Boyd v. Racine Currency Exchange, Inc.
306 N.E.2d 39 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business proprietor has no legal duty to accede to a criminal's demands in order to protect a business invitee, as imposing such a duty would be contrary to public policy by encouraging hostage-taking and benefiting criminals.
Facts:
- John Boyd was a customer inside the Racine Currency Exchange for the purpose of transacting business.
- An armed robber entered the establishment.
- The robber seized Boyd and placed a pistol to his head.
- The robber threatened to kill Boyd unless the teller, Blanche Murphy, either gave him money or opened the door.
- Murphy was positioned behind a bulletproof glass window and partition.
- Murphy did not comply with the robber's demands; instead, she fell to the floor.
- The robber then shot and killed Boyd.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against Racine Currency Exchange and Blanche Murphy in the circuit court of Cook County (trial court).
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The defendants, as appellants, were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a business proprietor owe a duty to a business invitee to comply with a criminal's demands when non-compliance might subject the invitee to harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Ryan, J.
No. A business proprietor does not owe a duty to an invitee to comply with the demands of a criminal. The court employed a balancing test, weighing the likelihood of injury, the burden of guarding against it, and the consequences of imposing the duty. It concluded that imposing a duty to comply with criminal demands would not guarantee an invitee's safety and would create a dangerous public policy that encourages criminals to use hostages, giving them additional leverage. The court reasoned that the only party that would clearly benefit from such a rule is the criminal, and for the protection of future business invitees, the law cannot afford to give criminals another weapon.
Dissenting - Goldenhersh, J.
Yes. A business proprietor may owe a duty to an invitee under these circumstances, and whether that duty was breached is a question of fact for a jury. The dissent argued that the majority improperly decided the case on the pleadings by engaging in 'pure conjecture' about the outcome of compliance. It contended that whether the defendants' actions proximately caused the death and whether the teller acted with ordinary prudence under the circumstances are questions of fact that should be decided by a jury, not dismissed by a court as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant public policy exception to a business's general duty to protect its patrons from foreseeable harm. By ruling as a matter of law that no duty to comply with criminal demands exists, the court prioritizes the broader societal interest in deterring crime over an individual's safety in a specific hostage situation. This precedent makes it extremely difficult for plaintiffs in similar situations to succeed on a negligence claim, as it removes the essential 'duty' element required to bring the case before a jury. It solidifies the legal principle that a business owner's right to resist a crime and protect property is not superseded by a duty to protect a patron from a criminal's reaction to that resistance.
Unlock the full brief for Boyd v. Racine Currency Exchange, Inc.