Close Menu
X

Can California Restaurants Be Held Liable for Injuries from Criminal Activity On Premises?

restaurants-liability-in-california

According to a recent San Francisco news report, on June 16, 2013 at about 4:00 p.m. near Grant Avenue and Sutter Street, someone threw what looked like a quarter stick of dynamite through a restaurant’s window. A witness named Jonathan Danielson says that he followed the bombers and took a photograph of them with his cell phone, after which they took off running. According to the article, a window was shattered and a planter box was damaged, but fortunately no injuries were reported in the wake of the explosion.

Would Restaurant Patrons Injured Be Able to Recover Damages

In the event of an injury, would the patrons of a restaurant injured by a bombing be able to recover damages from the restaurant’s insurance? In order to recover, a victim would have to show, among other things, that his or her injuries were caused by a breach of duty on the part of a culpable individual, and that these injuries were the foreseeable result of the culpable party’s conduct.

Certainly the bombers could be sued, for engaging in intentional bad behavior creating an unreasonable risk of harm to third parties. When an individual engages in intentional bad behavior, this can create the risk that he or she will be held liable not only for the actual damages suffered by the victims of his or her bad conduct, but also for punitive damages designed to punish and deter this kind of behavior in the future. The bombers might also be ordered to pay restitution as a result of criminal proceedings. But in most cases, the perpetrators are insolvent, and the question turns to who else can be held liable for the damages.

Restaurant Has Duty To Make the Premises Safe for Patrons

A restaurant invites patrons to come onto the premises for the purpose of doing business, and as such, the restaurant has a duty to make the premises safe for the patrons. This includes a duty to protect the business invitees from reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct. In a 1987 California case against McDonalds, a Court of appeal held that a mass murder assault at a fast food restaurant was not foreseeable, and the restaurant’s failure to hire security guards was not the reason for the injuries sustained by the victims. However, in 2005, the California Supreme Court found that a restaurant owner might be liable for the failure of his employees to “take appropriate action as is reasonable under the circumstances to protect” the restaurant’s patrons. In this context, the employees had failed to call 911 or take other minimally burdensome measures to assist customers who faced danger from imminent or an ongoing criminal assault occurring on the premises. The California Supreme Court held that the stabbing victim who as not assisted by the restaurant’s employees could potentially recover his damages from the restaurant owner.

Can I Sue After an Accident at a Restaurant?

So, whether a crime victim can recover from a restaurant where a criminal assault occurs seems to depend in part upon the conduct of the restaurant employees while the crime is imminent and ongoing, and also potentially depends upon their conduct after it has occurred, including whether they take reasonable steps to assist the victims after the incident. Establishing liability in this kind of a scenario is something that skillful personal injury attorneys can help victims with.

Contact a Personal Injury Lawyer in San Francisco

The lawyers at Callaway & Wolf in San Francisco have successfully handled this type of case, where a restaurant is liable for failing to intervene when a dispute was brewing, and failing to promptly call police. Contact us for a free consultation if you or a loved one has experienced an injury.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
HAVE A QUESTION? WE'VE GOT ANSWERS

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in this form. This form sends information by non-encrypted e-mail which is not secure. By submitting this form, I understand that it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms