Iowa's Supreme Court ruled that a bar owner
is might be responsible for the injuries that a patron received from a fight in the parking lot after the bar kicked him out. Note: the ruling is to reject summary judgement and allow a trial to proceed. That's far less outrageous than I thought it was at first.
Interesting quote from the ruling: "the assessment of the foreseeability of a risk is no longer part of the duty analysis in evaluating a tort claim... Forseeability is not longer part of the duty determination". The decision is based on the Restatement (Third) of Torts saying that a business's duty of care "applies regardless of the source of the risk. Thus, it applies to risks created by the individual at risk as well as those created by a third party's conduct, whether innocent, negligent, or intentional." This is a huge change in the law that apparently happened between when the second and third restatements were published in 1965 and 2000. I was not able to find the source ruling that the third restatement would be based on.