Stevens v. Jefferson
436 So.2d 33 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tavern owner's liability for injuries to a patron caused by a third party's intentional act does not require proof of the owner's knowledge of the specific assailant's dangerous propensities. Foreseeability can be established by showing the owner had actual or constructive knowledge, based on past incidents, of a general likelihood of disorderly conduct by third persons that could endanger patrons.
Facts:
- James Stevens owned and operated a bar.
- The bar had a history of numerous prior shootings and fights, making it a 'rough' place.
- Stevens had terminated all security services at the establishment.
- Stevens failed to train or equip his employees to maintain order and left a female employee in charge who was unable to do so.
- Earl Sidney Jefferson, a patron at the bar, was shot and killed by a fellow patron.
- Stevens did not have specific knowledge of the dangerous propensities of Jefferson's particular assailant.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Jefferson, as personal representative of the estate of Earl Sidney Jefferson, sued James Stevens in a Florida trial court for negligence.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Jefferson.
- Stevens, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida, an intermediate appellate court.
- The district court of appeal issued a per curiam affirmance, upholding the trial court's judgment for Jefferson, the appellee.
- Stevens then petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court, for review.
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 the element of foreseeability, required to hold a tavern owner liable for injuries to a patron by a third party, require proof that the owner knew of the specific assailant's dangerous propensities?
Opinions:
Majority - McDonald, J.
No. The element of foreseeability does not require proof that the owner knew of the specific assailant's dangerous propensities. A proprietor of a public entertainment venue has a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises, and while knowledge of a particular patron's dangerousness is one way to establish foreseeability of harm, it is not the exclusive method. Foreseeability can also be proven by demonstrating that the proprietor knew or should have known of a dangerous condition on the premises, such as a general history of violence and disorderly conduct. In this case, Jefferson's widow established that the bar was a 'rough' place with a history of violence and that Stevens had removed security, creating a foreseeably dangerous environment. Stevens' failure to remedy this danger was a legal cause of Jefferson's death.
Dissenting - Boyd, J.
This opinion does not address the substantive legal issue. The dissent argues that the Supreme Court of Florida lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. It contends that the lower appellate court's per curiam affirmance, which simply cited other cases and noted a potential conflict, did not create the 'express and direct conflict' required by the Florida Constitution for the Supreme Court to grant review. The dissent concludes that the petition for review should have been discharged as improvidently granted.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of foreseeability in premises liability cases for business owners, particularly those operating establishments like bars. By rejecting the narrow requirement of proving knowledge of a specific assailant's violent nature, the court broadened the path to liability. The ruling establishes that proprietors can be held accountable for failing to address a generally dangerous environment they either create or tolerate. This precedent shifts the legal focus from the actions of a single third party to the owner's overall responsibility for the safety of the premises, making it easier for plaintiffs to prevail in cases where harm results from a known atmosphere of violence.
