## Facts

- Curtis Gene Hoyt and members of his construction crew went to Gutterz Bowl & Lounge L.L.C., a bowling alley and tavern, after work.
- Another patron, Curtis Knapp, was present; although Hoyt and Knapp had prior history, there was no evidence Gutterz’s staff knew of it.
- After drinking, Hoyt and coworker Chris Brittain approached and verbally confronted Knapp, who did not respond.
- A waitress became concerned, warned Hoyt and Brittain to calm down, then—after they ignored the warning—stopped serving them with the owner’s approval.
- Owner Rodney Atkinson assessed the situation, became concerned an altercation might occur, and asked Hoyt and Brittain to leave.
- Hoyt finished his beer, exited the tavern, and walked through the parking lot toward his vehicle.
- In the parking lot, Knapp struck Hoyt from behind, knocking him unconscious; Hoyt suffered significant injuries, including a compound ankle fracture.
- Hoyt sued Gutterz for negligence, alleging it failed to use reasonable care to protect him from the assault on its premises, including the parking lot.

## Issues

1. Whether a business open to the public owes a duty of reasonable care to protect patrons from criminal acts of third parties occurring on the premises, including in a parking lot.
2. Whether the assault and resulting injuries were, as a matter of law, outside the defendant’s scope of liability due to lack of foreseeability, permitting summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the court of appeals, reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Gutterz, and remanded.
- The court held Gutterz owed Hoyt a duty of reasonable care as a business to its patron while on the premises, including the parking lot.
- The court held the district court erred by resolving foreseeability/scope of liability as a matter of law; the record allowed more than one plausible view of whether the harm fell within the risks created by Gutterz’s handling of the escalating situation.
- Because genuine issues of material fact existed on breach and scope of liability, summary judgment was improper.

## Legal Principles

- A business generally owes invitees a duty of reasonable care for their safety on the premises, which may include reasonable steps to protect against third-party criminal acts.
- Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts approach, duty is a categorical legal question; foreseeability is principally addressed within breach and scope of liability.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate in negligence cases when the evidence permits more than one plausible characterization of scope of liability (and thus reasonable jurors could differ).
- Where staff observe escalating tension and act based on concern of imminent violence, a factfinder may evaluate whether additional reasonable protective measures were required and whether the ensuing harm was within the foreseeable range of risks.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Hoyt’s negligence claim by holding that Gutterz owed a duty of reasonable care to patrons on its premises and that foreseeability and scope of liability presented jury questions on this record, making summary judgment improper.


Hoyt v. Gutterz Bowl & Lounge L.L.C., 829 N.W.2d 772 (Iowa 2013)