## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3753 L OR ET T A R EY NOL DS, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. CB S PO RTS B AR, I NC . a nd C ASEY J. C A R S ON, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:07- cv-00754

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge .
A RGUED A PRI L 14, 2010

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 22, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE, a nd K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , CircuitJudg e . Lor ett a Rey nol ds al l ege s that B r e n d a R u s s e l l a n d C a s e y C a r s o n i n d u c e d h e r t o b e c o me i n t o x i c a t e d i n a b a r o wn e d b y C B S p o r t s B a r, I nc . , a nd att em pted to ta ke h erbac k t o thei r apart m ent “ f orse xual explo i tat i on. ” Reynol ds m anage d t o esca pe, but w as inj u re d wh en she was str uck bya car . Reyno l ds sued Rus se l l, Ca r so n, a nd CB S po r ts f o r ne gli gen ce a nd pu ni ti ve dam age s. S he al l ege d i n herse cond am ended2 N o. 09

- 3753

com pla i nt thatCB S port s (t h ro ugh i ts bar tenders ) knew ofRus s e l l a nd Ca r s o n’ s p l a ns b utn e g l i g e nt l y f ai l ed to prot ect her f ro m the att ack. The di str i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d the neg l i gence co unt agai nst CB Spor ts f or f a i l i ng t o s t a t e a c l a i m. Be c a us e we c o nc l ud e t hat Reynol d s’s com pla i nt i s br oad eno ugh to enco m pass a vi abl e theor y o fneg li gence ag ai nst CB Spor ts, we re ver se a nd r e man d.

I. B ACK GR OUN D I n herse cond am ended com pla i nt, Reyno l ds al l ege d that i n Oc tobe r 2 00 5 sh e wentt o J er ze y ’ s S po r ts Bar i n O’ F al l o n, I l l i noi s. J er zey ’ s i s own ed by A pp el l ee CB S port s Bar, Inc. A ftertwo bee rs , Reyno l ds l eft the barto go bac k t o her ho te l, butdi sc o ve r ed tha t he r c arwoul d no t st ar t. S he went backi nto the bar and a ske d the bar tender f ora phone boo k so that she coul d c al l f ora taxi
. The bar tender tol d her that no t axi s were avai l abl e a n d t h at she would have to ge t a ride bac k to her hot el from som eon e in the ba r. Br e nd a R us s e l l a nd Ca s e y Ca r s o n a pp r o a c he d R e y no l ds a n d o ff ered to gi ve h er a ri d e to her hot el. Be fore th eyl eft th e ba r, h oweve r, Rus se l l a nd Ca r so n b o ug ht Re y no l ds se ve r aldr i nk s “in a n a tt empt t o c au se pl ainti ffto c om p ly w i th the i r desi gn to l ure her to thei r apart
men tf o r s e xu a l e xp l o i t a t i o n. ” ( R. at 16, p . 2
. ) R e y no l ds al so a lleg ed that Russel l and Carso n m ay have sl i pp ed so m e k in d of d ru g in to h er d rin ks . Re yn old s, R u ss ell, and C ar son l eft the barto ge th er , and theyal l go t into R u s s e l l a n d Ca r s o n ’ s c a r . R e y n o l d s r e a l i z e d a ts o me po i ntdur i ng the c arr i de th atthe y wer e no t dr i vingN o. 09

- 3753 3 toward herhot eland tha t R u ssel l and Carso n i ntended to ra pe her. Reynol ds esca ped fro m the car wh en Russel l and Carson s topp ed to buy ci gar ett es. S he at

tem pted to w al k b ack to her hote l, but beca use s he was sti l l extr em el y intoxi cate d, she wand er ed onto a n earby hi g hway o n- r amp an d was st ruc k b y a c ar, s uffer i ng ser i ous inj uri es. As i tr e l a t e s t o thi s ap pea l, the o pe r a t i v e p a r a g r a ph of h er co m p lain t is p ar ag ra p h 19 : T h at D efe n d an t Je rz ey ’s a t le as t k n ew or s h ou ld ha ve kn ow n th at D efend ants Rus se l l a nd Ca r son we r e g e t t i ngP l a i nt i ffLo r e t t a R e y no l ds i nt o xi ca te d f o r the pur po se o fse xua l e xpl o i ta ti o n. A t wors t, Defend an t J er zey ’ s a nd i ts em plo y/ ag en t ba r te nd erwas a n a ct i ve a cc o m pl i ce i n the a t t e mptt o e ns na r e P l a i nt i ffLo re tta R e y no l ds i nt o a n un sa vo r y a nd un wel co m e se xua l s i tu at i o n. ( Id. , p. 5. ) S he al so al l eged t h at C B Spor ts knew or s ho ul d have kn o wn tha ts he wo ul d h a v e t r i e d t o e s c a pe and th at C B S p orts “had a duty t o prot ect the wel f ar e o f i ts custo m er s, i ncl ud i n g P lai nti ffLor ett a Rey nol ds fro m si tuati ons such as that bei ng p l ott ed by Defe nd ants Russel l and Carso n. ” ( Id. ) C B Sp or ts m ov ed to d ism iss h e r n eg lige n c e c laim ag a in s t i t f or f ail ure to state a claim

. Th e d istri ct cou rt gr anted the m oti on, fi nd i ng tha t CB Spor ts’ s duty t o prot ect i ts busi ness i nvi tee s d i d not e xtend “to such d ist an c es or c ir c u m st an c es as are inv olv ed in t h is c as e,” an d th at “ t h e r e is n o re as on C B Sp or ts co u ld have re aso nabl y f or ese en that ther e w as a dang er that4 N o. 09

- 3753

on e o f th eir p at ro n s w o u l d b e h it b y a ve h icle w h ile e s cap ing from crim inal activity by an oth er Jerzey’s patro n afterle av ing the bar

— orany othe r harm o fthat gener alnatur e. ” R eynolds v. C B Sports Ba r, Inc. , N o. 07

- cv754, 2008 W L 47927 04, at * 5 (S. D
. I ll

. Oc t. 30, 2008). W hi le R eyno l ds’s appealo fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on w as p ending i n thi s co urt, she continued to pre ss her c laim s a g a in st R u ss ell an d C ar so n . Re yn old s e ve n tu ally m ove d to dism i ss R u ssel l fro m the case . The di str i ct cour t l ate r hel d an evi denti ar y hearing i n Octobe r 2009 i n w hi ch Reynol ds prov i ded a m or e deta i l ed acco unt of th e even ts i n qu estion. Reyn olds said that there w ere tw o b ar te n d er s, o ne m al e a nd o ne fem al e, and that both refused to gi ve h er a ph one b o o k , t ell ing her th at th ere wer e no t ax i s av ai l able. She a l so s ai d tha t sh e as k ed th e barte nd ers abou t Ru ssel l an d Ca rson . Th e barten d ers all egedl y t o l d he r tha t “the y wer e fi ne . Tha t th ey[ th e barte nd ers ] kn ew them

. Th at th ey w ere regulars an d tha t th eywoul d b e o k ay . ” ( R. a t 65 , p. 1 1. ) She ev en tual l y obtained a def aul t j ud gm ent a gainst Car son f or $1

. 5 mi l l i o n. In thi s a pp e a l we a ddr e s s o nl y the di s tr i ct cour t’ s g ra nti ng o fCB S port s’ s m oti on t o dism i ss.

