Mostert v. CBL & Associates
56 U.S.L.W. 2128, 741 P.2d 1090, 1987 Wyo. LEXIS 488 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business possessor has an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its business invitees, which includes an obligation to warn them of known, foreseeable, off-premises dangers when the possessor has superior knowledge of the risk.
Facts:
- On August 1, 1985, Gerrit, Kay, and Kumi Maria Mostert were paying patrons at a movie theater operated by American Multi Cinema, Inc. (AMC).
- The theater was located within the Frontier Mall complex, which was owned by CBL & Associates (CBL).
- While the Mosterts were inside watching a movie, a severe thunderstorm caused major flash flooding in the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming.
- Local law enforcement and civil defense authorities issued severe flood warnings and demanded that citizens stay indoors and off the streets.
- AMC and CBL were both aware of the severe storm, the flooding, and the official warnings.
- The Mostert family was inside the theater and was not aware of the storm's severity or the official warnings.
- AMC did not inform or warn any of its patrons, including the Mosterts, of the dangerous conditions outside.
- After the movie, the Mosterts left the theater, drove their vehicle into floodwaters, and their seven-year-old daughter, Kumi Maria, drowned.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerrit Mostert, on behalf of the estate of Kumi Maria Mostert, filed a complaint alleging negligence against American Multi Cinema, Inc. (AMC) and CBL & Associates (CBL) in a Wyoming trial court.
- AMC filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The trial court granted AMC's motion and dismissed the complaint against it with prejudice.
- CBL filed a motion to dismiss that included affidavits and deposition excerpts.
- The trial court converted CBL's motion into one for summary judgment and granted it.
- Mostert, as appellant, appealed both the dismissal in favor of AMC and the summary judgment in favor of CBL to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
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 duty to warn its invitees of known, severe, and foreseeable off-premises dangers when the business possessor has superior knowledge of the risks?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, C.J.
Yes. A business owner has a duty to warn its invitees of known, severe off-premises dangers due to the special relationship between a business invitor and invitee and the invitor's superior knowledge. The court departed from the traditional rule limiting a landowner's duty to risks on the premises, holding that modern policy considerations require an expansion. Applying an eight-factor balancing test, the court determined that the harm was foreseeable, the burden on AMC to warn was minimal, and public policy favored preventing future harm. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for CBL, the mall owner, because as a landlord not in possession of the theater, it had no special relationship with the Mosterts and had fulfilled any potential duty by warning its tenant, AMC.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Thomas, J.
No. A business owner does not have a duty to warn patrons of dangerous conditions remote from and off the premises. This opinion argues that the majority's decision is a radical departure from established premises liability law, which rightly confines a proprietor's duty to dangers on the premises. The dissent contends that the danger arose from natural forces beyond AMC's control and that the doctrine of intervening cause should preclude liability. Creating such a boundless duty is impractical and stretches the legal theory of duty too far.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Cardine, J.
No. A business owner's duty to an invitee does not extend to dangerous conditions outside the premises and beyond the area of immediate ingress and egress. This dissent argues that the majority overrules established common law without proper precedent, incorrectly applying cases about dangerous persons to a case about premises conditions. A review of the majority's own policy factors—particularly the remoteness of the harm and the 'mind boggling' burden the new rule places on all businesses—weighs against finding a duty. The court is unwisely legislating a new rule that is not in the best interest of society.
Concurring - Urbgkit, J.
Yes. The duty is not an off-premises liability issue but rather a host's duty to communicate knowledge of an unusual and unexpected exit-time danger to a business invitee. The tort occurred within the theater when management, possessing life-protecting information, withheld it from patrons who were unaware of the severe risk they were about to face. The duty is a common-sense 'tell them what you know' standard of reasonable care that a jury is well-equipped to assess.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of premises liability in Wyoming by extending a business owner's duty of care beyond the physical boundaries of the property. It establishes that the 'special relationship' between a business and its invitees can create an affirmative duty to warn of known, foreseeable, off-premises dangers, particularly when the business possesses superior knowledge. The ruling creates a new potential avenue for litigation against businesses for external events, such as natural disasters or criminal acts, occurring near their location. Future cases will likely focus on defining the practical limits of this duty regarding the types of dangers and the proximity of the risk to the business.
