Duty of Property Owners and Operators to Protect Patrons from Crime
| Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 17 No. 11 Pg. 2143 |
| Pages | 2143 |
| Publication year | 1988 |
1988, November, Pg. 2143. Duty of Property Owners and Operators to Protect Patrons From Crime
In Taco Bell, Inc. v. Lannon,(fn1) the Colorado Supreme Court held that the owner or operator of commercial property may have a legal duty to take reasonable measures to protect patrons from the criminal acts of third parties. The court also held that a jury could find the duty extends to having an armed guard at a business establishment where ten prior robberies had occurred. This article discusses the duty to protect articulated in Taco Bell and the measures a property owner or operator may take to fulfill that duty. The article also analyzes whether Colorado's 1986 tort reform legislation will enable businesses to escape most or all of the liability in future cases by allocating culpability to the criminals, even if they are unknown.
In Taco Bell, the plaintiff entered a fast food restaurant in Denver at 10:30 P.M. and approached the counter. He saw restaurant employees standing to one side and a man with a gun crouched behind the counter rifling a floor safe. The plaintiff moved back toward the door and encountered a second robber. The plaintiff then ran to the parking lot, where he was shot in the finger by one of the robbers.
Plaintiff sued Taco Bell, Inc. in Denver District Court, contending that the restaurant had violated its duty to protect its customers from criminal acts by failing to have an armed security guard on the premises. Ten armed robberies had occurred at the restaurant in the three years before the shooting, the most recent of them just two nights earlier. A police officer testified for plaintiff that the restaurant was in a high crime area, and a nearby competitor testified that he employed armed security guards. The jury awarded plaintiff $40,000.
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed(fn2) the judgment entered by the trial court on the jury verdict and remanded the case for a new trial on the grounds that the trial court erred in not submitting the issue of comparative negligence to the jury. The Court of Appeals also held that the defendant had a duty to take reasonable measures to protect its patrons from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts and that the jury must determine whether defendant had breached that duty by not hiring armed guards. Relying on § 344 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (and comment f thereof), the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals rulings that Taco Bell had a duty to protect its patrons and that a jury should decide whether Taco Bell had breached that duty.
Given the Taco Bell decision, the owner or operator of commercial property, in consultation with legal counsel, should assess whether the owner has a duty to take reasonable measures to protect business patrons from crime, and how to discharge any duty most efficiently. Although Taco Bell indicates that other factors are relevant,(fn3) the key issue in determining whether the duty exists is the foreseeability of a crime occurring, based largely on the history of crimes at or near the property. In Taco Bell, the occurrence of ten prior robberies on the premises was enough to meet the foreseeability test and give rise to a duty to take protective measures.
A property owner or operator may also have a duty to protect patrons from violent crime even where no violence has...
To continue reading
Request your trial