Utah Court of Appeals
What duty does a business owe when it takes protective custody of an intoxicated patron? Atkinson v. Stateline Explained
Summary
Plaintiff was severely intoxicated at a casino when security took her into protective custody after she became belligerent. Security transported her to a motel room with a man claiming to be with her, where she was later raped. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding no duty of care absent knowledge of impending assault.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about business liability when establishments voluntarily intervene to help intoxicated patrons in Atkinson v. Stateline.
Background and Facts
Sonya Atkinson became severely intoxicated at the Stateline Hotel Casino and Resort after consuming numerous drinks over several hours. When she became belligerent with casino employees, security took her into protective custody. A man claiming to be with her, later identified as Jay Owens, appeared at the security office. Despite observing suspicious circumstances—including that Owens had not been seen with plaintiff earlier and that she kicked him when he tried to calm her—security transported both to a motel room. Atkinson later awoke to find herself being raped by Owens, who subsequently pleaded guilty and was imprisoned.
Key Legal Issues
The central issues were whether the casino owed Atkinson a duty of care and whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. The trial court had ruled that no duty existed absent evidence the casino knew or should have known an assault was about to occur.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that when a business voluntarily undertakes to render protective services, it assumes a duty of reasonable care regardless of whether a pre-existing duty existed. Applying Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324, the court established that one who takes charge of a helpless person may discontinue aid only after taking reasonably prudent steps to ensure the person is not left in a worse position. The court found material factual disputes about both whether Atkinson was left in a worse position and whether the casino acted reasonably.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly expands potential liability for businesses that intervene to help intoxicated or vulnerable patrons. The ruling demonstrates that voluntary undertaking of protective services creates enforceable duties, and that summary judgment in negligence cases should be granted only in the clearest instances since factual inferences are properly for juries.
Case Details
Case Name
Atkinson v. Stateline
Citation
2001 UT App 63
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
Case No. 991029-CA
Date Decided
March 8, 2001
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
When a casino voluntarily takes protective custody of an intoxicated patron, it assumes a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure the patron is not left in a worse position than when custody was undertaken.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law including duty determination; correctness for summary judgment with no deference to trial court
Practice Tip
When challenging summary judgment in negligence cases, emphasize disputed factual inferences since negligence determinations are typically for juries rather than judges as a matter of law.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.