Court Opinion

ID: 9618800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:17:26.137061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:31.791833
License: Public Domain

GORDON, Justice
(dissenting):
In my opinion the effect of the holding in this case is to expand the duty of an innkeeper far beyond the parameters of Pierce v. Lopez, 16 Ariz.App. 54, 490 P.2d 1182 (1971). To find that the Halls should have anticipated violent behavior on the part of Mr. Dominquez under the facts in this case is to require an innkeeper to “possess extraordinary powers of foreseeability greater than those of a reasonable person in similar circumstances.” Pierce, supra, at 59, 490 P.2d at 1187. The holding also requires that, although there is nothing to indicate that when Dominquez left the bar he was not in fact leaving for good, the innkeeper still had a duty to patrol the parking lot of his business establishment for an indefinite period of time on the vague chance that he might return. These expansions, in my opinion, are unwarranted under the facts of this case. For these reasons, and also because I believe the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case is well reasoned and properly disposes of the case, I respectfully dissent.