Christen v. Lee
1989 Wash. LEXIS 121, 113 Wash.2d 479, 780 P.2d 1307 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A commercial vendor of alcohol is not liable for a patron's subsequent criminal assault unless the vendor had prior notice of the patron's violent propensities. However, a vendor does have a separate duty to supervise its premises and intervene to protect patrons from reasonably foreseeable harm occurring on the premises.
Facts:
- Case 1: Christen v. Lee (South China Doll)
- Robert S. Christen was a patron at the South China Doll Restaurant bar until it closed near 2 a.m.
- Upon exiting the restroom in the lobby, Christen was confronted by three other patrons, including Rolando Visitación.
- The patrons screamed at, punched, and brandished a gun at Christen, telling him to leave.
- Multiple China Doll employees, including a uniformed security guard, witnessed the commotion in the lobby and recognized the potential for a fight but did not intervene.
- Immediately after being escorted out, Christen was shot in the head by Visitación on the walkway leading to the parking lot.
- Visitación was a regular patron, and while some employees suspected he carried a gun, he had never exhibited violent propensities at the restaurant before this incident.
- Case 2: Long v. Coates (R.F. McDougall's)
- Steven K. Coates, age 20, consumed 12-15 beers before arriving at R.F. McDougall's drinking establishment.
- At McDougall's, staff served Coates several more drinks while he was, according to a waitress, 'very drunk.'
- During his time at the bar, Coates may have shown a switchblade knife to the bartender, who was a friend.
- After leaving McDougall's, Coates drove his car at a high speed, struck another vehicle, and was pursued by Matt Long, an off-duty patrolman who witnessed the collision.
- After both men pulled over and exited their vehicles, Coates ran after Long and stabbed him twice in the back.
- Coates had no history of exhibiting vicious propensities at McDougall's prior to this incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Christen v. Lee: Robert Christen sued the South China Doll Restaurant in Superior Court (trial court). The trial court granted summary judgment for the China Doll. Christen (as appellant) appealed, and the Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed. The China Doll (as petitioner) appealed to the Washington Supreme Court (highest court).
- Long v. Coates: Matt Long sued R.F. McDougall's in Superior Court (trial court). The trial court granted summary judgment for McDougall's. Long (as appellant) appealed, and the Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed. Long (as petitioner) appealed to the Washington Supreme Court (highest court).
- The Washington Supreme Court consolidated the two cases for review.
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 commercial drinking establishment's duty to not serve an obviously intoxicated patron extend to liability for a subsequent criminal assault committed by that patron, when the establishment had no prior notice of the patron's violent propensities?
Opinions:
Majority - Andersen, J.
No. A commercial drinking establishment's duty to refrain from serving an obviously intoxicated person does not, by itself, create liability for a subsequent criminal assault by that person. Such liability attaches only if the assault was foreseeable, which requires that the establishment had notice of the patron's violent propensities from prior actions. The court reasoned that driver error is a foreseeable consequence of over-serving alcohol, but an intentional criminal assault is not within the general field of danger covered by that duty. Mere knowledge that a patron possesses a weapon is insufficient to provide notice of violent intent. Therefore, McDougall's is not liable for Coates' assault on Long. However, the China Doll may be liable to Christen under its separate duty to supervise its premises and protect patrons from foreseeable harm. The confrontation that began inside the China Doll's lobby put the establishment on notice of a potential assault, creating a duty to intervene, and whether its failure to do so was a proximate cause of Christen's injury is a question for a jury.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Utter, J.
Yes, as to the Long v. Coates case. The majority incorrectly decides as a matter of law that the criminal assault was unforeseeable, thus improperly taking the question away from the jury. Reasonable minds could differ as to whether an establishment that serves an obviously intoxicated minor, knowing he possesses a switchblade, could foresee a resulting violent act. The combination of alcohol and a weapon creates a foreseeable risk of harm. The dissent argues that the court's duty is to develop the common law and that the majority's refusal to find potential liability here is an abdication of that duty. The dissent concurs with the majority's result in the Christen case.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and narrows the scope of liability for commercial vendors of alcohol in Washington. It establishes a crucial distinction between the foreseeable harm of negligence (like a car accident) and the generally unforeseeable harm of an intentional criminal act. By requiring 'notice of violent propensities,' the court shields establishments from becoming strict insurers for any violent crime a patron might commit after being served. At the same time, the ruling reinforces the independent and well-established duty of a business to maintain safety on its premises, holding that an owner cannot ignore a visible, escalating conflict and escape liability simply because the final injury occurs just outside the physical building.
