Curtis Gene Hoyt v. Gutterz Bowl & Lounge L.L.C.
829 N.W.2d 772
Iowa2013Background
- Hoyt sued Gutterz Bowl & Lounge for injuries from a Knapp assault in the parking lot after an on-premises dispute; Atkinson ordered Hoyt to leave after service was cut off; Hoyt was struck from behind and rendered unconscious, suffering a fractured ankle; Knapp admitted striking Hoyt but claimed self-defense; the district court granted summary judgment for Gutterz, holding the assault unforeseeable and no breach; the court of appeals reversed, and the Iowa Supreme Court granted review to evaluate the Restatement Third duty framework and foreseeability implications.
- The court acknowledged Hoyt’s theory that a tavern owner owes a duty of reasonable care to protect patrons from harm arising in the context of a special relationship; the district court’s analysis conflated duty with foreseeability, which the court reallocated to breach analysis under Restatement Third §7 and §40.
- The majority adopts Restatement (Third) duty principles, holding tavern owners owe a duty of reasonable care to patrons within the premises and in related settings, with foreseeability discussed in the breach/scope analyses, not as the sole duty determinant.
- The court examines the interplay between duty, breach, foreseeability, and scope of liability, emphasizing that foreseeability informs breach and scope, while duty itself is not foreclosed by the absence of prior incidents.
- The case is remanded for trial, with genuine issues of material fact remaining regarding breach and the scope of Gutterz’s liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gutterz owed Hoyt a duty of reasonable care. | Hoyt: tavern-patron relationship imposes a duty. | Gutterz: no duty or beyond-duty risk under current facts. | Yes; Gutterz owed Hoyt a duty of reasonable care. |
| Whether Gutterz breached that duty as a matter of law. | Gutterz violated duty by failing to act reasonably. | No clear breach; record shows reasonable actions. | Issues of breach are material facts for trial. |
| Whether Hoyt's injury was within Gutterz’s scope of liability. | Foreseeability ties harm to bar’s duty. | Harm outside liable scope as a matter of law. | Scope of liability is factual and not dispositive at summary judgment. |
| Whether foreseeability should be considered in the duty analysis. | Foreseeability should be part of breach/scope, not duty. | Foreseeability not part of duty under Restatement Third. | Foreseeability belongs to breach/scope, not to duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) (adopts Restatement Third duty framework; foreseeability for breach/scope)
- Brokaw v. Winfield-Mt. Union Cmty. Sch. Dist., 788 N.W.2d 386 (Iowa 2010) (foreseeability of third-party assault; limits liability for excessive precaution)
- Martinko v. H-N-W Assocs., 393 N.W.2d 320 (Iowa 1986) (landowner duty tests; duty to protect visitors)
- Galloway v. Bankers Trust Co., 420 N.W.2d 437 (Iowa 1988) (Restatement Second §344 cmt. f duty to act upon knowledge of third-party risk)
- Regan v. Denbar, Inc., 514 N.W.2d 751 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (bar owner liability for third-party assault in some circumstances)