Landowners have a duty to protect patrons on their property.  Does the duty end at the doorstep?  It depends.

In Hegarty v Tracy, two groups of people got into a verbal fight inside of the defendant’s bar/restaurant.  When they decided to take it outside, the fight turned physical, and plaintiff was hit in the head with a broomstick.  He sued the bar for failing to protect him.  The bar moved for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the case.

In granting dismissal, the court noted, “Landowners, as a general rule, have a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to patrons on their property.”  However, the duty arises “only when [the owner] has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need for such control.”  The court held that the bar could not have reasonably prevented the unforeseeable and unexpected assault of the plaintiff.

Though the duty of a landowner will not necessarily end at its doorstep, in this case, it appears that since the altercation inside was verbal only, the court concluded that the physical altercation outside was unforeseeable.

In defending such cases, it is important to establish the timeline of events that can distinguish the foreseeable versus unforeseeable events, so that a lack of duty can be established.

Thanks to Moya O’Connor for her contribution to this post.

For any questions contact ">.