Gould v. Taco Bell
1986 Kan. LEXIS 381, 239 Kan. 564, 722 P.2d 511 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A proprietor of a business has an affirmative duty to protect patrons from reasonably foreseeable harm by third parties, and a breach of this duty, such as a managerial employee's wanton failure to act, can subject the business to liability for both actual and punitive damages.
Facts:
- On the evening of July 13, 1983, Rosie Gould and her friend stopped at a Taco Bell restaurant around 11:30 p.m.
- Another group of patrons, including Karen Brown, began engaging in loud, crude, and vulgar conversation.
- A Taco Bell employee's request for the group to quiet down was ignored, and the conversation grew louder.
- As Brown's group prepared to leave, Brown verbally insulted Gould, who responded by asking Brown to repeat herself.
- Brown then rushed to Gould's booth and struck her in the face with a clenched fist, initiating a physical assault.
- The restaurant's assistant manager, Mark Wills, witnessed the altercation but did not intervene or call the police, stating he did not want to get involved.
- Wills commented to Brown, "Why don’t you just leave? You did this two weeks before in here," indicating prior knowledge of her disruptive behavior.
- The assault continued inside the restaurant and then moved into the parking lot, and Wills only called the police after Gould's friend threatened to jump the counter to use the phone herself.
Procedural Posture:
- Rosie Gould filed a civil action against Taco Bell in Kansas district court (trial court) for negligence.
- Taco Bell moved to join the assailant, Karen Brown, as a party for comparison of fault, but the trial court denied the motion.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Gould 49% at fault and Taco Bell 51% at fault, awarding $500 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.
- Taco Bell, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Kansas.
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 restaurant owner have a duty to protect a patron from a sudden assault by another patron, where its employee was aware of the escalating conflict but failed to intervene or summon police?
Opinions:
Majority - Herd, J.
Yes. A business proprietor owes a duty of reasonable care to its invitees, which includes protecting them from foreseeable harm caused by third parties. Taco Bell breached this duty when its assistant manager, with knowledge of an impending danger and the assailant's prior history of similar conduct, failed to take reasonable steps, such as calling the police, to prevent or mitigate the assault on Gould. The court reasoned that a proprietor's duty arises when a 'sequence of conduct' is sufficient to put a prudent person on notice of potential danger, which occurred here. Furthermore, the court held that comparing the proprietor's negligence with the third party's intentional tort is improper under the state's comparative fault statute. Finally, the manager's conscious failure to act despite recognizing the 'imminence of danger' constituted wanton conduct, which supports an award of punitive damages against the corporation because he was a managerial employee acting within the scope of his employment.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a business's duty to protect patrons from third-party harm is not limited to situations with extensive prior warning but can arise from a short 'sequence of conduct' that makes danger foreseeable. It significantly affirms that a managerial employee's omission or failure to act can be deemed 'wanton,' justifying punitive damages against the corporate employer. The ruling also creates a clear distinction under Kansas law, refusing to allow the comparison of a defendant's negligence with an assailant's intentional tort under comparative fault principles, thereby preventing defendants from reducing their liability by blaming the direct perpetrator of the harm they had a duty to prevent.
