MELANIE NICHOLLS, APPELLANT,
v.
BEVERLY DURST, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A TERRY'S PLACE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A bar patron was abducted from a bar and sexually assaulted by another patron. The bar owner moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's negligence claim, arguing the criminal attack was unforeseeable. The appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding foreseeability based on the bar's history of violent incidents and lack of security measures.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the bar owner's actual or constructive knowledge of the likelihood of disorderly or violent conduct by third persons and whether such likelihood was reasonably foreseeable. The case must be remanded for trial.
[1] A business owner may be liable for failing to provide adequate security measures to protect patrons from criminal activity by third parties if such activity was reasonabl…
[2] Evidence of prior disorderly or violent incidents at a business establishment, known to the owner, can create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the foreseeabilit…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We find that there are genuine issues of material fact concerning Durst's actual or constructive knowledge that there was a likelihood of disorderly conduct by third persons which could endanger the safety of Durst's patrons and that such likelihood was reasonably foreseeable.”
Establishes the appellate court's conclusion that summary judgment was improper due to disputed material facts about foreseeability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 15, 1988, Melanie Nicholls, a business invitee at Terry's Place bar owned by Beverly Durst, was abducted by patron Steve Finney from outside …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Foreseeability Of Criminal Acts cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
Appellant/plaintiff below, Melanie Nic-holls, appeals a final summary judgment enforced against her and in favor of appel-lee/defendant below, Beverly Durst. We reverse and remand.
We briefly summarize the evidence in the light most favorable to Nicholls, the non-movant. On the night of March 15, 1988 Nicholls was a business invitee in Terry’s Place, a bar owned by Durst. Nicholls was abducted from Terry’s Place by Steve Fin-ney, a patron of the bar, and then forced into Finney’s car, which was located directly outside the entrance to the bar, taken to a secluded area and sexually assaulted. Criminal charges were later filed against Finney and he plead guilty to sexual battery and kidnapping.
Nicholls instituted suit against Durst claiming that Durst negligently maintained the premises by not providing adequate security measures to deter or prevent such criminal activity. Durst moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion, finding that the criminal attack upon Nicholls was not reasonably foreseeable. We find that there are genuine issues of material fact concerning Durst’s actual or constructive knowledge that there was a likelihood of disorderly conduct by third persons which could endanger the safety of Durst’s patrons and that such likelihood was reasonably foreseeable. The evidence shows that the bar had a history of fifteen to twenty prior disorderly or violent incidents, the police were called regarding many of these incidents, and Durst was aware of these incidents. Durst’s establishment had neither a bouncer nor security personnel. Durst never provided any security training to her employees. On the night of the incident there were only two female employees on duty at the bar, a bartender and a cook.
Accordingly, based upon the evidence taken in the light most favorable to Nic-holls and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Nicholls, the party opposing Durst’s motion for summary judgment, we conclude that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Durst because there are disputed issues of material fact involved in this case. See Hall v. Billy Jack’s, Inc., 458 So. 2d 760 (Fla.1984); Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla.1983); Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1983); Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We reverse and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. PO Folks, Inc., 674 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…history of repeated incidents of misconduct or violence such as occasioned the injury in litigation, thereby creating an arguable issue of foreseeability. See, e.g., Hall; Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla.1983); Stevens; Nicholls v. Durst, 579 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Clearly, there is no such history of robberies and assaults in the parking lot of the Po Folks restaurant in this case. The criminal attack on the plaintiff was not foreseeable and, as a matter of law, the defendant had no duty…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1983)
- Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., 458 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1984)
- Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1983)