Facts
- Alfredo Castillo entered the A‑Mi‑Gusto Lounge on December 20, 1985, to cash his paycheck; the bar was crowded (about 100 patrons).
- Pablo Ochoa, a patron who had been drinking since mid-afternoon, was visibly intoxicated.
- Castillo and Ochoa argued for several minutes; a bar employee observed but did not intervene or call police.
- During a break in the argument, Castillo told the employee he feared Ochoa would act violently, knew Ochoa carried a gun, and had heard Ochoa had killed someone elsewhere.
- After returning to the bar area, the argument resumed; Ochoa drew a pistol and shot Castillo six times, killing him, then fled and was not apprehended.
- The lounge had a reputation for violence and had experienced numerous prior shootings, stabbings, and assaults.
- The owners did not employ professional security personnel and relied on a single bouncer who generally arrived later in the evening.
Issues
- Whether the negligent failure of a business owner to protect patrons from foreseeable criminal harm must be compared, under comparative fault, with the intentional acts of the third-party assailant.
- Whether, after such comparison, the premises owner is liable only for its proportionate share of fault rather than jointly and severally for the entire loss.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- The owners’ negligent failure to protect patrons from foreseeable harm must be compared with the assailant’s intentional conduct.
- The owners are liable only for their proportionate share of fault, not jointly and severally with the intentional tortfeasor.
- The case required limiting the damages award to the owners’ percentage of fault rather than imposing full liability based solely on premises negligence.
Legal Principles
- Comparative fault allocates responsibility so each defendant pays only the percentage of damages corresponding to that defendant’s share of fault.
- In apportioning fault, the factfinder may compare the conduct of all contributing tortfeasors, including intentional and negligent actors.
- Premises owners may owe a duty to take reasonable protective measures against foreseeable criminal acts, but a breach of that duty does not eliminate the need to allocate fault in accordance with comparative fault principles.
Conclusion
The court held that a negligent premises owner’s fault for failing to protect patrons from foreseeable criminal violence must be compared with the assailant’s intentional wrongdoing, and the owner’s liability is limited to its proportionate share of fault rather than joint and several liability for the full harm.