II. A NALYSI S A
. Sta nd a rd o

f R eview W e re vi ew the g r an t o fa mot i o n t o di smi ss f o r f ail ure t o s t a t e a c l a i m deno vo . Reger D ev. LLC v
. Nat ’ l Ci ty Bank, 59 2 F.3 d 7 59 , 7 63 (7t h C ir.), cert. denied ,

___S. C t.

___( 2010 ). “[ E] va l ua tingthe suffi ci en cyofthe co m pl aint, we co ns trueN o. 09

- 3753 5 i t in the l i ght m ostf avora b le to the nonm oving par ty, accept w ell- ple aded fa cts as tr ue, and draw al l i nfe re nces i n herf avo r. ” Id. To s ur vi ve a mot i o n t o di smi ss , the p lai nt iff m us t d o m ore tha n sim p ly r e c ite el em en ts of a cl ai m ; the “c om pla i nt m ust co ntai n suffi ci ent f actual m at te r, ac c e p t e d a s t ru e, to ‘st at e a cla im to relie f th at is pla usibl e o n i ts f ace. ’ ” Ash crof tv. Iq b al , 12 9 S
. Ct. 19 37, 19 49 (2009) ( quoting B el l A tl antic C orp. v. Tw om bly, 55 0 U.S
. 54 4, 570 ( 2007))
. The pl ai nti ffneed not, however, pl ead “detai l ed f actualal l ega ti ons. ” Id.

B
. D ram shop A ct A t t h e o u ts et, w e n ot e t h at C B Sp or ts ca n n otbe h eld l i abl e forReyno l ds’s i nj uri es base d o n i t hav i ng pro vi ded he r wi tha l co hol. The I l l i no i s Dr amsho p Acti s th e ex cl usi ve re m edy f ori nj uri es re su ltin g f ro m a bar ’ s pro vi si on ofal cohol, 23 5 IL CS 5/ 6- 21; Si m m ons v. Hom at as , 92 5 N
. E.2 d 1089, 10 95 ( I l l

. 20 10) , and t h e A c t doe s no t pr o vi de a ca us e o fa ct i o n f o r inj ur i es su st aine d b y the i nt o xi ca te d pe r so n h i m se l f, 2 35 I LCS 5/ 6- 21
. Tha t be i ng sa i d, Re y no l d s fail ed to b r i nga ny a ct i o n un derthe Dr amsho p Actwi th i n o ne y ea r o fb eing i nj ur ed, s o a ny cl a i m s he mi g hth a v e h a d u nd e r the Ac ti s t i me-b a r r e d. Se ei d. T h e D r a ms h o p A c t, h o we v e r , do e s n o tg i v e a b a r c o mplet e i m m uni tyfr o m b eings ue d f o r t o r ti o us c o nduc t; the A ct o nl y pr eem pts ac ti on s b ased on the provi si on o f al cohol

. A pl ai nti ffm ay sti l l br i ng a cause ofacti on ag ains t a ba r f o r ac ts th ata r e i nde pen den t o fs er ving6 N o. 09

- 3753 alc oh ol. Si m m ons , 925 N .E .2d at10 97 -98 ; Ha rri s v . Go w er, Inc. , 50 6 N .E .2d 624, 62 6 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 87)
. There f or e, al though CB Spor ts’ s l i abi l i ty here cannotbe prem i sed o n i ts hav ing se r ve d Re y no l ds ( o r a ny o th erpa tr o n) alc oh ol, it m ay st ill be lia b le if R ey n old s h as ad e q u at ely sta t e d a c l a i m a g a i ns tCB S po r t s f o r s o me o ther negl i gent conduct.

C
. Supple m ent al Facts The fi rs t issue that w e m ust r eso l ve i s whether Reynol ds m ay su pp l em ent he r com pla i nt o n appeal with f acts thatshe did noti ncl ud e in herco m p lain t. Of no te is h erte sti m ony at the e vi denti ar y hea ring hel d after th e di st r i ctc o ur t ha d al r ea dy di smi ss ed he r c o m pl aint agains t C B Sp orts, in w hich she tes tified th at th e barte nde r s vo uch ed f o r Rus se l l a nd C arso n. F o r the r ea so ns disc ussed i n m or e detai l bel ow, thi s quest i on i s cruci al to th e o u tc om e o f h er ap p ea l. Pri orto Iq bal a nd Tw om bly, i t w a s c lear that “a p lai nt iff [ w as] fre e o n appeal to gi ve us an unsu b st anti ate d ve r si o n o fthe e ve nt s, pr o vi ded i t i s consi st en t wi ththe com pla i nt, to sho w thatth e co m pla i nt sho uld nothave been di sm i sse d

. ” Daw s on v. Ge ne r al M ot ors Corp. , 97 7 F. 2d 369, 37 2 ( 7t h Cir

. 19 92) ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks an d al ter ati on o m i tte d). The questi on now i s whether Iq bal a nd Tw om bly narr owed the ple adingst andard such that thi s a fter
- th e-fact hypothe si s o ff acts i s no l onge r perm i ssibl e.N o. 09

- 3753 7 W e concl ud e that the Suprem e C ourt ’ s rece nt deci si ons, whi l e r ai singthe b arf o r whatmustb e i nc l uded i n the com pla i nt i n the fi rs t instance , di d n ot el i m i nate th e pl aint i ff’ s o ppo r tu ni tyt o s ug g es t f ac ts o ut si de th e pl e a d i n g, i n c l u d i n go n a p p e a l, s h o wi n gth a ta c o mpl ai nt sh ou ld n otbe d ism iss ed

. S e eTwo mbly , 550 U
. S. at56 3 ( “[ O]nce a cl ai m has been sta ted adequatel y, it m ay be supp or ted bysho w i ng anyset of f acts co nsi ste nt with t h e a lleg at ion s in th e c om p lain t.” ); M c Ze a l v . S p r i nt Nextel C o rp . , 501 F.3d 135 4, 1356 n.4 ( Fe d

. Cir. 2007). Theref or e, al though the p lai nti ffi s r equi re d to ple ad m or e than bar e l ega l co n c lu sio ns to sur vi ve a m oti on t o dism i ss, o nce the pl ai nti ffpl eads s ufficient f actual m at er ial to st at e a p lau sib le c laim

— that i s, suffi ci en t t o p u t t h e d efe n d an t o n n ot ice of a p l a u sib le c laim ag ain stit

— no th i ngi n Iq bal or Tw om b l y pr eclud es the pla i nti fffro m l ate r sugge sting to the cour t a se t o ff acts, c o n s i s t e n twi th th e we l l

- p l e a d e d c o mpl a i n t, th a ts h o ws tha tthe c o mpl a i nts ho ul d n o tb e di s mi s s e d. W ith th is backgrou nd i n m ind , w e tu r n to R eyn olds’s com pla i nt . I n re l evantpart, Reyno l ds al l ege d i n her seco nd am ended com pla i nt thatthe bar te n d er r efused to hel p her geta ta x icab and tol d her she would have to g eta r i de ba ckt o he r ho tel f r o m a no th erpa tr o n. S he al so a ll eg ed th atthe b ar te nde r a ss i st ed Rus se l l a nd C ar so n in g et t in g R ey n old s in to x ica te d kn ow in g t h eir ill i ntenti ons. In Count 2 o fherse c on d am ended com pla i nt, R ey n old s a lleg es th at C B Sp or ts “a t le as t k n ew or s h ou ld ha ve k no wn th atDe fen dan ts Rus se l l a nd Ca r so n wer e get ti ng Pl a i nt i ff Lo r e t t a Re ynol ds i ntoxi cate d fo r th e pur po se o fs ex ua l e xpl o i ta ti o n, ” an d “ [ t] ha t Defen dan t8 N o. 09

