Shortall v. Hawkeye's Bar and Grill
219 Ill. Dec. 90, 670 N.E.2d 768, 283 Ill. App. 3d 439 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner's duty to protect an invitee from a reasonably foreseeable criminal attack by a third party can extend beyond the physical premises when an altercation begins inside the business and escalates into a continuous event on a public way immediately adjacent to the premises.
Facts:
- James Shortall was at Hawkeye's Bar and Grill when three men began harassing his friend, Patricia Wald.
- Shortall intervened, leading to a verbal exchange with the men, which the bartender allegedly overheard.
- One of the men elbowed Shortall in the back and challenged him to "take it outside."
- The three men exited the tavern, and a few minutes later, Shortall also went outside by himself.
- The men confronted Shortall on the public way directly in front of the tavern's door and window.
- A fistfight ensued between Shortall and one of the men, which lasted approximately 15 minutes.
- The fight escalated as other patrons exited the bar and joined in, culminating in Louis Rodriguez stabbing Shortall multiple times.
Procedural Posture:
- James Shortall (plaintiff) sued Hawkeye’s Bar and its owner, Edward Claussen (defendants), in the circuit court of Cook County, a state trial court.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to protect Shortall off their premises.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Shortall (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the trial court's decision 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 tavern owner's duty to protect a patron from a foreseeable criminal attack by a third party extend beyond the tavern's premises to a public sidewalk directly outside, when the initial conflict began inside the tavern?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Buckley
Yes. A tavern owner's duty to protect patrons from foreseeable criminal attacks can extend beyond the physical premises, particularly when the altercation originates inside and continues directly outside the establishment. The court found that a tavern owner cannot avoid this duty simply because the disturbance crosses the property line, especially where the owner is aware of the conflict and may have contributed to its escalation by sending more patrons out into it. The court reasoned that since the dispute began in the bar, a challenge was issued to take it outside, and a brawl developed just outside the front door for 15 minutes while employees allegedly watched, the owner was under the same duty as if the fight had occurred inside. This situation is analogous to cases extending a business owner's duty to adjacent parking lots and is distinguishable from cases where the assault occurs a significant distance away.
Dissenting - Justice Wolfson
No. A business operator's duty to protect a customer should not extend to public sidewalks or streets. The established rule in Illinois limits the duty to the defendant's premises or a parking lot owned or operated by the defendant. The property line provides a reasonable and sensible distinction for the scope of the duty. Expanding this duty to a public sidewalk creates an unreasonable and unpredictable burden on the business operator. The dissent noted that Shortall was stabbed on a public sidewalk 15 minutes after he left the tavern by an individual who was not part of the initial altercation inside.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of premises liability for business owners in Illinois by rejecting a strict property-line test for determining the owner's duty of care. It establishes that a duty can follow a continuous and foreseeable altercation from inside the premises onto an adjacent public way. This ruling makes it more difficult for business owners to obtain summary judgment in cases where violence spills onto sidewalks or streets directly outside their establishments. Future litigation will likely focus on the proximity and foreseeability of the off-premises harm in relation to the events that transpired on the premises.
