HUGH, J.: The plaintiffs, Nicholas and , individually and on
HUGH, J.: The plaintiffs, Nicholas and , individually and on
HUGH, J.: The plaintiffs, Nicholas and , individually and on behalf of their three
children, brought a negligence action against the defendant, Burger King Corporation, for injuries sustained as a result of an assault at the defendant's restaurant. During the late afternoon or early evening hours of December 26, 1995, the family went to the
defendant's restaurant for the first time. Upon entering the restaurant, the became aware of a group of teenagers consisting of five males and two females, whom they alleged were rowdy, obnoxious, loud, abusive, and using foul language. Some in the group claimed they were 'hammered.” Initially this group was near the ordering counter talking to an employee whom they appeared to know. The alleged that one of the group almost bumped into Nicholas. When that fact was pointed out, the teen-ager exclaimed. -I don't give an F. That's his F'ing problem.” Nicholas asked his wife and children to sit down in the dining area as he ordered the food. While waiting for the food to Ix prepared, Nicholas joined his family at their table. The teenagers also moved into the dining area to another table. The obnoxious behavior and foul language all continued. One of the Ian-nelli children became nervous. Nicholas then walked over to the group intending to ask them to stop swearing. As Nicholas stood two or three feet from the closest of the group, hr said, “Guys. hey listen, I have three kids.” Whereupon, allegedly unprovoked, one or more of the group assaulted Nicholas by hitting him, knocking him to the ground and striking him in the head with a chair. The plaintiffs argue that a commercial enterprise such as a restaurant has a general duty to exercise reasonable care toward its patrons, which may include a duty to safeguard against assault when circumstances provide warning signs that the safety of its patrons may be at risk. The most instructive case, given the issues presented, is Walls V. Oxford Management Co. In Walls. a tenant of an apartment complex alleged that the owner's negligent maintenance of its property allowed her to be subjected to a sexual assault in the parking lot. We held that as a general principle land-lords have no duty to protect tenants from criminal attacks. In as much as landlords and tenants have a special relationship that does not exist between a commercial establishment and its guests, it follows that the same general principle of law extends to restaurants and their patrons. We recognized in Walls, however, that particular circumstances can give rise to such a duty. These circumstances include when the opportunity for criminal misconduct is brought about by the actions or inactions of the owner or where overriding foreseeability of such criminal activity exists. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we must decide whether the behavior of the rowdy youths could have created an unreasonable risk of injury to restaurant patrons that was foreseeable to the defendant. If the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, then a duty existed. We hold that the teenagers' unruly behavior could reasonably have been anticipated to escalate into acts that would expose patrons to an unreasonable risk of injury. The exact occurrence or precise injuries need not have been foreseen. Viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence could support a finding that the teenagers' obnoxious behavior in the restaurant was open and notorious. Because the group was engaging in a conversation at times with a restaurant employee, it could be found that the defendant was aware of the teenagers' conduct. The near physical contact between one teenager and Nicholas at the counter and the indifference expressed by the group member thereafter could be deemed sufficient warning to the restaurant manager of misconduct such that it was incumbent upon him to take affirmative action to reduce the risk of injury. The plaintiffs allege that at least one other restaurant patron expressed disgust with the group's actions prior to the assault. The man-ager could have warned the group about their behavior or summoned the police if his warnings were not heeded. In summary, the trial court's ruling that as a matter of law the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiffs to protect them from the assault was error. While as a general principle no such duty exists, here it could be found that the teenagers' behavior in the restaurant created a foreseeable risk of harm that the defendant unreasonably failed to alleviate. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
Case Question
1. Under the decision in this case, when does a duty arise for the defendant restaurant to protect its customers?
2· that does the court suggest that the restaurant manager should have done in this case that would have satisfied the duty?
3. What do you think is the difference in this case between a “special relationship” duty and the duty of the restaurant?