- 3753 [ CB S port s] had a duty to prot ect the wel f ar e of i ts custom er s . . . f ro m si tuati ons such as that bei ng p lotted b y D efe n d an ts R u ss ell an d C ar so n .” (C om p lain t a t 1 9, 21 .) Taken t oge ther, we fi nd the se al l ega ti ons suffi ci ent t o ra i se a pl ausibl e cl ai m o fnegl i gence ag ai nst CB Spor ts. A l though Rey nol ds coul d have incl ud ed m or e f actual m ate ri ali n herco m pla i nt, s h e has done enough t o nud ge her cl ai m o fnegl i gence ag ai nst CB S p or ts ove r th e lin e t o p l a u s i b le, an d th e c om p lain t o n its fac e is suffi ci ent t o pu t CB Spor ts on not i ce o fhercla im ag ai nst i t
. B a s e d o n a f a i r r e a d i n go fth e s e c o n d a me n d e d c o mpl a i nt, CB S po r t s wo ul d have kno wn tha tR e y no l ds w as sui ng it fo r bre achi ng i ts pu rpor ted duty t o prot ect he r fr o m Rus se l l a nd Ca r so n. Hav i ngmade a su ffi ci en t showing i n the fi rs t in stance, Reyno l ds i s fre e o n appeal to sugge st add i ti onalf acts thatwould dem onst rate to us why he r c o mpl a i nt s ho ul d no t b e di s mi s s e d f or f ai l i ngt o s ta te a c l ai m . W e wi l l the refor e co ns i derthe add i ti onalf actualal l ega ti ons that Reynol ds has r ai sed on ap p eal, i nc lud ing the all egation that the ba rten d ers t o l d h e r th a ti tw o u l d b e s a fe f o r h e r t o r i d e h o me wi thRus se l l a nd Ca r so n.

D
. Negligence W e fi rs t no te that the s econ d h alf o fpara gr aph 19 attem p ts to state a cau se of action for an i nt en tional tort an d n otfo r n eg lige n c e. ( See Com pla i nt at19 ( “A t wors t, D efend ant J er zey ’ s a nd i ts em plo y/ age nt bar tender w as an active acc om p li ce in t h e attem p t ens na re Plaintiff L o r e t t a R e y n o l d s i n t o a n u n s a v o r y a n d u n we l c o meN o. 09

- 3753 9

s e xu a l s i t ua t i o n. ” )
. ) S ubj e c tt o s o me i na ppl i c ab l e e xc e pti ons, C B Spor ts i s no t l i abl e fori ts age nts’ i ntenti onal to rt s, so it ca n n otbe liab le for th e b a r t e n d er ’s a c tio n s if he was an ac ti ve acco m pli ce o fthe tor ti ous a tta ck aga i nst Re y no l ds. Acc ord i ng l y, we no w di sc us s whethe r the fi rs t s entence of parag ra ph 19 st ate s a cl ai m o fnegl i gence .
1. D uty Because federa l j uri sdic ti on in thi s ca se i s ba sed o n dive rs i ty ofci ti zenship, we app l y I l l i noi s s ubstanti ve law

. Se eCas i o , Inc . v. S. M
. & R. Co. , 75 5 F
. 2d 528, 53 1 ( 7th Cir
. 19 85)
. “To sta te a cl ai m f or negl i gence , a pl ai nti ffm ust ple ad a duty o w ed by a defe nd ant to that pla i nti ff, a bre ach ofduty, and i nj ury proxi m ate l y c aused by the b reach o f du ty. ” B el l v. H uts el l , 93 1 N
. E.2 d 299, 30 2 (Ill. A pp . Ct. 2010 )
. T here is nor m al l y no duty t o prot ect som eone fro m c rim in al a tt ac ks by th ird p ar tie s. H il ls v. Bridgevie w Lit tl e League Ass ’n , 745 N
. E
. 2d 1166 , 1185 -86 (I ll

. 2000 ). H ow ever, a l andow ner w i l l have a du ty to protec t law ful entr ants aga inst cri m i nal at tack s o n th e prem ises i fthe parti es st an d in a sp ec ial re lat ion sh ip

— su ch a s be twe ena b u sin es s in vit or an d inv ite e, s e eRowe v. Sta t eBank o f Lo m ba rd, 53 1 N
. E.2 d 1358, 13 64 ( Ill. 19 88)

— an d the c rim in al a tt ac k w as rea so n ab l y fore se ea b le, H il ls , 74 5 N. E. 2 d a t1 1 86- 87; O sb orne v. Stages M usi c Hall, Inc. , 72 6 N
. E.2 d 728, 73 3 ( Ill. A pp . Ct. 20 00) ( em phasi zi ng tha t the c ri m i nal actm ust be noto nl y fo re see abl e, but re ason ably fo r e s eeab le) ; s e eal s o M i t ch e l l v. Ar ch i b al d & Kendall, Inc. , 573 F. 2d 429, 43 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 78) ( “[ A ] n own er10 N o. 09

- 3753

or o c c up i e r o f l a nd i n I l l i no i s o we s a du t y t o i nv i t ees o n h is prem i ses r eas onabl y t o guar d against c ri m i nal act s o f thi rd part i es w h en kno w l edge o fpre vi ous inci dents o r ci r cumst an ce s ch ar g es hi m wi thkno wl edge ofthi s dan

ger . ”)
. “A cri m i nal a tt ack by a thi rd per son i s r easonab l y for ese eabl e wh en the ci rcum sta nces ar e s uch as to puta r ea so nabl y pr ude ntpe r so n on not i ce o fthe p robab il ity ofan att ack or w h en a seri ou s p hy sical al terca ti o n h as a l r ea dy be g un .” Sh o rtal l v. Ha w k eye’s B a r & G ri ll, 670 N
. E
. 2d 768, 770 (I ll

. A p p . Ct
. 1996). Even i fther e i s a speci alr el ati ons h ip and the cr i m i nal att ack i s for ese eable , co urts m ust s ti l l deci de w hether to im p u te a d u ty to p ro te c t a ga in st th e a tt ac k. Se eBurks v. M adyu n , 43 5 N
. E.2 d 185, 18 9 ( I l l

. A p p . Ct. 19 82)
. Court s w i l l co nsi der a num bero ff acto rs i n deci ding w hether to i m po se a duty o n s o m eo ne to pro te cta no th er, i ncl ud i ng“ ( 1 ) the r e a s o nab l e f o r e s e e ab i l i t y o fthe i nj ur y; ( 2) the like li hood o fthe i nj ury; ( 3) the m agni tude of th e bur deno fg ua r di nga g ainst t he i nj ur y ; a nd ( 4) the c onse quences o fpl aci ng tha t bur den on the defenda n t.” M a rsha ll v. B u rg er K ing C o rp . , 85 6 N
. E.2 d 1048, 10 57 (I ll

. 2006). H ad Re y no l ds be ena tt ac k ed o r ha r m ed whi l e o n the bar p rem ises, our task w ou ld b e sub stan tially easier; busi ness i nvi torl i abi l i ty f orf or ese eabl e cr i m i nal at tack s on th e p re m ise s is w ell es ta b lish ed

. Se e, e . g. , Le wis v. R azz be rr ie s, Inc. , 58 4 N
. E.2 d 437, 44 1 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct . 1 991) ( ci t i ng R e s t a t e me n t ( S e c o n d ) o f T o r t s § 3 4 4 )
. He r e, ho weve r, R eynol ds w as i nj ured m or e than one m i l e fro m th e ba r, a nd gui dan ce fr o m I ll in o i s co ur ts o n thi s i ss ueN o. 09

