Lutz v. Goodlife Entertainment, Inc.
567 N.E.2d 477, 153 Ill. Dec. 519, 208 Ill. App. 3d 565 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner has no duty to protect patrons from the sudden and unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties unless there are special circumstances, such as prior incidents, that would make such an act reasonably foreseeable.
Facts:
- Robert I. Lutz was a patron at Goodlife, a nightclub in Chicago.
- While on the dance floor, Lutz casually bumped into an unknown man.
- Lutz immediately apologized to the man and continued dancing.
- The unknown man, without any threats or warnings, suddenly hit Lutz in the nose with a single blow.
- No one associated with Goodlife was notified of the initial bump, as it appeared to be a minor and common occurrence.
- Prior to the attack, the assailant had not displayed any aggression, hostility, or given any indication he would cause trouble.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert I. Lutz filed a two-count complaint against Goodlife Entertainment, Inc. in the circuit court of Cook County (trial court).
- Goodlife moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to Lutz.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Goodlife.
- Lutz, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order 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 nightclub have a duty to protect a patron from a sudden, spontaneous criminal attack by another patron when there were no prior warnings or indications of the assailant's dangerous propensities?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Manning
No. A business owner's duty to protect invitees does not extend to sudden criminal attacks by third parties that are not reasonably foreseeable. The general rule is that a landowner has no duty to protect persons from the criminal acts of third parties unless a special relationship, like that of a business inviter and invitee, exists. However, even with this relationship, a duty only arises if the criminal act was reasonably foreseeable, not merely possible. Here, the assault was a spontaneous reaction to a casual bump on a crowded dance floor. There was no evidence of prior similar incidents at the nightclub, nor did the assailant exhibit any prior aggression that would put Goodlife on notice of his dangerous propensities. The assailant's criminal act was an unforeseeable, superseding cause of the injury, breaking the causal chain from any alleged negligence by the nightclub (such as allowing an overcrowded dance floor).
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high threshold for establishing foreseeability in premises liability claims involving third-party criminal acts. The decision clarifies that general conditions, such as a crowded venue, are insufficient on their own to make a specific, violent attack foreseeable. By requiring evidence of prior similar incidents or specific knowledge of an individual's dangerousness, the court limits the scope of a business owner's duty, protecting them from liability for spontaneous and unpredictable violence. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in such cases without concrete evidence that the business was on notice of a specific threat.
Unlock the full brief for Lutz v. Goodlife Entertainment, Inc.