Taco Bell, Inc. v. Lannon

744 P.2d 43 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P entered a Taco Bell restaurant. When P approached the service counter, he noticed that the employees were off to one side of the counter and that a man was crouched behind the counter holding a handgun and going through a floor safe. P deduced that a robbery was in progress. He then retreated toward the door, whereupon he encountered another robber. P brushed past the second robber and ran out the door into the parking lot. The robber behind the counter went toward the door and shot at P, hitting him on the ring finger of his left hand. P ran to a nearby laundromat and called the police. Police officers arrived within minutes but the robbers had already fled. P sued D alleging that D had a duty to take adequate measures to protect him from the foreseeable criminal acts of third persons. D claimed it owed no legal duty to P to protect him from the consequences of criminal acts on the part of third persons. The trial court denied D's motion to dismiss, and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, P established that ten armed robberies had taken place at this same restaurant in the three years prior to the robbery giving rise to this case. One of these armed robberies had occurred only two nights before the robbery during which P was injured. Detective William Martin of the Denver Police Department testified that it was his opinion that this particular Taco Bell restaurant is located in a 'high crime area.' Detective Martin and two other Denver police officers testified concerning security measures, including the use of security guards, that could be taken by this kind of restaurant to reduce the possibility of armed robberies. D moved for a directed verdict. The trial court denied the motion. The trial court instructed the jury on negligence, including an instruction that the owner of premises has a duty to operate his business in a reasonably safe manner in view of the foreseeability if any, of injury to others. The court specifically instructed the jury that the criminal act of a third party that causes injuries to the plaintiff does not relieve the defendant of liability if the act of the third party is reasonably and generally foreseeable. P got the verdict and D appealed. The court of appeals reversed the trial court and held that on retrial the jury should be instructed on the doctrines of comparative negligence and sudden emergency. The court held that the evidence that the restaurant was located in a high crime area and that previous armed robberies had occurred on the premises and at other nearby establishments was sufficient to present a jury question as to foreseeability. Both parties appealed.