Boone v. Martinez, C5-96-297
| Decision Date | 07 August 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. C5-96-297,C5-96-297 |
| Citation | 567 N.W.2d 508 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | Michael BOONE, et al., Respondents, v. Aristeo MARTINEZ, Defendant, Palace Bar of Albert Lea, Inc., d/b/a the Palace Bar and Tom's Palace Bar, petitioner, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
Because the fight between two patrons of a bar was sudden and unforeseeable, the bar is not liable in this case for resulting injuries to the patrons.
Daniel J. Heuel, Muir, Heuel, Carlson & Spelhaug, P.A., Rochester, for Appellant.
John Beckmann, Daniel L. Scott, Hoversten, Johnson, Beckmann, Wellmann & Hovey, P.L.P., Austin, for Respondents.
Jeremiah P. Gallivan, Paul A. Banker, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A., Minneapolis, for Palace Bar.
Phillip Marron, Minneapolis, for Aristeo Martinez.
Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.
This case presents the question of when a bar is liable for injuries resulting from a fight between two patrons of the bar. The court of appeals held that although an attack may be sudden and unforeseeable, employees of the bar had a duty to protect a patron once the assault commenced. We disagree and instead hold that because a fight between patrons of a bar was sudden and unforeseeable, the bar was not liable in this case for resulting injuries to the patrons.
In December 1991, Aristeo Martinez assaulted Michael Boone in the Palace Bar, which is located in Albert Lea. As a result of the assault, Boone suffered from a laceration and multiple stab wounds. Boone and his wife Michelle subsequently sued Martinez for negligent and reckless assault. The Boones also brought two claims against the Palace Bar, the first for negligent failure to exercise reasonable care to control and secure its patrons and premises, and the second for dram shop liability resulting from the illegal sale of alcohol to Martinez when he already was intoxicated in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 340A.502.
The issue before us concerns the negligence claim against the Palace Bar. The trial court granted the Palace Bar's motion for a directed verdict on the negligence claim, finding that the assault was unforeseeable and that there was no notice to the bar employees of either the attack or the vicious propensities of Martinez. 1 The court of appeals reversed, holding that the directed verdict on the negligence claim against the Palace Bar was improperly granted. The court of appeals held that although the attack was sudden and unforeseeable, employees of the bar had a duty to protect Boone once the assault commenced. The court also concluded that the Palace Bar breached that duty when its employees failed to intervene or take reasonable steps to protect Boone during the assault. 2
The Palace Bar now challenges the court of appeals' decision, arguing that the trial court's directed verdict on the negligence claim was proper because the attack was unforeseeable, and thus there was no evidence to support any theory of negligence against the bar. The Boones, on the other hand, argue that the bar had notice of Martinez's vicious propensities, and that the injuries to Boone were foreseeable.
On appeal from a directed verdict, we make an independent determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to present a fact question to the jury. Nemanic v. Gopher Heating and Sheet Metal, Inc., 337 N.W.2d 667, 669 (Minn.1983). In making such a determination, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Baber v. Dill, 531 N.W.2d 493, 495 (Minn.1995).
In order to establish an innkeeper's liability, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) the proprietor must be put on notice of the offending party's vicious or dangerous propensities by some act or threat, (2) the proprietor must have an adequate opportunity to protect the injured patron, (3) the proprietor must fail to take reasonable steps to protect the injured patron, and (4) the injury must be foreseeable. Alholm v. Wilt, 394 N.W.2d 488, 489 n. 3 (Minn.1986). Foreseeability is a threshold issue and is more properly decided by the court prior to submitting the case to the jury. Id. at 491 n. 5. Both parties in this case agree that a tavern owner has the duty to maintain safety and order for the protection of its patrons, but that a prerequisite to that duty is that injury to a patron by another patron permitted to frequent the premises must be foreseeable. Schwingler v. Doebel, 309 N.W.2d 760 (Minn.1981).
The Boones concede that the fight itself was sudden and occurred without any warning. The Boones, however, make two arguments to support their claim that the Palace Bar had notice of Martinez's vicious propensities. First, the Boones claim that the bar was aware of Martinez's vicious propensities because of a prior incident involving Martinez which occurred outside the bar. Martinez...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Rowe v. Munye, No. A03-465.
-
Veytsman v. New York Palace
...night" and that "[a]nother witness also stated that he saw [the assailant] `half-slam' his beer down on the table." Boone v. Martinez, 567 N.W.2d 508, 511 (Minn.1997). Relying on Minnesota law that requires a plaintiff to prove, among other facts, that "the proprietor [was] put on notice of......
-
McDonough v. Toles
...proprietor must fail to take reasonable steps to protect the injured patron, and (4) the injury must be foreseeable. Boone v. Martinez , 567 N.W.2d 508, 510 (Minn. 1997). The Bar argues that McDonough has failed to plausibly plead that the Bar was on notice of Toles's "vicious or dangerous ......
-
Gopher Oil Co. v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co.
...verdict, this court independently determines if the evidence was sufficient to present a fact question to the jury. Boone v. Martinez, 567 N.W.2d 508, 510 (Minn.1997). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. A directed verdict is appropriate if the evi......
-
Chapter § 4.04 LIABILITY OF HOTELS AND RESORTS FOR COMMON TRAVEL PROBLEMS
...Concord General Corp., 651 So. 2d 911 (La. App. 1995) (motel guest raped and kidnapped by another guest). Minnesota: Boone v. Martinez, 567 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. Sup. 1997) (fight between bar patrons; sudden and unforeseeable). New York: Butler v. E.M.D. Enterprises, Inc., 261 A.D.2d 842, 689 N......