- 3753 11 is d ec id ed ly les s c lea r. See M it ch el l , 57 3 F
. 2d at 433 (n ot in g t h at w h er e “ th er e a re n o Illino is c as es ‘on all f ours ’ with the pre se n t case, we m ust deci de the case as w e beli eve th e I ll inois courts w ou ld”). The gener alr ule i s that a busi ness i nvi tee c eas es to be an inv it e e , a n d th e b u sin es s in vit or ’s lia b ility is th er ef or e e xti ngui shed, as so on a s the i nvi tee l eave s th e p re m ise s o w n ed by th e in vit or . S e eLe w is , 58 4 N
. E.2 d at 442 ( “[ T]hi s co urt has r efused to exte nd l i abi l i ty to prot ect aga i nst a ss au l ts oral ter cati ons occur ring after a p at ro n lea ve s t h e o w n er ’s p re m ise s.” ); Badil l o v. D eVi vo , 515 N
. E
. 2d 681 , 6 84 (I ll

. A p p . Ct
. 1987) (“Th is court has r epeat ed l y hel d that r equi ring a busi ness oper ato r to pr o te ct i ts pa tr o ns fr o m i nj ur i es tha t o cc ura fte r the p at ro n lea ve s t h e p re m ise s p lac es an u nj u s t i fiab le bu rd en on th e op erator an d on th e po li ce force.”)

. I n B adillo , the pla i ntiff w as atta cked byano therpatr on o fthe de fen dan t ba r i ns i de th e ba r . The bar s to pped th e fi ght a nd ki cked bo th p at ro n s o ut. The o ri gi nal ag gr ess or att acke d the pl ai n ti ffag ai n as she was g ett i ng i nto her cara ha lfbl ockaway fro m the bar, thi s t i m e using a pol i ce b ato n. 51 5 N
. E.2 d at 6 82. The I l l in oi s Ap pel l ate Court hel d that the barwas not l i abl e forthe i nj uri es su staine d i n th e attac k tha t occu rred outs ide th e bar, because i m posi ng a du ty on the bar to ensure th e s afety ofi ts p at ro n s o ffpre m i ses , ev en i fan a tta ck i s for eseeab le, w ou ld im p ose too he avy of a burd en on a bar. Id. at 68 3-8 4; se e also Le w is , 84 5 N
. E. 2d at441 ( fi ndi ng th at a t av ern was no t l i ab l e f o r a c r i m i na l a tt ac ko n o ne ofi ts patro ns that o ccurr ed 23 feeto ffpre m i ses bec ause12 N o. 09

- 3753 “[f] rom the tim e plaintiff’s dec ed en t left d efend an t’s legal bou nd aries, sh e w as no l ong er ow ed a d ut y ofc a re as a bu siness i nv itee”). A pp l yi ng I l l i noi s l aw , this co urt has a l so f ound that a bu siness w as no t li able for a crim inal att a c k b y a third par tya g ains t a truckdri ver tha t o cc ur r ed o ffthe b u s i n e s s ’ s p r e mi s e s , e v e n th o u g h th e b u s i n e s s ’ s e mplo yee s di re cted the tr uck dri verto p ar k o n a r oad near the b usi ness on wh i ch the em plo yee s kne w cr i m i nal at ta c ks h ad p re vio u sly oc c u rre d

. M it chel l , 57 3 F
. 2d at 437. T h er e a re , ho w e v e r , ex c ep tio n s t o th e g en er al ru le. In Shortall, the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courtf ound that a bar co ul d b e l i ab l e f o r i nj ur i es tha t o cc ur r ed dur i nga fi g ht that occur re d j ust o utsid e the b ar . 67 0 N
. E.2 d at 7 72. The dis pu te that e ventual l y l ed to the fi ght ha d occurr ed i n the bar, the fi ght l ast ed for fi ftee n m i nutes, the bar e s c a l a t e d the fi g htb y u s he r i ngs o me pa t r o ns o ut s i de i nt o the fi g ht, a nd the b ar ’ s bo unc ers wer e wat ch i ngthe figh t t h ro u gh a w in d ow b u t d i d n ot h in g. Id. at 769- 70. U nd ertho se ci rcum sta nces, the c ourtco ncl ud ed that the ba r “w as u nd erthe sam e duty as i fthe fi ght ha d occur re d in si de the bar

. ” Id. at7 72
. M o r e g en er al l y, the c ou rt h el d that “ tave rn o w ners m ay not avo i d app l i cati on o fthe du ty to act to prot ect i nvi te es fr om cr i m i nal att ack by thi rd parti es si m ply because the dis turba nce giving r is e t o the d ut y occu rs j us t out the front d oor, especi al l y where the o w ner contributes t o the a l ter cati on byse nd i ng patr ons out i nto i t. ” Id. S i m i l ar l y, i n O s b or ne, 72 6 N
. E
. 2d at 734, the cou rt foun d that the d efe n d an t night club cou ld be li able for aN o. 09

- 3753 13 cri m i nal at tackag ai nst o ne o fi ts p atrons that occur re d on the si dew al k i n f ro nt of the ni ghtcl ub. Earl ier th at even ing, th e nightc lub h ad used barricad es to help f orm the l i ne go i ng i nto the c l ub. A t so m e p oi nt thatev eni ng, th e ni g ht cl ub’ s bo unc er s ej ec te d t wo dr unkmen a nd sh utthe do o r s be hi nd the m . The men po unde d o n the do o r s an d y el l ed pr o f an i ties atthe b o unc er s. The pl aint i ffa nd a fr i en d wal k ed o uto fthe c l ub o nt o the s i de wa l ki n f r o nto fthe c l ub

. On e o fthe me n o utsi de s l a pp e d the p l a i nt i f f’ s fr i e nd , a nd a s the p l a i nt i ffa pproa ched her f ri end o n e ofthe m en spun and ki cked her i n t h e fa c e. Id. at72 9- 31. The co urt sai d that the r easo na b l e f o r e s e e ab i l i t y o f th e a t t a c k, a n d n o t wh e th e r t he atta c k occur re d on oro ffpre m i ses , was the dispos i ti ve fac to r for liab ility

. Id. at7 33. Si g ni fi ca nt l y, i t f o und ampl e ev i den ce t o fi nd tha t th e at ta cka g ains t th e pla i ntiffwas re aso nabl y for ese eabl e: the bouncer s knew that the m en o utsi de w er e drunk and an gr y, that they had al re ady be en invo l ved i n a fi ght insi de the cl ub, an d tha t th eyha d no t co o l ed o ffa fte r b einge victed

. The bouncer s di d not r em ove the m en fro m the si dew al k o r o th er wi se po l i ce the a r ea e ve n tho ug h the c l ub ha d c o ntr ol l ed the si dew al k a re a e ar l i erthatev eni ng. Based o n th e bou nc ers’ know ledge an d t h e ir inact ion, th e cou rt concluded that “ i t was r eas onabl y for ese eabl e that a pa t r o n wo ul d b e a t t a c k e d u po n e xi t i ngthe clu b a nd , th erefore, it w as incu m ben t on the club t o gu ard aga i nst s uch an oc curr ence. ” Id. at 734. M o str ec en tly, i n Ha up t v . Sha rkey, 83 2 N
. E.2 d 198, 20 2- 03 ( I l l

. App. Ct
. 2 00 5) , the Il li noi s Appel l at e Cou r t f o und th ata b arc o ul d b e l i ab l e f o r a c r i m i na l a tt ack aga in sto ne14 N o. 09

