Jones v. Starnes, 150 Idaho 257

Appellants Joshua and Laura Jones were injured by an unknown assailant on a public street outside Boomers in Lewiston after a bar altercation.
Joneses did not enter Boomers and had parked in front of the bar; witnesses described a group spilling onto the sidewalk and striking the Joneses' vehicle and Mr. Jones.
Joneses filed a negligence action against Boomers (TTJ's Inc.) and related parties in April 2006; amended complaint in October 2008.
Boomers moved for summary judgment arguing no duty owed; district court granted summary judgment in September 2009, finding no causal link or duty.
On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reviews whether Boomers owed a duty, whether there was a causal connection, whether a public nuisance existed, and cost/attorney-fee rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty of care under general negligence	Joneses contend Boomers owed a duty to protect from third-party violence.	Boomers had no foreseeability of the unknown assailant; injury occurred off premises and from a third party.	No duty found; no general-negligence duty owed.
Causation between duty breach and injury	There is a causal link between ejection of a patron and subsequent assault on Jones.	No evidence of breach causing injury; unknown assailant and off-premises conduct break causal chain.	No sufficient causal connection established.
Premises liability duty	Premises liability may attach due to activity on property affecting safety.	The fight occurred on public sidewalk/street, not on Boomers' premises, and was an activity, not a conditioned hazard.	No premises-liability duty.
Negligence per se	Boomers violated city ordinances § 31-33 and § 6-20; negligence per se applicable.	Ordinances do not define a duty to control third-party activity; no proven violation or proximate cause.	Negligence per se not established.
Public nuisance and discretionary costs/attorney fees on appeal	Boomers’ conduct created a nuisance; costs/fees should be awarded.	No nuisance evidence; costs/discretionary costs and attorney fees should follow district court ruling.	No public nuisance; discretionary costs affirm; attorney fees not awarded on appeal.

Vickers v. Hanover Constr. Co., Inc., 125 Idaho 832, 875 P.2d 929 (1994) (duty in tort is a necessary element; question of duty is law)
Turpen v. Granieri, 133 Idaho 244, 985 P.2d 669 (1999) (foreseeability and general duty to exercise ordinary care)
McGill v. Frasure, 117 Idaho 598, 790 P.2d 379 (Ct.App.1990) (tavernkeeper duty to protect patrons from other patrons on premises)
Boots ex rel. Boots v. Winters, 145 Idaho 389, 179 P.3d 352 (Ct.App.2008) (premises-liability limits to physical conditions, not activities)
O'Guin v. Bingham Cnty., 142 Idaho 49, 122 P.3d 308 (2005) (negligence per se requires statutory elements and proximate cause)
Allen v. Burggraf Constr. Co., 106 Idaho 451, 680 P.2d 873 (Ct.App.1984) (causal connection required to establish liability)
Cobbley v. City of Challis, 143 Idaho 130, 139 P.3d 732 (2006) (nuisance requires control/management over the instrumentality)
Heath v. Honker's Mini-Mart, Inc., 134 Idaho 711, 8 P.3d 1254 (2000) (premises-liability context and standard)