Industry News
Patron stabbed in Fight Sues Nightclub Owner
Facts: On Sept. 5, 2006, Jillian Tyler and her friends attended a private party hosted at a bar and nightclub. When she arrived, Tyler saw two bouncers at the front door checking IDs and conducting security searches of the club’s guests. Tyler entered the nightclub, had one drink, and danced with her friends for about an hour. According to Tyler, as she and a friend walked up to the second floor of the nightclub to use the bathroom, Keisha Morrison confronted her in a verbal altercation that escalated into a physical fight. Tyler claimed that she had never met Morrison prior to the incident. Tyler sustained injuries to her face and stab wounds to her chest and back as a result of the fight and Tyler sued the club owner alleging that the club failed to provide adequate security in order to protect its guests in the crowded and busy nightclub atmosphere. The club owner denied liability and argued that it supplied sufficient security staff on the night in question.
Decision: Generally, a premises owner does not have the duty to protect its guests from the criminal actions of a third-party assailant when there are no other warnings or indications of such behavior. But where a premises owner has reason to know it is likely that third persons may endanger the safety of other guests, the owner has a duty to provide reasonable and adequate security or protective measures to prevent such harm.
The trial court noted that on the night in question the bar owner employed a total of three bouncers to patrol a two-story building packed with hundreds of individuals, most of whom were consuming alcohol late into the night. Two of the bouncers were stationed at the front door and one bouncer was thought to be roaming the nightclub though there was no evidence that he in fact walked around or mingled with the crowd. The altercation lasted at least five minutes before an unidentified man separated the women and helped Tyler escape the fight. The trial court held that under the totality of the circumstances the club owner might be liable for failing to provide adequate security. Because a jury could reasonably find that the club owner should have provided more bouncers and security staff to ensure safer crowd control, summary judgment was not appropriate and the court denied the club owner’s motion.
Implications: Bar and nightclub owners who provide alcohol to patrons should be aware that a crowded environment filled with patrons drinking alcohol may cause individuals to act more aggressively than under other circumstances. Well-trained security professionals are a prudent investment to adequately protect patrons from altercations that may take place in a bar or nightclub. Owners should take into account the size of their establishment and the expected crowd when making decisions on how much security to provide.
Tyler v. Dewey’s Inc., No. 117213/06 (New York Supreme Court Mar. 4, 2009) unpublished. Source: Security Law Newsletter, published monthly by Strafford Publications, Atlanta, GA. www.straffordpub.com, phone: 800-926-7926 ext. 10 or email:custser@straffordpub.com.