Bar Owner Not Liable for Patron's Off-Site Murder
December, 2003
The Supreme Court of Delaware recently ruled that a bar owner did not owe a duty to warn patrons of or to protect patrons from crimes associated with a public parking lot located behind the bar. Rhudy v. Bottlecaps Inc., 830 A.2d 402 (Del. 2003). Summary judgment for defendant was proper where plaintiffs failed to produce facts sufficient to create an inference that the bar owner controlled the parking lot or was responsible to patrons for criminal conduct in the lot.
Facts
Stephanie Krueck and Denise Rhudy drove to Bottlecaps Bar and Restaurant (“Bottlecaps”) on December 18, 1999 at approximately 10:00 p.m. after hearing a radio advertisement for a band that was to perform at Bottlecaps that night. Bottlecaps had a front entrance on a street that had only two parking spaces for Bottlecaps patrons. However, a sign in Bottlecaps’ window notified its patrons that there was additional free parking in a lot at the rear of the building. Bottlecaps ran radio advertisements which mentioned that “[t]here’s plenty of free parking directly behind Bottlecaps.” When Rhudy parked her car in the lot, the two women were robbed at gunpoint. Rhudy told the assailant that she did not have any money but was shot twice and killed. The assailant also tried to shoot Krueck, who survived without any injuries when the bullet passed through her coat.
Rhudy’s estate and Krueck sued Bottlecaps alleging that it was civilly liable for the wrongful death and robbery that occurred in the parking lot. Plaintiffs alleged that Bottlecaps had knowledge of the crime problem in the area yet, encouraged prospective patrons to use the free parking lot directly behind the bar despite this knowledge.
The public parking lot at issue was owned by the Wilmington Parking Authority (“WPA”). The WPA made the lot available to downtown merchants and patrons for free parking after 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and all day on Saturdays and Sundays.
Several other restaurants and bars were located within a few blocks of this parking lot. Although Bottlecaps did not own the lot, its bar employees were required to pick up trash around the parking lot after Bottlecaps hosted large outdoor events due to the WPA’s prior complaints that the parking lot was subject to a large amount of litter on the weekends.
Crime was a known problem in the area. Bar patrons were frequently approached by aggressive panhandlers in the area and some patrons had been robbed in the past. In fact, a Bottlecaps’ patron was robbed in the parking lot on the night before the subject shootings. When Bottlecaps hosted special events with large crowds, Bottlecaps hired off-duty police officers for security. However, Bottlecaps did not provide extra security for ordinary nights when large crowds were not expected.
The trial court granted Bottlecaps’ motion for summary judgment, holding that Bottlecaps could not be held civilly responsible for the robbery and murder on a lot it did not possess or control and that Bottlecaps’ owner did not owe a duty to warn or protect plaintiffs from crime on the adjacent parking lot.
Analysis
On appeal, plaintiffs asserted that there was sufficient evidence from which a fact-finder could rationally infer that Bottlecaps owed a duty to patrons whom the bar encouraged to use the parking lot. Plaintiffs argued that Bottlecaps received economic benefits from the availability and location of the parking lot behind its building and even exploited that benefit by advertising the free public parking to its customers. Plaintiffs asserted that Bottlecaps owed its business invitees a duty to warn about the criminal activity on the parking lot because Bottlecaps’ patrons who parked in the lot were entitled to the same protections and warnings that Bottlecaps owed to patrons on the actual bar premises.
The court disagreed, holding that Bottlecaps owed no special responsibility for the consequences of crimes that occurred in the parking lot that was open to the public and not owned by Bottlecaps. Further, the court reasoned that Bottlecaps was not the only beneficiary of the free parking lot; other downtown merchants also received a benefit from the free parking provided to their patrons. Therefore, the court was unable to apportion the benefits of the lot to any given patron or merchant. The court stated: “[a]lthough a landowner’s duty is not invariably confined to activity that occurs within the boundaries of the business premises, that duty does not encompass every hazard an invitee encounters en route to the landowner’s establishment.”
Plaintiffs also alleged that Bottlecaps received economic benefits from the lots when it hosted large outdoor events with more than 100 people in attendance. Plaintiffs argued that these events created and/or increased the risk of danger to patrons who were on the adjacent parking lot. However, the court found that Bottlecaps addressed such risks on nights when it expected a large crowd by hiring additional security. Because the night of the robbery and murder was not a special event night that required additional security, Bottlecaps was not liable for the consequences of crime associated with the public parking lot. Moreover, Bottlecaps’ business activities did not cause or increase the risk of crime on the parking lot.
The court noted that although a defendant’s control of an adjacent area (such as a parking lot) is not necessarily determinative of a duty, it is an important factor to consider. The court stated, “[c]ontrol denotes the unrestricted ability to take precautions to alleviate or minimize the risks on the adjacent property.” Here, Bottlecaps would not be expected to take precautions that would prevent criminal activities on the parking lot because WPA owned and controlled the lot. The court reasoned that Bottlecaps could not anticipate nor could it be expected to protect its patrons from the crime that occurred on the parking lot to any greater extent than it could protect patrons who parked on any nearby public street or parking lot.
Learning Point:
Although a landowner is subject to liability to its business invitees for criminal acts of third parties that occur on its premises, a duty is not typically imposed beyond the area over which the landowner has possession or control.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2003v4) 2003 Volume 4 Table of Contents
