Case law update: ICA Memorandum Decision in Rush v. Danasdome, LLC, et. al
The article this month focuses on a recent Memorandum Decision form the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). Although there is little precedential value to the case as it is only a Memorandum Decision and not a signed Opinion, it reinforces longstanding principles as to tort liability when the criminal conduct of others is involved.
In the matter, the plaintiff was the estate of the deceased who was shot and killed outside of a bar operated by Defendant DanasDome, LLC. What occurred was that the deceased had gone to the bar with his cousin and was hanging out with the bartender, whom the deceased had been romantically involved with previously. Another individual who had been romantically involved with the bartender was also present, and there was ultimately an altercation between this individual and the deceased. What resulted was the other individual shooting and killing the deceased outside the bar at 6:00 a.m.
The estate brought a wrongful death claim against DanasDome, LLC, the operator of the bar, and against the sole member of the DanasDome, the landlord of the building, and the sole member who owned the building. The lower court found no merit to the estate’s claims and dismissed the action. On appeal to the ICA, the ICA agreed.
The ICA, in recognizing the general rule that a person does not have a duty to protect others from the deliberate criminal conduct of third parties unless a person has a special relationship which gives rise to a duty to protect another person from intentional misconduct or when the person’s affirmative actions or omissions have exposed another to a foreseeable high risk of harm from the intentional misconduct, held that it was proper for the Court to dismiss the Complaint as there was nothing foreseeable about this situation for the landlord and the owner of the building. As it pertained to DanasDome, the Court found that there was nothing about serving alcohol after hours made the criminal conduct reasonably foreseeable and that there was no other evidence that would have put DanasDome on notice that there would possibly be a violent interaction between the two individuals. Thus, there was no basis for liability against any of these defendants.
|