Gould v. Taco Bell
722 P.2d 511 · Supreme Court of Kansas · 1986
Facts
Rosie Gould was assaulted by another patron, Karen Brown, at a Taco Bell restaurant after Brown's group engaged in loud, vulgar behavior. Despite a Taco Bell employee telling the group to quiet down and the assistant manager witnessing the initial attack and knowing of Brown's prior disturbance, he failed to intervene or call the police until forced by Gould's friend. Gould sued Taco Bell for failing to protect her, and a jury found Taco Bell 51% at fault, awarding actual and punitive damages.
Issue
1. Can a restaurant be held liable for injuries sustained by a patron from an assault by another patron when its employees fail to intervene or call the police? 2. Can the intentional acts of an assailant be compared with the restaurant's negligence under comparative negligence laws? 3. Was there sufficient evidence to support an award of punitive damages against the restaurant for its manager's omissions?
Holding
1. Yes, the court affirmed the jury's finding that Taco Bell was liable, as there was sufficient evidence that the restaurant should have anticipated the danger and failed to exercise reasonable care. 2. No, the intentional acts of the assailant cannot be compared with the restaurant's negligence, as the restaurant's duty was to protect against such intentional acts. 3. Yes, the court affirmed the punitive damages award, finding sufficient evidence of wanton omission by the manager, who acted within the scope of his employment.
Rule
A premises owner owes invitees a duty of reasonable care to protect against reasonably anticipated dangers, including assaults by other patrons, and is liable if they fail to prevent such an assault after having reason to anticipate it. Intentional acts of a third party cannot be compared with a defendant's negligence when the defendant's duty is to protect the plaintiff from those intentional acts. Punitive damages are permissible against a corporation for a managerial employee's willful, wanton, or grossly negligent omissions within the scope of employment, indicating a reckless disregard for consequences.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.