- 3753 of i ts patro ns that occur re d j ust off the b ar ’s p re m i ses . A fterdi scussing Shortall a nd B adillo , th e c o u r t co nclud ed that “t h e r e i s n o bright line rule that a tav ern own er ’ s duty t o prot ect i ts patro ns fr om cr i m i nal act s ofthi rd part i es abso l utel y e nd s a t the pre ci se p roperty l i ne ofth e t avern. ” Id. at 203. Th e cou rt held that a bar’s dut y “ to pr o vi de a r ea so nabl y s afe m ean s o f i ng r es s an d eg r es s to pa tr o ns , ” co upl ed wi th th e fo r es ee ab i l i tyo fthe cri m i nal at tackthat o c c u rr ed as the pat ro n w as evi cted from the ba r, served to prec lud e grant ing su m m ary j u d gm en t in th e b ar ’s fa vo r. Id. at20 4- 05. A gainst thi s ba ckdro p, Reyno l ds ask s us to fin d that C B Sp or ts ow ed a d u t y t o p ro te c t h er ag ain st R u ss ell an d Ca r so n’ s cr i m i na l a tt ac kthat w as t o o cc uro ffthe p h ys ica l p re m ise s o w n ed by C B Sp o r t s . T o fin d in Reynol ds’s f avo r w oul d r equi re us to wad e into som ew hat u n c h a r t e d t e r r i t o r y b e c a u s e n o I l l i n o i s c o u r t o f w h i c h we ar e a w ar e has e ver e xtended busi ness i nvi torl i abi l i ty so far off p r em ises. H ow ever, the fact th at R eyn olds’s i nj ur i e s we r e s us t a i ne d mor e tha n o ne mi l e a wa y fr o m CB Spor ts’ s ba r does not necess ar i l y pr ecl ud e fi nd i ng a du ty h er e. See id
. at 203- 04. There i s no q u esti on in thi s ca se that Reynol ds w as a b us i ne s s i nv i t e e o fCB S po r ts whi l e s he wa s i ns i de the b ar . There f ore, CB S port s cl ear l y had a du ty to p rotect h e r f r om f oreseea ble crim inal attacks by third parti es w hi l e she w as i nsi de the bar

. Th e d i sposi ti ve questi on, though, i s when C B Spor ts’ s duty t o prot ect Re y no l ds e nd e d the n i g hts he wa s i nj ur e d. As n o t ed previ ousl y, the generalr ule i s that s he ce ase d to be a nN o. 09

- 3753 15 i nvi tee wh en she l eft th e physi calpre m i ses o w ned by CB S po r t s . Unl e s s the e xc e pt i o n t o the g e ne r a l r ul e di scussed ab ove appli es, C B Spor ts cannot be l i abl e for her i nj uri es because i t was un d er n o du ty to prot ect her at th e t im e s h e w as inju re d . Ou r re m ain in g t as k, th en , i s to de te rm ine whatthe s co pe o fthe e xc ept i o n t o the g en e r a l r ul e i s a nd whether Re y no l ds fi t s wi thin tha te xc e pti o n. N o d u ty c an ex ist u n les s th e crim e w as rea so n ab ly for es ee ab le

— th ati s, tha t a r easo nabl e per so n un derthe c irc u m st an c es w ou ld h av e k n ow n th at an a tt ac k w ou ld oc c u r. Id at 204. One cl ear exam ple of circ u m sta nces that sh ou ld p ut a baro n noti ce o fa probabl e cr i m i nal atta ck i s when a physi calal ter cati on has al re ady o cc u rre d

. Id. T h e f o c u s o ff o r e s e e ab i l i t y i s wh a tth e d e fe ndant knew a t th e t im e. Lewis , 5 84 N. E. 2d at4 42
. Thu s, the cr i m i na l a tt ac ki n Shortall w as rea so n ab ly for es ee ab le to th e b ar be c a u s e t h e b ar te n d er h ad ob se rv ed th e s c u ffle th athapp en ed i ns i de th e ba r pr i o r t o the fi g hte r upt i ng o ut si de, a nd a b o unc erwat ch ed th e fi ghtthr o ug h a w in d ow as it es c ala te d

. Shortall, 670 N .E .2d at77 1. In O s b or ne, the att ack w as re aso nabl y for ese eable bec ause th e bou n cers h ad prev iously f ou gh t w ith th e attac kers whi l e th e y we r e i n th e c l u b , th e b o u n c e r s h e ar d t he m en yell ing an gril y a n d p ou nd ing against the clu b’s do o r s, a nd the b o unc er s k ne w tha t the m en wer e dr unk an d look in g for a figh t. O s b or ne, 7 26 N
. E. 2d at7 34
. The court co ncl ud ed that the c l ub had a duty t o prot ect i t s p a t r o ns a g ai ns ta c r i mi na l a t t a c kb y the me n o ut s i de th e club “ [b ] ec au se o fwhatthe b o unc er s k ne w ab o ut the tw o m en. ” Id. F i na l l y, the a tt ac ki n Haupt w as f or ese eabl e be cause the b aro w ner knew through p ri orper sonal16 N o. 09

- 3753 experi ence that the att acke r had a pro pensi ty f orfi ghti ng, o n the ni g hto f th e at ta ck he ha d o bs er ve d th e pl aint i ffa nd th e at ta ck er fi g ht i ng i n th e ba r, an d he k i ck ed th e m eno ut of t h e b ar atth e s am e t im e. Haupt, 83 2 N .E .2d at20 0, 20 4- 05. H er e , Re y no l ds ha s a l l e g e d, a nd we a r e o b l i g e d to ac c ep t a s t ru e, th at C B Sp or ts “ a tle as t k n ew or s h ou ld ha ve kn ow n th at D efend an ts R us sell a n d Ca rson w ere g et tingPl aint i ffLo r et ta Re yn olds i nt o xi ca te d f o r the pu rpos e o fse xual exploitat i on. ” S he does notsa y h ow sh e k n ow s t h at th e b a r t e n d er kn ew , bu t t h at is w h at d i sco ver y i s desi gned to unear th. A ssum i ng as tru e tha t t he barten d er knew of R us selland Ca rson ’s cri m i nal purposes , w e m ust co ncl ud e that the subse

quent unrea l i zed cr i m i nal a tt ack on Rey nol ds w as re asonab l y for ese eabl e t o CB S port s. O fco urse , j ust be cause a cr i m i nal at tacki s r eas on ab ly f or ese e ab l e do e s no t ne c e s s a r i l y mea n tha t a b a r ha s a d u ty to p ro te c t a g a in st it. S e eGu s t af s on v . M athe ws , 44 1 N .E .2d 38 8, 39 0 (Ill . A p p . C t. 19 82 ) (“F or es ee ab ility is a ne ce ss ar y b utnot a su ffi ci en t co ndi ti o n f o r i m po sing a duty. ”)
. W e m ust a l so consi der the l i keli hood o f i nj ur y, th e bur den o n th e defen dant of g ua r di ng ag ains t th ati nj ur y, a nd any con se que nc es o fpl ac i ngthe b u rd en to p ro te c t o n th e b ar . O s b or ne, 72 6 N
. E.2 d at 7 32. The l i kel ih oo d ofi nj ury und erthes e ci rcum sta nces w as ver y hi gh. T hi s was nota fi ght that m ay orm ay not hav e broken out in th e bar p arking lot, bu t a pu rposeful schem e t o att ack Reyn ol ds w i th se ri ous c onse q u en c es su re t o r e su lt. T h er efo re , th is fa c to r w eig h s in f avo r offi nd i ng a du ty.N o. 09

