Jose Maysonet v. Kfc, National Management Company, D/B/A Kentucky Fried Chicken

Citations: 906 F.2d 929; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 11362Docket: 801

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; June 29, 1990; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jose Maysonet, the plaintiff-appellant, filed a lawsuit against KFC National Management Company after he was stabbed by a panhandler inside a KFC restaurant in the South Bronx. Maysonet claimed negligence, arguing that KFC failed to protect him, its business invitee, from a foreseeable attack. The incident occurred during a busy night when the restaurant had several customers and a known panhandler was present.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of KFC, concluding that the attack was not reasonably foreseeable. Testimony from KFC's Area Supervisor indicated that there had been no prior incidents of violence at that location, and while loiterers occasionally entered the restaurant, there was no history of them committing violent acts. The court found that a sudden attack by someone without a history of violence could not be anticipated, and thus KFC had no duty to protect Maysonet.

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, supporting the conclusion that there were no genuine issues of material fact that would warrant a trial. The summary judgment was deemed appropriate, as reasonable inferences did not support Maysonet's claims against KFC.

Under New York law, a proprietor is not liable for the criminal acts of third parties unless those acts were foreseeable. The New York State Court of Appeals has established that a history of criminal activity in a location can create a duty for the owner to take reasonable precautions to protect visitors. For instance, in Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, a significant number of reported crimes, including violent incidents, made it reasonable to foresee potential criminal actions, suggesting a duty of care. 

However, in this case, the absence of prior criminal incidents at the restaurant led the district court to conclude that no duty of care existed to protect patrons from unforeseen criminal acts. Liability may still arise if a third party’s behavior indicates a risk of harm, requiring the owner to act reasonably to prevent such harm. The critical issue is whether the assailant's behavior prior to the incident warranted a reasonable awareness of risk by Kentucky Fried Chicken. 

The appellant argues that the assailant's disruptive behavior should have prompted immediate eviction, while Kentucky Fried Chicken contends that the stabbing was sudden and unforeseeable. Case law indicates that aggressive or violent conduct by patrons can create a duty for restaurant owners to anticipate and mitigate risks, as seen in precedents where belligerent actions by patrons were sufficient for the establishment to foresee potential assaults.

A restaurant owner is not obligated to foresee sudden and unexpected acts of violence. In several cases, including German-Bay v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., Campbell v. Step/Lind Restaurant Corp., and Silver v. Sheraton-Smithtown Inn, courts determined that mere intoxication or sudden altercations did not impose liability on property owners for unforeseen attacks. In the current case, testimony indicated that the assailant exhibited erratic behavior for 15 minutes before stabbing the plaintiff, but this behavior was not threatening or aggressive, and no evidence suggested prior violent tendencies. The absence of observations by employees or witnesses further supported this lack of notice. The court emphasized that for liability to arise, third-party conduct must be reasonably foreseeable, and the panhandler's actions, while bothersome, did not meet this threshold. Kentucky Fried Chicken's measures to remove loiterers were seen as efforts to maintain order rather than a concern for safety. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the complaint, stating there were no material facts regarding foreseeability. A dissenting opinion expressed disagreement with the majority’s conclusion, arguing that a reasonable jury could find the assailant's behavior indicative of a potential threat, thus questioning the appropriateness of summary judgment.

Under New York law, the foreseeability of a third party's criminal act hinges on whether an ordinarily prudent person would recognize the individual as posing a risk of harm. The majority ruling concluded that the stabbing of Maysonet was sudden and unforeseeable, relying on cases where assailants showed no prior threatening behavior. However, Maysonet's assailant exhibited disruptive behavior, such as "crazy laughing" and harassment, prior to the attack and was not a patron of the Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) restaurant. 

KFC's area supervisor acknowledged a history of dealing with loiterers and indicated that failure to leave could prompt police involvement. This established a context in which KFC had a duty to protect patrons from harm, particularly when they had a policy to address loiterers. A jury could reasonably find that KFC was aware of the presence of a potentially violent individual and failed to act, suggesting that the foreseeability of the attack was a matter for trial. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of KFC should be reversed, and the case should proceed to trial.