Industry News
Concert Attendee Shot
Facts: Aaron Anderson attended a hip-hop concert at a nightclub that served as a concert venue. The owners of the club leased it to a concert promoter for an event featuring various hip-hop DJs. The owners hired eight security guards to hand-wand and search patrons entering the club. Every patron was required to enter through a designated door where security guards patted each patron down and scanned each patron with a metal detector wand.
Several patrons noticed that other patrons were allowed to enter the club through the exit door and avoided being searched. One patron said that he observed at least ten people go into the club without being searched. A weapon was detected on one person attempting to enter the club through the designated door and turned away. He then entered through the unguarded exist door.
During the concert, a fight occurred between two male patrons, and Anderson, who was standing nearby, was shot. The shooter escaped.
Anderson sued the concert promoter and the owners of the club for assault, battery and negligence based on a breach of duty to make the club reasonably safe. Anderson argued the security guards violated their own policy by allowing patrons to enter through the exit door or knowing some patrons inside the club had weapons.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Anderson failed to prove that the security guards’ actions caused his injuries. The defendants argued that the assailant could have gained entry before the security guards came on duty, or musicians might have concealed the weapon in music equipment when they entered. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Anderson appealed.
Decision: The court of appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court of appeal held that Anderson’s claims were sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether the defendants’ alleged negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. Additionally, the court of appeal held that where a security guard fails to deter criminal activity, it is generally for a jury to decide whether it is probable that adequate security could have prevented the shooting.
Implications: Entertainment venues should make sure that employees and outside security companies follow established policies to avoid liability. Injuries that result from violent third parties may be deemed foreseeable if the premises’ owner fails to follow the established security policies. Anderson v. Eleventh & Folsom Preservation & Community Centers, Inc., No. A123908 (California Court of Appeal, March 11, 2010), unpublished.
Source: Security Law Newsletter, published monthly by Stafford Publications, Atlanta, GA. www.straffordpub.com, phone: 800-926-7926 ext. 10 or email: custserv@straffordpub.com.