Hoyt v. Gutterz Bowl & Lounge L.L.C.

Supreme Court of Iowa · 2013 · Torts

829 N.W.2d 772 (Iowa 2013)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsNegligencePremises LiabilityDutyForeseeabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsRestatement (Third) of Tortssection 40

Facts

Hoyt and members of his construction crew went to Gutterz, a bowling alley and tavern, after work, where Knapp was also present. After drinking beers, Hoyt and coworker Brittain verbally confronted and taunted Knapp, prompting a waitress to stop serving them and the owner, Atkinson, to intervene because he was concerned an altercation might occur. Atkinson asked Hoyt and Brittain to leave, and after Hoyt exited and walked through the parking lot toward his vehicle, Knapp struck him from behind and injured him. The record contained no evidence that Gutterz staff knew of any prior bad history between Hoyt and Knapp.

Issue

Whether Gutterz owed Hoyt a duty of reasonable care as a tavern open to the public and, if so, whether summary judgment was proper on the grounds that Gutterz acted reasonably and that Hoyt's injuries were outside the scope of liability as a matter of law.

Rule

Under Restatement (Third) sections 7 and 40, a business or possessor of land that holds its premises open to the public owes lawful patrons a duty of reasonable care with regard to risks arising within the scope of that relationship, including risks created by third-party conduct. Foreseeability is not used to decide duty except in exceptional no-duty cases justified by articulated principle or policy; instead, foreseeability is considered in determining breach and scope of liability. Summary judgment is inappropriate where reasonable persons could differ on whether the harm was foreseeable, whether reasonable care required additional precautions, or whether the plaintiff's harm fell within the range of risks that made the defendant's conduct negligent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez spent the evening at Harbor Lane Café, a restaurant in Milwaukee open to the public. After another customer shoved her near the exit, Nina sued the restaurant for negligence, and the restaurant moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty because the shove was not foreseeable.

How should the court rule on the restaurant's no-duty argument?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a business holding its premises open to the public has a special relationship with lawful patrons under Restatement (Third) section 40 and therefore owes a duty of reasonable care regarding risks arising within that relationship, including risks created by third parties. The court rejected the use of foreseeability in the duty analysis except in exceptional no-duty cases justified by articulated principle or policy. Thus the restaurant cannot defeat duty merely by calling the shove unforeseeable.