Getson v. Edifice Lounge, Inc.
72 Ill. Dec. 826, 117 Ill. App. 3d 707, 453 N.E.2d 131 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty to protect invitees from the criminal acts of third parties arises only when those acts are reasonably foreseeable, which requires more than the third party's group affiliation or possession of a weapon; there must be specific conduct to put the owner on notice that the particular individual poses a likely danger.
Facts:
- On May 15, 1980, plaintiffs Getson and Churnovic were patrons at the Edifice Lounge during a 'Punk Rock' night.
- Members of the 'Outlaws' motorcycle gang, including Ronald Talmadge, were also in the crowded bar.
- The bar owner, Mr. DeAcetis, saw that some 'Outlaws' members were wearing buck knives on their belts but allowed them to remain, stating that 'people wear knives all the time.'
- DeAcetis required one gang member to remove a jacket with the 'Outlaws' insignia but did not ask them to remove their knives.
- As Getson was leaving, he bumped into Talmadge in a crowded foyer and they exchanged hostile words.
- The confrontation moved immediately outside, where Talmadge drew his knife and attacked Getson in the parking lot area, stabbing him twice within 30 to 60 seconds.
- Churnovic, upon hearing of the fight, went outside to observe and was stabbed by a different member of the 'Outlaws' gang.
Procedural Posture:
- Getson and Churnovic filed a lawsuit in the trial court against the Edifice Lounge and Ronald Talmadge.
- The claims against the Edifice Lounge alleged negligent and wilful and wanton conduct for failing to protect them.
- Following a trial, a jury returned verdicts in favor of both plaintiffs and against the Edifice Lounge, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
- The jury also found plaintiff Getson to be 10% contributorily negligent, reducing his compensatory award accordingly.
- The Edifice Lounge, as the appellant, appealed the judgment entered against it to the Illinois Appellate 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 owner have a legal duty to protect its patrons from a criminal attack by a third party when the owner had no notice of the specific attacker's violent tendencies, even though the attacker was a member of a motorcycle gang and was visibly armed with a knife?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Heiple
No. A landowner's duty to protect invitees from criminal attacks by third persons exists only when such attacks are reasonably foreseeable. Foreseeability requires more than a mere possibility of occurrence; it must be based on what a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen as likely to happen. The court reasoned that the mere presence of motorcycle gang members carrying knives was not sufficient to make an attack reasonably foreseeable, as belonging to such a group or carrying a knife does not make a person per se dangerous. The court distinguished this case from precedents where a defendant had prior notice of trouble, emphasizing there was no evidence that DeAcetis knew Talmadge was a troublemaker or had caused problems before the incident. Once the fight began, the court found DeAcetis acted reasonably by securing the premises and attempting to call the police, as the event unfolded too quickly for any further intervention to be effective.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'foreseeability' standard required to impose a duty on landowners to protect invitees from third-party criminal acts. It establishes that foreseeability cannot be based on stereotypes related to a person's appearance, group affiliation, or the legal possession of a weapon. The ruling raises the bar for plaintiffs, requiring them to demonstrate that the property owner had notice of specific conduct by the particular assailant that would indicate a propensity for violence. This precedent protects business owners from liability for sudden, unpredictable criminal acts and prevents the imposition of a duty based on prejudice or generalized fears about certain groups of people.
Unlock the full brief for Getson v. Edifice Lounge, Inc.