Gould v. Taco Bell
722 P.2d 511 · Supreme Court of Kansas · 1986
Facts
Rosie Gould was assaulted by another patron, Karen Brown, at a Taco Bell restaurant. Despite Brown's loud, vulgar behavior and a prior incident, the assistant manager, Mark Wills, failed to intervene or call the police during multiple attacks inside and outside the restaurant. Gould sued Taco Bell, and the jury found Taco Bell 51% at fault, awarding actual and punitive damages.
Issue
1. Can a restaurant be held liable for injuries sustained by a patron from an assault by another patron when its employee failed to intervene despite apparent danger? 2. Can the intentional acts of an assailant be compared to the restaurant's negligence for comparative fault? 3. Was the award of punitive damages against the restaurant appropriate for its manager's omissions?
Holding
The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that Taco Bell was liable for Gould's injuries and punitive damages. It also held that the intentional acts of the assailant could not be compared with the restaurant's negligence for comparative fault purposes.
Rule
A proprietor is liable for an assault upon a patron by another if they had reason to anticipate it and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent it. Intentional acts of a third party cannot be compared with the negligent acts of a defendant whose duty is to protect the plaintiff from such acts. Punitive damages can be awarded against a corporation for a managerial employee's willful, wanton, or grossly negligent omissions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.