determining trial court erred by admitting plaintiff's medical bills for injury that plaintiff's medical expert could not say was probably caused by defendant's negligence
How later courts described this case
- determining trial court erred by admitting plaintiff's medical bills for injury that plaintiff's medical expert could not say was probably caused by defendant's negligence
- holding that a business owner “owes the duty to his guests to exercise reasonable care to protect them from injury at the hands of a fellow guest”
- duty owed by innkeeper or restaurant owner to protect guests from other guests
- duty of innkeeper to protect guests from criminal activity of other guests
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Rosellini, J.
(concurring) — A greater degree of care is *889 required of a proprietor of a place where intoxicating liquor is sold than is indicated by the majority or the dissent.
In Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N. J. Super. 420, 82 A. (2d) 210, in speaking of the standard of care, the court said, p. 424:
“It is in the law the duty of a tavern-keeper to exercise reasonable care, vigilance, and prudence to protect his guests from injury from the disorderly acts of other guests, [citing cases.]
“While the standard of care is that of an ordinarily prudent person, yet it must be realized that reasonable care is a relative term in that the degree of care must be commensurate with the risks and dangers attending the activity being pursued. It is a subject of common knowledge that the consumption of a procession of drinks of intoxicating liquors produces a variety of reactions in the deportment of human beings, the development of which emotions the tavern-keeper should be reasonably alert to detect.”
In the case of Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel, 254 Minn. 373 , 95 N. W. (2d) 657 , the rule is stated as follows, p. 382:
“It is the policy of the law, both statutory and decisional, to protect the public from social consequences of intoxicating liquor. There is perhaps no field of business activity more hedged about with state and municipal laws and regulations designed to protect the public. When a person engaged in that business permits crowds to gather upon his premises for profit, he must recognize the risks which flow from the nature of the business.”
The test of whether the duty of reasonable care is discharged, is the probability or foreseeability of injury to a plaintiff. For the risk of injury to be within the defendant’s range of apprehension, it is not necessary that he shall have had notice of the particular method in which an accident would occur if the possibility of an accident was clear to a person of ordinary prudence. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v. Childs Co., 253 N. Y. 324 , 171 N. E. 391 .
The evidence disclosed that the dance floor was crowded and that there were approximately two hundred people in the tavern, which was designed to accommodate a maxi *890 mum of eighty-four people. Quite a few of the patrons were under the influence of alcohol; some were staggering; and there previously had been two fights, or near fights, that evening. Also while under the influence of alcohol the two participants in the fight which caused the plaintiff’s injuries, had caused a disturbance earlier in the evening, and had been cautioned by an attendant.
It is a common experience that when persons are congregated in great numbers in crowded premises for the purpose of celebrating a special event, such as New Year’s Eve, and indulge in the consumption of intoxicating liquor for a long period of time, a fracas will develop where the probability of injury to someone will result.
Here, a person in the exercise of reasonable care, which an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances would exercise, would foresee the likelihood that such conduct eventually would result in injury to a person.
Hill, J., concurs with Rosellini, J.