is inadequate. These indicia are not exhaustive. If the lounge management knew or should have known of a general or specific risk to Hall and failed to take reasonable steps to guard against that risk and if, because of that failure, Hall was injured, Billy Jack’s may be shown to have breached its duty and may be held financially responsible for Hall’s injuries. The question of foreseeability is for the trier of fact. Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, 386 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1980).
We note that the case against Billy Jack’s, Inc. was tried on a theory of liability more narrow than that which we enunciated in Babrab and Stevens. The district court, before Babrab had issued from this Court, overturned the plaintiffs verdict against the tavern in reliance on the Fourth District’s decision in Babrab which we quashed. In relying on a rule it considered to be dispositive, the district court below did not reach other issues which may affect the appellate disposition of this case.
We therefore remand this case to the district court for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decisions in Babrab and Stevens.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (31 total)
-
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…t have knowledge of prior, similar criminal acts in order to impose a duty to protect invitees from criminal acts of a third person. However, since these cases were decided, the Florida Supreme Court has held differently. Hall v. Billy Jack’s, Inc., 458 So. 2d 760 (Fla.1984); Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla.1983); Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1983). In Stevens, the widow of a bar patron who was shot and killed in a bar by another patron brought an action against the bar owner. Plaintif…1 / 2
-
Merrill Crossings Assocs. v. McDONALD, 705 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1997)…ent tortfeasors such as in the instant case should not be permitted to reduce their liability by shifting it to another tortfeasor whose intentional criminal conduct was a foreseeable result of their negligence. See, e.g., Hall v. Billy Jack’s, Inc, 458 So. 2d 760 (Fla.1984) (lounge proprietor owes its patrons the duty to protect them from reasonably foreseeable harm); Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apts., Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (the deliberate act of the rapist and murderer did not constitute an…
-
Hancock v. Dep't OF Corr., 585 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…es with knowledge of the condition of the broken handrail, the Department also owed a duty to persons such as Hancock to protect them from reasonably foreseeable risks, even though he was aware of the dangerous condition. Hall v. Billy Jack’s, Inc., 458 So. 2d 760, 761-762 (Fla.1984); Kolosky v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 472 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So. 2d 350 (Fla.1986). Hancock is in the position of an invitee, so although his knowledge of the defective stairway could discharge the De…
Previewing 3 of 31 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gibson v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 386 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1980)
- Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1983)
- Agustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1983)
- Babrab, Inc. v. Allen, 408 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Spillers v. Hall, 428 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)