- 3753 17 W e do not thi nk i t o verly b u rd enso m e t o re quir e a bar to p ro te c t a ga in st cr im in al a tt ac ks of th e k in d i n th is case i fi t know s they w illbe perpetr ate d. CB S port s argu es th at fi nd ing li abili ty h e r e w ou ld req uire allbars t o e ns ur e tha tthe i r patr o ns do n o tl e a v e wi th s ha dy chara cter s a nd t hat they a l l m ake i t s afel y ho m e. To b e sure , w e w oul d be incl i ned to agr ee w i th CB Sport s th at su c h a b ro ad d u ty w ou ld vio lat e Illin o i s p u b lic pol i cy. But w e no te tw o l i m i ti ng princi ple s, drawn fr om I ll inois courts ’ decisions, that m ake im p osing a m ore l i m i ted du ty on CB Spor ts consi ste nt w i th es ta bl i shed I l l i n o i s l a w. F i r st, CB S po r ts was unde r no du ty to i nv es ti g at e th e pla ns o r i ntenti ons ofi ts patro ns. To req uir e a bar tender to i nv es ti g at e ea chpa tr o n’ s pur po se s i n pur chas i ng dri nks forthem sel ves orso m eone e l se w oul d place an u nj u s t i fi e d b u r d e n o n th e b a r . T h i s l i mi t a t i o n s t e ms log ica lly fro m th e Illino is c ou rt s’ h old in g t h at a b ar is unde r no duty t o de term i ne ho w i nt o xi ca te d i ts pa tr o ns ar e bef or e they dri ve aw ay fro m the b ar . Se eSi m m ons , 92 5 N .E .2d at 1 0 9 9; Hol tz v. Am ax Zi ncCo. , 51 9 N
. E.2 d 54, 58 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 1988 ) ( “[ W ] e do not bel i eve that su ch an em p loy er ca n be liab le w h er e it s a ge n ts h av e s im p ly f ai l ed to ta ke ste ps to p re vent an intoxi cate d em plo yee fro m d riv in g h om e.” ); Gus t af s on , 44 1 N
. E.2 d at 390-91 (d es c rib in g a s “ an u nj u st ifiab ly b u rd en so m e re sp on sibi l i ty” a du ty that “w oul d requi re [ bus i nesse s] to ev al ua te the b ehav i o r o fthe i r c us to m er s to de te r m i ne w he th er they hav e the cap acity to d rive safel y”). The seco nd l i m i ti ng principl e fol l ows natura l l y fro m the fi rs t. U nd erthe speci fi c fa cts ofthi s ca se, CB S port s18 N o. 09

- 3753 had a duty t o prot ect aga i nst o nl y t h os e cr i m i nal at tack s occur ring f ar f ro m i ts physi cal prem i ses that it kn e w w oul d occur. Because CB S port s had n o d u ty to in ve st iga te th e m ot ive s o f its p at ro n s, it c an be liab le onl y forcr i m i nal desi gns o fwh i ch i t was actual l y a w ar e. A fteral l, t h e c rim i nal at tackm ust no t o nl y b e for ese eab le, bu t re as on ab ly for es ee ab le. A n d w h e n an at ta c k is to o c c ur f arfro m the physi calpre m i ses o fa bar, i t is unr easonab le t o r equi r e a ba r t o f o r es ee a l l the hi dden, n efa riou s p lan s o f its p at ro n s. H ow ev er , i t is n otov er ly b u rd en so m e t o re q u ire a b a r t o p ro te c t it s in vit ee s if it knows that one patro n i s intending to att ac k another p atron, even i f th e attac k i s to occu r f ar fr om the ba r. I n S i m m ons , the I l l i no i s S upr eme Co ur t f o und tha t th e r u l e th a tt a v e r n s a r e n o tr e q u i r e d t o d e t e r mi n e t he dr i vingc apa ci tyo fthe i r pa tr o ns was no de fen se t o the c l ub i n tha tc a s e . Al tho ugh i twa s u nd er n o dut y t o do so , the c l ub ha d t ak eno n “ th e bur d en of det er m i ni ng w h et h er [t h e d efe n d an t d ru n k d riv er ] w as d an ge ro u sly i ntoxi cate d” and had there f or e “ acqui re d a duty notto en co ur ag e an d a ss i st[ th e defen dan t] i n the t o r ti o us conduct ofdri vi ng wh i l e intoxi cate d.” 92 5 N
. E.2 d at 1099
. L ike w ise, al though CB Spor ts w as not obl i gat ed to i nv es ti g at e Rus se l l a nd Car so n’ s m o ti ve s be hi nd b uy i ng R ey n old s d rin ks or d riv in g h er h om e, on c e i t a lleg ed ly l ea r ne d o fthe i r i l l mo t i v e s i ta c qu i r e d the du t y t o p r o t ect R ey n old s fro m th e a tt ac k. Seealso Ba dill o , 51 5 N
. E.2 d at 68 3 ( fi nd i ng no l i abi l i ty f oran o ff

- prem i ses cr i m i nal att ack, a nd di stingui shi ng Yash arv. Yakovac, 48 N
. Y. S. 2d 128 ( N .Y. Ci ty Ct. 19 44) , bec ause i n that case , wh i chN o. 09

- 3753 19 foun d a du ty, th e d efend an t b a r k n ew that the att acke rs w ere w aiting forthe p lai nt iff ou tsid e the bar). W e co ncl ud e that Rey n old s has suffi ci entl y pl ed that CB S po r ts o wed he r a duty t o pr o te cthe r a g ainst the cri m i nal at tackbyRussel land Carso n if it actual l y knew ofthei r al l ege d plan t o sexual l y e xploi t hero ffprem i ses . She has a l so suffi c ien tly ple d the r em ai ni ng el em ents of h er n eg lig en c e c laim . Th u s, w e n ee d n ot(an d sh ou ld not) deci de at thi s s tag e of lit igati on wh at CB S port s c o ul d h a v e do ne to di s c ha r g e i t s du t y, n o r wh e the r CB Sp or ts ’s inacti on ( such as f ai l i ng to warn hero r gi ve her a phone b oo k) o r acti on ( such as tel l i ng herto ge t a ri de hom e fro m som eone atthe baro r vouchi ng f or Russel l and Carso n) bre ached thatduty.

2. Caus at i on CB S port s a sk s u s to concl ud e a s a m att ero fl aw that ev en if it b re ac h ed its d u ty , i ts br ea c h w a s n otth e p ro x imate caus e o fR e y no l ds ’ s i nj ur i e s . We de c l i ne t o s o fi nd

. “[ P]r oxi m ate cause is preem i nentl y a n i ssue off act to be deci ded bythe j ury,” R ivera v. G arci a , 92 7 N
. E.2 d 1235, 1242 ( I ll. A p p . C t. 20 10) , and the l ack ofpro xi m ate cause sh o ul d o nl y b e det er m i ne d b y the c o ur t “w he r e th e f acts al l ege d d o n ot suffi ci entl y dem onst ra te both cause i n f act and l ega l cause , ” Yo u n g v . B ry c o A r ms , 82 1 N
. E.2 d 1078 , 1086 (I ll

. 2004). A s with m ostacc id en ts , there ar e s eve ra l f acto rs that m ayha ve c o nt r ibut ed to Re y no l ds’ s i nj uri es , i nc l udi ng th e b a r t e nd er vouc hin g for R us selland Ca rson and per-20 N o. 09

