Iowa Supreme Court Affirms a “No-Duty” Grant of Summary Judgment on Further Review
On the evening of August 22, 2015, an intoxicated patron violated the rules of a local entertainment establishment. He was asked to leave. Once outside, the establishment twice offered the individual a cab to get home safely. The individual declined both offers. The establishment also asked the individual’s friend to take him away from the premises, but both parties declined. The individual then walked off the premises in the early morning hours of August 23, 2015. A half mile away and nearly an hour after leaving the entertainment establishment, an intoxicated driver ran over the former patron, causing the former patron’s death. The driver was later found and identified.
On August 18, 2017, the estate of decedent filed suit against multiple parties, including the alleged intoxicated driver, the bar that the driver had been drinking at, and the entertainment establishment that had asked decedent to leave and had offered the decedent multiple safe rides.
After conducting numerous depositions and extensive discovery, on March 29, 2019, Adam Zenor moved for summary judgment, arguing the entertainment establishment was not liable to the decedent. Specifically, any duty that the establishment owed the decedent while decedent was on the premises was discharged after decedent walked off the premises unharmed. Plaintiff resisted the motion. On July 15, 2019, the district court granted the motion for summary judgment.
On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Iowa Court of Appeals, which it accepted on nonoral submission. On August 5, 2020, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court opinion, holding that the District Court improperly considered “foreseeability” in analyzing whether the entertainment establishment owed a duty to the decedent.
On August 25, 2020, Adam Zenor and Derek LaBrie filed an Application for Further Review, a discretionary pleading, to the Iowa Supreme Court. The decedent’s estate resisted the Application. On October 7, 2020, the Iowa Supreme Court granted the Application for Further Review, noting no further briefing was required and oral argument would be set. On January 21, 2021, Adam Zenor argued the case to the Iowa Supreme Court.
On April 30, 2021, Honorable Justice Thomas Waterman delivered the opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court (6 – 1) in favor of the Des Moines-area entertainment establishment. Specifically, the Iowa Supreme Court stated the Third Restatement and Iowa caselaw “does not support extending the business owner’s duty to protect patrons from third-party harm after they leave the property.” Opinion, at 14. Although a special relationship may have existed while the patron was on the premises, the Court held “[t]he duty ends when the patron leaves the business.” Id. The Court further held that “[l]iability generally follows control. ‘The reason is simple: The party in control…is best positioned to take precautions to identify risks and take measures to improve safety.’” Id. at 15. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted countervailing policy considerations warranted limiting a business’s duty including: (1) businesses have the right to eject intoxicated patrons; (2) businesses have a duty to other patrons; and (3) businesses were not required to risk civil or criminal liability by detaining or otherwise keeping an intoxicated individual at the premises. Id. at 16–17. The Iowa Supreme Court declined to require an Iowa business call the police to bring the intoxicated individual to his hotel room when the individual was docile and non-threatening when he declined multiple offers for a cab and voluntarily walked off the premises. Id. at 18–19.
The Supreme Court’s Opinion may be found here: https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/10249/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion
Jennifer Morris, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Daulton Holly, and Jason Allan Holly v. Legends Fieldhouse Bar and Grill, LLC et al., No. 19-1349