Opinion ID: 1584799
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: moose lodge's duty to crain

Text: To prove at trial that the Moose Lodge was negligent, Crain must show a) the duty owed him by the Moose Lodge; b) a breach of that duty; c) damages; and d) a causal connection between the breach and the damages, such that the breach is the proximate cause of his injuries. Lyle v. Mladinich, 584 So.2d 397, 398 (Miss. 1991). Grisham v. John Q. Long V.F.W. Post, No. 4057, Inc., 519 So.2d 413, 416 (Miss. 1988); Burnham v. Tabb, 508 So.2d 1072 (Miss. 1987); Boyd v. Lynch, 493 So.2d 1315 (Miss. 1986). This Court has addressed the duty of care a restaurateur or bar keeper owes to its business invitees. In Grisham, where a patron was injured in an assault by her ex-husband's other former wife at the entrance to the V.F.W. Hall, it was held that the V.F.W. had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect her [Grisham] from reasonably foreseeable injury at the hands of another. Id. at 417; Kelly v. Retzer & Retzer, Inc., 417 So.2d 556, 560. (Miss. 1982) The Court has repeatedly emphasized that even though the owner of the premises has this duty of reasonably care he is not an insurer of his guests' or invitees' safety. Grisham, 519 So.2d at 416-417; Kelly, 417 So.2d at 560; J.C. Penny Co. v. Sumrall, 318 So.2d 829, 832 (Miss. 1975); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Tisdale, 185 So.2d 916 (Miss. 1966). In both Grisham and Kelly, the Court emphasized that the foreseeability of the injury sustained provided the touchstone for liability. In Grisham, where one patron was injured during an argument with another, the foreseeability of the act was discussed as follows: Authorities indicate, however, that the owner can be liable only where he had cause to anticipate the wrongful or negligent act of the unruly patron. C.J.S. Negligence 63(118) and 63(127) The requisite cause to anticipate the assault may arise from 1) actual or constructive knowledge of the assailant's violent nature, or 2) actual or constructive knowledge that an atmosphere of violence exists in the tavern. Sucanick v. Clayton, et al., 152 Ariz. 158, 730 P.2d 867 (Ct.App. 1986); Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., 458 So.2d 760 (S.Ct.Fla. 1984). 519 So.2d at 416-17. We explained in Lyle, where a patron at the Fiesta Night Club was abducted, beaten and robbed by an unknown assailant, that with regard to attacks by non-patrons, the phrase in the tavern encompasses the parking lot as well as the interior of the premises. Lyle, 584 So.2d at 399. Moreover, we noted that in determining whether an assault was foreseeable, [c]ourts have relied on such factors as the overall pattern of criminal activity prior to the event in question that occurred in the general vicinity of the defendant's business premises, as well as the frequency of criminal activity on the premises. Id. Finding that Lyle, through an affidavit of the Biloxi Police Chief, had established that other crimes against the person had occurred at the Fiesta, as well as in area of the club, the case was reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits. In Kelly, where, as in Grisham, no breach of duty was found, the Court considered the foreseeability of a fatal shooting in a McDonald's parking lot. There was evidence presented of 28 police offense reports stemming from calls made to the restaurant during the three years prior to the shooting. Kelly, 417 So.2d at 559. Of the myriad complaints, two were assaults and one, a simple assault. Id. The Court found that management had taken reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable problems by having the parking lot checked every thirty minutes for loiterers, taking measures to disperse the teenagers who gathered on the premises, and hiring security guards to patrol on weekend evenings. Id. at 559, 561. However, the Court found that Kelly's voluntary interference into an already hostile situation was an independent intervening cause which could not have been reasonably foreseen or prevented by McDonald's. Id. at 562. In affirming the lower courts's granting of Retzer's motion for a directed verdict, it held that: ... we are of the opinion the responsibility of enforcing the law is on the government chosen by the people of the area and does not necessarily rest upon the business involved. Id. at 563.