- 3753 haps Reynol ds’s o w n negl i gence . A t t h is sta ge ofl i ti gation, w e can not say as a m atter of l aw that CB Sp o r t s ’s ac ti o ns wer e not the pr o xi m at e ca us e o fRe y no l ds’ s i nj uri es. A nd i n f act, Reyno l ds has p l ed as m uch. I t doe s no t m at te r th at R ey n old s’s inju rie s re su lte d from be in g h it by a ca r w hi l e e scapi ng a future att ack, r ath er than from the att ack itself. P r o x im ate ca us e d oes not requ ire that the defendant f or ese e the exac t way in w h ich an i nj ury w i l l o ccur. H o ope rv. County of Cook, 85 1 N
. E.2 d 663, 66 9 ( I l l

. A pp . C t. 2006 )
. I fCB S port s knew that Reynol ds w oul d be a tta cked, i t was r eas onablyf or esee abl e that s he w ou l d tryto es cape and perhaps be i nj ured. C B S port s wil l have ano thero pp or tuni ty after disc ove ryto r ai se the pr oxi m ate ca u se i ssue i n a m oti on f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t

— shoul d it be so i ncl i ned

— at w hi ch poi nt Reyno l ds w i ll have to do m or e than si m ply al l ege proxi m ate cause. U nti l then, sh e has done eno ugh to sur vi ve a m oti on t o dism i ss. The re is one fi nal i tem with which we m ay dispense q u ick ly. R ey n old s a l so arg u es th at C B Sp or ts vo lu n ta rily ass um ed the du ty to en su re thatshe m ake i t ba ck to her hote l sa fel y b y r efusi ng to g ive h er a tel ephone bo ok an d t el li ng h ertha t no t ax i s wer e av ai l ab l e. “ Gen

er al l y, pursuant to the voluntary undert aking the or y o f l i ab i l i ty, o ne who unde r ta k es , g r atui to us ly o r f o r c o nsi derati on, to r ender ser vi ces to anothe r i s s ubj ect to li abili ty for bod il y harm cau s e d t o the oth er by one’s f ai l ur e to ex er ci se due ca r e i n th e per f o r m an ce o f the und ertak i ng. ” Wakul i ch v. M r az , 785 N .E .2d 84 3, 85 4 (Ill. 20 03 ) (int er n al q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ). In ge n er al, tave rns are n ot requ ired to en su re their pa trons ’ safeN o. 09

- 3753 21 p as sa ge to th eir ca rs or h om es . B adillo , 51 5 N
. E.2 d at 6 84. To vo l untari l y a ssum e s uch a duty r equi re s m or e th an j u st n oth elp in g p at ro n s s afe ly to th eir ca rs . SeeLe w is , 584 N
. E.2 d at 4 41- 42. W e do not thi nk tha t s i m plynot gi vi ng Reyno l ds a phone b oo k o r tel l i ng herto ge t a ri de hom e w ith s om eone el se i n the bari s e nough to saythat CB Sport s v ol untari l y a ssum ed a duty to en su re he r safe arrival at he r hot el. R eyn olds th erefore ha s fai led to stat e a c lai m un d er a volunt ary un d ertak i ng the or y o fl i abi l i ty.

III. C ON CLU SI ON W e R EVER S E the di str i ct c ourt’s j ud gm ent o fdi sm i ssa l o fCB S po r t s Ba r, Inc . , a nd R EMA ND f orfurtherpro ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e, di sse nti ng. Th is c ase r equi re s th atwe u nd er ta k e th e f ami l i art as ko fdi sc erni ngthe conte nt o fst ate l aw and ofapp lyi ng i t a s we bel i eve the S up re m e Cour t o fI l l i noi s would appl y i t if thi s ca se w er e be f or e i t t oday. A s m y c ol l eagues co rr ectly point o ut, the S up re m e Cour t o fI l l i noi s has e x pand ed busi ness i nvi torl i abi l i ty ove r re cent yea rs . N eve rthel ess , we m ust be v e r y c a r e fu l th a t we d o n o t r e a c h b e y o n d t he22 N o. 09

- 3753 boundari es curr entl y dra w n by the s tat e co urt; any such ex pan si o n wo ul d r equi r e th e r ec o nc i l i at i o n o fi m p ort an t p olic y c on sid e ra tio n s, th e p re ro ga tiv e o f th e Illino is cour ts. I t i s not our pla ce to extend leg al l i abi l i ty b ey on d th e b ou n d ar ies se t b y t h e s ta te
. S e e Tod d v. Socie te Bi c, S
. A. , 21 F. 3d 1402, 1412 (7th C ir. 1994) (en ban c). O n th e fa c ts be for e u s, M s. R ey n old s e ss en tia lly att em pts to m ak e out a case ag ai nst CB Spor ts gr ounded no ti n ne g l i g e nc e b uti n i nt e nt i o na l tort
. Ic a nn o ta c c e pt th e view th at, giv en th e fac ts b efo re u s, c u rre n t Illino is l aw i m poses a du ty up on CB Spor ts to prot ect M s. Re y no l ds f r o m the bar te nde r ’ s co m pl i ci tyi n the cr i m i na l a tt ac ko fRus se l l a nd Ca r son . Such a ho l di ng w oul d expand dras ti cal l y I l l i noi s s tat e l aw with r espect to b us i ne ss i nv i to r l iabi l i ty, a nd, the r efo r e, e xc ee d o ur i nter preta ti ve author i ty und erthe Eri e Doct rine. I l l i n o i s c o u r t s h a v e e x p a n d e d l i ab i l i t y, i n s o me i ns ta nc es , f o r thi r d pa r tya tt ac k s th ato cc ur r ed be y o nd th e bus i ne ss pr emi se s be ca us e th e atta cks wer e “r ea so nabl y for ese eabl e. ” SeeO sb orne v. Stages M usi c H all, Inc. , 72 6 N
. E.2 d 728, 7 33 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 00)
. H owever, a cl ose e xa mi na t i o n o fthe a l l e g a t i o ns ma de by Ms. R e y no l ds re ve als sev er alke y di stincti ons between the f actual ci rcum sta nces al l eged in this cas e a nd tho se add re sse d i n the I l l i no is cas es r el i ed upo n b y the c o ur t. The Suprem e Court ofI l l i noi s has em plo yed a “f or see abi l i ty anal ysi s” to expa n d b usi ness i nvi torl i abi l i ty w hen th e s u rro u n d in g c irc u m st an c es w er e s u c h th at th e b u siness’ s e m plo yee s h ad noti ce o fa potenti alal ter cati on a nd negligentlyf ac i l i ta te d the o cc ur r en ce . I t i s o ne thi ngN o. 09

- 3753 23 to s ug g es t th at“ th e ci r cumst an ce s [w ere] suc h a s to put a r e a s o nab l y p r ud e ntp e r s o n o n no t i c e o fthe p r o b ab i l i ty ofan a tta ck, ” Sho rtall v. Haw keye’s B ar & Gril l , 67 0 N
. E.2 d 768, 77 0 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 96), a n d q uit e a notherto ma k e th e a s s e r t i o n, a s Ms
. R e y n o l d s d o e s , th a ta n e mplo yee actual l y “ knew” ofthe pla n n ed att ack and too k co ns ci o us s te ps to a i d the thi r d pa r tyi n c ar r y i ngo ut the pla nn e d a t t a c k

. I fwe a c c e pt, a s we mus t, the f a c ts st at ed byM s. Re yn o l ds to b e true

