When a fight breaks out in a bar and someone is seriously hurt, Miami personal injury lawyers know it’s often best to look beyond the primary aggressor when establishing liability.
For example, under Florida dram shop laws, bartenders and bar owners may be found liable for the actions of drunk patrons who are served alcohol after it’s clear they are heavily intoxicated. A bar owner could also face a potential premise liability lawsuit if there wasn’t adequate on-site security to deal with rowdy customers or crowds – something establishments should anticipate when serving alcohol to large crowds, booking bands, etc.
And now, the Florida Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of Dorsey v. Reider, fellow patrons may be held liable when they take action that creates a foreseeable risk to the victim.
The incident that gave rise to the Dorsey lawsuit started at a small bar in Pinecrest, just a half hour north of Fort Lauderdale. According to court records, the fight occurred outside the bar in the parking lot. Interestingly, the defendant had been a close friend of the plaintiff, and the two had gone to the bar together, along with an acquaintance of the defendant, later identified as the attacker.
Generally speaking, courts have held that individuals and businesses have no legal duty to prevent the misconduct of third parties. However, this is not absolute, and as this case shows there are numerous exceptions. These arise when the defendant is an actual or constructive control over the instrumentality, the premises on which the injury was committed or the person who committed the injury.On this basis, the defendant had control of the instrumentality. He left a dangerous tool in an unlocked truck. He also prevented the victim’s escape, giving him control over the premises on which the injury occurred.
It is also on these grounds that the bar owner or bartender could potentially be held liable, were the victim to pursue a personal injury claim.
Let’s start with the bartender. Florida Statute 768.125 holds that a person who sells or furnishes alcohol to someone can be held liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of that person if the drinker was under 21 or a known alcoholic. The bartender would have or should have been able to clearly see that the defendant was becoming intoxicated, and belligerently so.
Bartenders are best trained to know when to “cut someone off.” A bartender who continues to serve a patron whose actions are posing a potential threat to others might also fall into the category of creating a foreseeable risk of harm. From a practical business standpoint, the potential harm and inconvenience to other customers also makes ending service the best choice.
With regard to the bar owners, these individuals would have clear control over the premises. A duty to ensure adequate security would be especially relevant at an establishment where there is a history of violence or fights. However, clubs or taverns that generally cater to the younger, most risk-prone crowd should take special precautions to limit the potential for violence or injury.
Specifically, this might involve the use of metal detectors at the door, so that knives, guns or other dangerous objects don’t make it inside. That could also mean contracting with an accredited security firm or even with off-duty police officers to make sure security is adequate and well-trained. It could also mean ensuring adequate lighting throughout the premises, including in the parking lot and alleyways on either side. Identifications should be checked either at the door or prior to the purchase of drinks, and any visibly intoxicated patron should be turned away.
In this case one disputes that the three men arrived together at the bar and all became intoxicated. Court records don’t say how many drinks the trio consumed, but we do know that officials would later say all three were well above the 0.08 percent limit. At some point, the defendant began to get loud. He got belligerent. He began threatening numerous other patrons with a fight.
His friend, the victim, was annoyed, and called out on his bad behavior. The victim used an expletive in telling the defendant that he was being a jerk. The victim then walked out of the bar and into the parking lot.
Not willing to let that kind of “disrespect” stand, both the defendant and the attacker followed the victim out to the parking lot, where they trapped him in between two parked vehicles – one of those being the defendant’s truck. A verbal confrontation ensued for several minutes. Finally, the victim heard a truck door open behind him. The acquaintance/attacker entered the defendant’s truck and found a tomahawk inside. The tool was used by the defendant for work in order to help clear land.
The attacker, weapon in hand, lunged at the victim and the two struggled for about 15 seconds before the victim was struck in the head with the blade. This rendered him temporarily unconscious. The attacker and the defendant fled.
When the victim came to, he drove himself to the hospital. He survived, but in addition to a fractured nose and internal head wounds was left with lifelong injuries. Those included blurred vision, nerve damage causing long-term numbness in the back of his head and neck, dizzy spells, chronic headaches and a large scar on his face. The attacker was later arrested, tried and convicted on felony assault and battery charges. He served several years in prison, and remains on supervised release.
However, the victim’s former close friend became the subject of a liability lawsuit. In the circuit court for Miami-Dade, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the victim, awarding him $1.5 million for past and future medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering.
Upon appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed that ruling, remanding for entry a judgment for the defendant on the basis that the defendant could not be held liable for the actions of the attacker. The court reasoned that there was no indication that the defendant had planned the attack or had any idea that the attacker would act as he did.
The case was then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, where Justices reversed the appellate court decision, finding that the lower court erred in ruling that the defendant owed the victim no duty of care. While duty of care can arise from a multitude of different sources, the court found that this duty arose from the general facts of the case. In particular, the court applied the concept of foreseeability of harm. The defendant’s actions – i.e., trapping the victim in between the cars and not allowing him to escape – created a foreseeable zone of risk that posed a general threat of harm. That means it doesn’t matter that the defendant didn’t anticipate the attacker’s actions. It doesn’t matter that the attack wasn’t planned.
Recommended Articles:
Purchasers of Corporate Assets in Successor Liability Cases
Florida Supreme Court Expands Titled Owner Liability in Accident Cases
Florida Supreme Court Reverses $900M Nursing Home Neglect Verdict
Surviving Spouse, Loss of Consortium In A Theme Park Personal Injury Case