PREMISES LIABILITY: DUTY TO PREVENT CRIMINAL ACTS

Noticed an interesting Second Appellate District decision the other day in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. The case, Haupt v. Sharkey's Pub was filed after the plaintff suffered serious injuries after a fight at Sharkey's Pub. Plaintiff Haupt and the defendant, a Peter Bell, entered the McHenry, Illinois bar at about the same time. Sharkey, the owner of the bar, testified that he had seen the two men interacting and having a good time. Sharkey then retired to his residence above the bar. At some point Bell and Haupt have a disagreement and there was some sort of confrontation in the bar. Sharkey comes down and throws both guys out - - and makes them both exit through the front door...together. Not suprisingly, combat breaks out as soon as the men exit and Bell does serious damage to Haupt. Haupt sues the bar. Sharkey's brings a motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that it had no duty to protect Haupt from the criminal acts of a third party patron. The Trial Court agrees and grants the motion. Haupt appeals. In a very well-written opinion, the Appellate Court reversed the lower court. The Appellate Court acknowledged that typically, a landowner has no duty to prevent the criminal act of a third party, absent some sort of special relationship. The Court went on to find that the facts presented did show a special relationship - that of business owner and invitee. The Court also noted that a landowner does have a duty to protect guests against the criminal acts of third parties if those acts are foreseeable. The Court then correctly found that Sharkey's duties didn't end the moment Haupt's feet touched down outside the bar. The opinion specifically noted that there is "...no bright line rule" that a bar owner's duties end the moment a patron steps outside. Instead, the Court ruled that Haupt was still an invitee because he was in the process of leaving and, as a result, Sharkey had a duty to provide a safe means of entrance and exit. The opinion frankly noted that location of the injury isn't a dispostive factor. In addition, the Court found that the attack was foreseeable for a couple of reasons. First, Bell was a regular visitor at the bar and had apparently been involved in some other incidents. In addition, both Bell and Haupt were ushered out the front door together, even though they had been punching each other just moments before. Not surprisingly, Bell went after Haupt again, the moment they got outside. Most bartenders could have seen that coming. An excellent, well-reasoned opinion.