— that the b ar tender i nd eed knew ofthe defe nd ants’ pl ans, r efused to provi de herwith a ph on e b oo k, to l d her she would have to catc h a rid e t o h er hotel w ith som eon e in the ba r, r ea ss ur ed he r tha t sh e woul d b e sa fe wi thRus se l l a nd Carso n, a n d then co nti nued to se rv e her“e xcessi ve am ounts ofal cohol ” purchas ed by the defendants

— the t r a d iti ona l foreseeabili ty an alysis of negligencel aw ha r dl y s e e ms r e l e v a nti n thi s cas e. Ra the r, f a i r l y r e a d, her al l ega ti ons alle ge a n i ntenti onalto rto n the part of th e b ar te n d er , no t t h e n eg lige n t p er for m an c e o f h is du t i e s . T he a utho r i t i e s r e l i e d u po n b y the c o ur tto day d eal w ith ne gli gen ce situa tions. Th e I ll inois courts w ere add re ssing wh etherto expand busi ness i nvi torliab il i ty w hen t h e f acts were such thatthe busi ness em plo yee s knew onl y t h at a n att ack co ul d t a k e p l a c e , a nd negligently did nothi ng to st op i t. By co nt rast, i n thi s ca se, M s. R eyn olds is as s e rting tha t the barten d er k new that an at tack woul d tak e pl ace and actual ly c oo perat ed w i th the a ssa i l ants i n thei r plo t t o car ryo ut the att ack. Giv en th es e f ac tu ala l le g at i o ns , i t i s di ffi cul t to unde r st an d how the bar tender coul d be s i m ply n egl i gent; he k new ofthe defe nd ants’ pl ans forM s. R ey nol ds, ye t di s-24 N o. 09

- 3753

cour age d o ther possibi l i ti es to her and e ven tol d he r that these i nd i vi du al s were safe a nd se rv ed heradd itional dri nks a t the d efe n dants’ r equest. Ido notbel i eve that I l l i noi s negligencel aw per m i ts th e e xtensi on o fbusi ness i nvi torl i abi l i ty to si tuati ons i n w hi ch an e m ploye e has ac tu alkno wl edg e o fa pl anne d a tt ac ko n a pa tr on and tak es affi rm ati ve step s to enabl e the pl an to be executed by the thi rd party. T h e Su p re m e C o u rtof Illin ois ’s re c en t d ec isio n in Sim m ons v. Hom at as , 9 2 5 N. E. 2 d 1 0 8 9 ( I l l

. 2 0 1 0 ) , ma kes thi s dist i ncti on cl ear . I n that case , the com pla i nt allege d that the b usi ness est abl i shm ent “ knew or shoul d have k no wn” tha t one o fthe i r pa tr o ns was i nt o xi ca te d a nd l ea vi ng the pre m i ses bydri vi ng a vehi cl e in that in eb ria te d st at e. Id. at 110 1. The pl ai nti ff s br ought a c laim f ornegl i gence under Rest ate m ent ( Se cond) Tort s § 8 76, as ser ti ng tha t the d efend ant club had gi ven “ subst an tia l as sis ta n c e o r en c ou ra ge m en t ” t o a p at ro n in c om m itt in g a br ea c h of d u ty by d riv in g in to x ica te d

. Id. I n Si m m ons , t h e cou rt held the clu b li able for negligence, w hi ch r esulte d i n a f atalcaracc i dent thato ccurr ed fi ftee n m i nutes a fterthe patro n l eft t h e cl ub’s pre m i ses . Si m m ons , 925 N .E .2d at10 92. The bo uncers at the b ar w er e a w ar e o fthe patro n’s dras ti cal l y i m pai re d stat e, and f aci l i tat ed hi s l eaving the bar behi nd the w heel of h is c ar . Se ei d. The custo dialnatur e o fthe bouncer s’ r el at i o nship to the pa tr o n in the mom en ts b efo r e th e patro n d ro ve aw ay f ro m the cl ub perm i tte d the co urt to extend busi ness i nvi torl i abil i ty beyo nd the i m m edi ate vic in ity of th e c lu b

. Id. at11 02- 03.N o. 09

- 3753 25 The r e i s a m ea ni ng fuldi stinc ti o n b etwee n e xt en di ng liab ility for t h e n eg lige n t a c tio n s o f em p loy ee s t h at fac ilita te the l at ertortious co nduc t o fa thi r d pe r so n a nd ex ten d ing li abili ty w he n a p lai nt if f a lle ges th at th e barte n d er kn ew th at a th ird p er so n w a s g oin g t o c om m it a to r ti o us a ct, c o ns ci o us l y c o o per at ed bys te er i ngthe p lai nt iff tow ard the th ird p arty an d assisted the th ird p ar ty in m a k in g t h e p lain tiff m or e p liab le t o th eir pla ns. The cl ai m a s stated by M s. Reyno l ds i n the fi rs t se nt en ce o fpa r ag r aph 1 9 m ake s o uta c l ai m f o r a n int en ti onal tor t. Because CB Spor ts i s not l i abl e f orits ag en ts’ inten tional torts, i t c a n not be li able for th e barten d er’s acti ons if h e co nsci ousl y c oo perat ed w i th the pl ans o f the defendants, as M s. Reyno l ds ass er ts. A s m y col l eagues note , M s. Reynol ds’s al terna te all eg at i o n tha t th e ba r te nde r “ sh o ul d ha ve kno wn” o fthe def e nd a nt s ’ p l a ns f o r Ms. R e y no l ds a l s o f a i l s u nd er I l l i nois la w . Fo re see abi l i ty al one does not cre ate a du ty o n th e p a r t o f a b a r t o p r o t e c t i t s p a t r o n s f r o m t h e c r i min al a tt ac k of a th ird p ar ty
. See G u s t af s on v . M athe ws , 44 1 N .E .2d 38 8, 3 9 0 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 82 ). A lso rele va n t is the b ur de n o n the b a r i n pr o t e c t i nga g a i nst th e s e k i nd s of a tt ac ks

. See Os b o r ne, 7 26 N
. E. 2d at7 32
. As the m ajorit y n ot ed , C B Sp or ts d id n oth av e a d u t y to inv es tiga te th e pla n s or in te n tio n s ofit s p at ro n s. See Op. at 17. A bar tender i s no t c h ar ged with the r esponsibi l i ty of k no wi ngthe mo t i v a t i o ns o fe v e r y o ne h e serv e s a nd , g i v e n wha tg o e s o n i n b a r s t o da y, i two ul d i m pose a s i g n i fi c a n tb u r d e n o n th e s e i n d i v i du a l s a n d th e i r e mp loyers to exp ose th e m t o liabil ity for not h aving as cert a i n e d th o s e mo t i v a t i o n s . T h e r e a r e n o f a c t s i n th e c o m-26 N o. 09

- 3753 pl ainto r the b r i ef s to suppo r t M s. Re y no l ds’ s co nt en ti on that the bar tender “shoul d have know n” o f t h e defendants’ pl an s ba sed upon the defe nd ants’ pri or acti ons orthe bar tender’ s know led ge ofthe defe nd ants. T o exte nd the li abili ty of th e bar to situation s w he re the b ar tender “shoul d ha ve kno w n” o fthe bre ach o f du ty o fa no th erpa tr o n wo ul d s i g ni fi ca nt l y e xt en d the re sponsibi l i ty, and l i abili ty, o fi nd i vi du al s in thos e s i tuati ons. To s ay othe rwis e would cr eat e a r em edy that i s qui te beyo nd wh er e the co urts o fI l l i noi s hav e g one. Forthe re aso ns st ate d above , Ir espect fully di sse nt.

10- 22- 10