Industry News
Club Owner Sued for Parking Lot Shooting
Facts: In May 2006, David Washington and Akil Goodman went to a nightclub together. Goodman became involved in an altercation with another patron outside the club and Washington later joined Goodman outside. Another patron, Chantantus Franklin, who was under the age of 21, became involved in a separate dispute with a different patron at the nightclub. Franklin was escorted outside the club, and witnesses claimed that while Franklin was leaving the club, he stated that he was going to "pop somebody." Once outside, Franklin obtained a gun and he and another man began shooting. Bystanders Washington and Goodman were both shot. Goodman died from his wounds. Goodman's estate and Washington (the plaintiffs) sued the nightclub owner and Franklin for negligence and violations of the state's dram shop act, which prohibits selling or furnishing alcohol to an intoxicated person. The plaintiffs argued that as business invitees, the club owner had an obligation to protect them from Franklin's violent acts and that the club owner negligently failed to call the police after Franklin threatened to shoot someone. The club owners filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claims and dram shop claims. The trial court granted the club owner's motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Decision: The appeals court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' negligence claims against the nightclub. The appellate court held that the nightclub did not breach a duty to call the police when Franklin stated that he was going to "pop somebody" because Franklin's threat was not directed at a specific person; therefore, there was no imminent and foreseeable risk of harm. The appeals court went on to conclude that the club owner did not have an obligation to anticipate the criminal acts of Franklin. The appeals court also affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' dram shop claims against the nightclub. The appeals court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the nightclub's action of illegally selling alcohol to Franklin (a minor) was the proximate cause of Washington's and Goodman's injuries. Although the nightclub may have been negligent in serving alcohol to Franklin, to be held liable under the dram shop act, the plaintiffs were required to show that the nightclub's negligence caused their injuries. The trial court concluded that Franklin's actions in the parking lot were not the result of intoxication, but rather were caused by his rage after an altercation in the club. The appellate court agreed, and held that there was no evidence linking the shooting to Franklin's consumption of alcohol.
Implications: Generally, business invitees are not liable for the unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties. Even though property owners have an increased duty to protect business invitees from ongoing situations on their premises, there is no obligation to predict criminal activity. Further, the furnishing of alcohol to a minor may provide a basis of liability only if the injured person can show that their injuries resulted from the minor's intoxication. Goodman v. 1012 Inc., Nos. 296348, 296349 (Michigan Court of Appeals May 19, 2011) unpublished. Source: Security Law Newsletter, published monthly by Strafford Publications, Atlanta, GA. www.straffordpub.com, phone: 800-926-7926, ext. 10 or email: custserv@straffordpub.com.