Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 63147,63147 |
| Parties | Eugene HALL, Petitioner, v. BILLY JACK'S, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
D. Russell Stahl, Tampa, for petitioner.
Kathleen V. McCarthy, Hialeah, for respondent.
Petitioner seeks review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal, Spillers v. Hall, 428 So.2d 268 (1982) on the grounds of direct and express interdistrict conflict. Babrab, Inc. v. Allen, 408 So.2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); we have since quashed Babrab, 438 So.2d 356 (Fla.1983). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. We quash the decision of the district court and remand the case to that court for reconsideration.
As Eugene Hall watched a pool game in Billy Jack's Lounge on November 9, 1978, he was assaulted by another lounge patron. The fight moved outside. When it was over Hall rose to his feet and turned to face Wayne Spillers, a lounge patron, and George McGuire, the lounge manager. Spillers hit Hall over the head with a pool cue he had taken from the lounge in violation of posted rules. Hall testified that the blow was without provocation; Spillers testified that it was in self-defense. Hall sought damages against Billy Jack's for the November 9 assault on a negligence theory. The jury found in favor of Hall and against Billy Jack's on all issues and awarded Hall $240,000 against Spillers and Billy Jack's jointly. The district court affirmed as to Spillers but reversed as to Billy Jack's. The court held that Billy Jack's was not shown to have breached its duty to Hall in that no evidence supported a finding that Billy Jack's knew or should have known that Spillers would attack Hall without provocation.
Although some of the facts are disputed, the parties agree on all material points. Hall was a business visitor in Billy Jack's Lounge; the lounge owes business visitors a duty of reasonable care for their safety. A tavern owner is not required to protect the patron from every conceivable risk; he owes only a duty to protect against those risks which are reasonably foreseeable. Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So.2d 33 (Fla.1983). Forseeability may be established by proving that a proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of a particular assailant's inclination toward violence or by proving that the proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on his premises that was likely to cause harm to a patron. Fernandez v. Miami Jai Alai, Inc., 386 So.2d 4 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). A dangerous condition may be indicated if, according to past experience (i.e., reputation of the tavern), there is a likelihood of disorderly conduct by third persons in general which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Straley v. Frank
...v. Davis, 489 So.2d 18 (Fla.1986); Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Von Stetina, 474 So.2d 783 (Fla.1985); Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., 458 So.2d 760 (Fla.1984), rev. denied, 491 So.2d 279 Cases from district courts of appeal other than the Second that have been decided since enactment......
-
Troxel v. Iguana Cantina Llc
...357 (Fla.1983) (toleration of disorderly conduct); Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla.1983) (same); Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., 458 So.2d 760 (Fla.1984) (inadequate security measures); Mata v. Mata, 105 Cal.App.4th 1121, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 141 (2003) (same). The tavern [29 A.3d 1052] ......
-
Christen v. Lee
...elaborated by stating that the indicia listed for providing notice of general or specific harm were not exclusive. Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., 458 So.2d 760, 762 (Fla.1984); see also Kerby v. Flamingo Club, Inc., 35 Colo.App. 127, 532 P.2d 975, 978 (1975). Moreover, in the premises duty cas......
-
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne
...acts of a third person. However, since these cases were decided, the Florida Supreme Court has held differently. Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., 458 So.2d 760 (Fla.1984); Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So.2d 356 (Fla.1983); Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So.2d 33 In Stevens, the widow of a bar patron wh......
-
Protecting Licensees Against Claims Of Negligent Security
...(1) a particular assailant's inclination toward violence; or (2) the "dangerous condition" of the premises. Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., 458 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1984). A plaintiff may prove that a "dangerous condition" existed either by showing that there was a "likelihood" of disorderly conduc......
-
Negligence cases
...against risks which are reasonably foreseeable. The question of foreseeability is for the trier of fact. Hall v. Billy Jack’s, Inc. , 458 So.2d 760 (Fla. 1984). “The proprietor of a place of public entertainment owes his invitee a duty to use due care to maintain his premises in a reasonabl......
-
Premises liability: a notable rift in the law of foreseeable crimes.
...1991). (13) Stewart, 67 So. 2d at 654 (emphasis added). (14) Post, 261 So. 2d at 147. (15) Id. (16) See Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., 458 So. 2d 760, 761 (Fla. 1984) (citing Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1983)); see also Gottschalk v. Smith, 334 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (......