Lewis v. Razzberries, Inc.
222 Ill. App. 3d 843, 584 N.E.2d 437, 165 Ill. Dec. 258 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner's duty to protect patrons from the criminal acts of third parties generally does not extend beyond the legal boundaries of the premises. A business does not voluntarily assume a duty of protection through a courtesy policy unless it affirmatively acts, and liability will not attach for nonfeasance.
Facts:
- On December 11, 1984, Shara B. Lewis and Josephine Jardine went to Razzberries Lounge.
- Jardine's ex-boyfriend, Edward Siegelman, was at the tavern, appeared depressed, and repeatedly approached Jardine.
- Inside the tavern, Siegelman made threatening remarks to Jardine, including "I'm going to shoot you when you leave here," and grabbed her arm.
- Jardine, feeling annoyed but not afraid, did not inform any Razzberries employees of Siegelman's specific threats.
- A bartender, Norman Richko, observed Siegelman's increasingly loud and angry interactions with Jardine and intervened, telling Siegelman to leave her alone.
- As the women prepared to leave, Richko considered arranging an escort but was busy; the women decided not to wait and left without requesting assistance.
- Jardine and Lewis walked to Jardine's car, which was parked in an unpaved area 23 feet off Razzberries' property and within the public right-of-way.
- At the car, Siegelman appeared, pounded on the window, and during a subsequent struggle while leaning into the car, his gun discharged, fatally wounding Lewis.
Procedural Posture:
- Allan B. Lewis, special administrator of the estate of Shara B. Lewis, filed a wrongful death complaint based on negligence against Razzberries, Inc. in the circuit court of Cook County, an Illinois trial court.
- Razzberries filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Razzberries, finding the tavern owed no duty of care beyond its premises.
- Lewis, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Appellate Court of Illinois.
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 tavern owner owe a duty of care to protect a patron from the fatal criminal act of a third party when the act occurs in an adjacent area not owned or controlled by the tavern?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McNamara
No, a tavern owner does not owe a duty of care to protect a patron from a criminal act that occurs off the tavern's premises. Under Illinois law, a landowner's duty to protect business invitees from the acts of third persons is limited to harms that occur 'while they are upon the land.' The court distinguished this case from those involving unsafe ingress or egress, emphasizing that the duty of care does not extend beyond the owner's legal property boundaries for criminal attacks. The court also rejected the argument that Razzberries voluntarily assumed a duty, reasoning that its failure to provide an unrequested escort constituted nonfeasance (failure to act), not misfeasance (negligent action), and therefore did not create liability. Finally, the court found the fatal attack was not reasonably foreseeable to the tavern staff, as they were unaware of the specific death threat or that Siegelman was armed, and his prior conduct, while disruptive, was not enough to signal such a violent outcome.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'premises line' rule in Illinois tort law, strictly limiting a business owner's duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal attacks to events occurring within the business's property boundaries. It clarifies that a general courtesy policy, such as escorting patrons, does not create a universal, legally enforceable duty without a specific undertaking or request. The ruling reinforces the high bar for establishing foreseeability in such cases, requiring more than just knowledge of a heated argument to make a business liable for a sudden, violent criminal act. Consequently, it makes it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in negligence claims against businesses for off-premises injuries.
