## Facts

- John P. Lannon entered a Taco Bell restaurant on East Colfax Avenue in Denver around 10:30 p.m. on January 28, 1979.
- Lannon saw employees to one side of the counter and a man behind the counter with a handgun going through a floor safe, indicating an armed robbery in progress.
- As Lannon tried to leave, he encountered a second robber near the door and ran into the parking lot.
- The robber behind the counter moved toward the door and fired at Lannon, striking his left ring finger.
- Evidence indicated the restaurant was in a high-crime area and had experienced multiple robberies in the preceding years, including an armed robbery two nights before this incident.
- Lannon sued Taco Bell for negligence, alleging failure to take adequate protective measures against foreseeable criminal acts of third persons.

## Issues

1. Whether Taco Bell, as a restaurant operator in a high-crime area with a history of robberies, owed a legal duty to take reasonable measures to protect patrons from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of unknown third persons.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals that Taco Bell owed a duty to take reasonable measures to protect patrons from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts under the circumstances.
- The court treated duty as a question of law and emphasized that foreseeability is significant but not dispositive.
- The court endorsed a balancing approach considering risk, foreseeability and likelihood of injury, social utility, burden of precautions, and consequences of imposing that burden.
- The court distinguished duty from breach, leaving the adequacy of Taco Bell’s security measures for the factfinder on retrial.
- The court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment on the duty issue; other matters (including comparative negligence instructions) were to be addressed on retrial.

## Legal Principles

- A business owner/possessor of land may owe invitees a duty to take reasonable protective measures against third-party criminal acts when such acts are reasonably foreseeable.
- Foreseeability may be shown by prior similar incidents and the character and location of the premises, including evidence of repeated robberies and high-crime conditions.
- Duty is determined by weighing foreseeability and likelihood of harm against social utility, the burden of precautions, and the consequences of imposing that burden.
- Recognizing a duty to take reasonable measures does not require any specific security step as a matter of law; what is reasonable generally goes to breach and causation.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court held that, given repeated prior robberies and the restaurant’s high-crime location, Taco Bell owed patrons a legal duty to take reasonable measures to protect them from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts by unknown third persons, while leaving the questions of breach and causation for retrial.


Taco Bell, Inc. v. Lannon, 744 P.2d 43 (Colo. 1987)