Blog

Supreme Court Upholds Verdict for Customer

Photo of Jay Jackson

Last month, in the case of Del Lago Partners, Inc., et al. v. Smith, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2009)(4/2/10), the Texas Supreme Court upheld a verdict in favor of a customer of a bar. The patron was severely injured when a fight broke out between rival groups as the bar was closing and funneling all customers out through one exit. The groups had engaged in "threats, cursing, and shoving" for ninety minutes beforehand, yet the bar had not called security or closed down, and instead had continued to serve drinks. The Supreme Court affirmed a $1.48 million award - based upon a jury finding that the bar was 51% at fault and the injured customer was 49% at fault - agreeing with the court of appeals: "'A reasonable person who knew or should have known of the one-and-a-half hours of ongoing 'heated' verbal altercations and shoving matches between intoxicated bar patrons would reasonably foresee the potential for assaultive conduct to occur and take action to make the condition of the premises reasonably safe.'" Thus, while there is no universal duty to protect a patron, in this case the brawl was foreseeable.
A legal duty is a question of law. "In premises-liability cases, the scope of the duty turns on the plaintiff's status. Here, Smith was an invitee, and generally, a property owner owes invitees a duty to use ordinary care to reduce or eliminate an unreasonable risk of harm created by a premises condition about which the property owner knew or should have known." Bar owners do not "always or routinely" have a duty to protect patrons from each other. "Generally, a premises owner has no duty to protect invitees from criminal acts by third parties. We have recognized an exception when the owner knows or has reason to know of a risk of harm to invitees that is unreasonable and foreseeable." Here, proof of criminal acts or prior occasions was unnecessary. "[C]riminal misconduct is sometimes foreseeable because of immediately preceding conduct." In this case, Del Lago had a duty "because [it] had actual and direct knowledge" of an imminent violent brawl. Its duty "arose not because of prior similar criminal conduct but because it was aware of an unreasonable risk of harm at the bar that very night." The "unreasonableness" of a risk, which is not completely separated from foreseeability, "turns on the risk and likelihood of injury . . . as well as the magnitude and consequences of placing a duty on the defendant."
To determine duty, "'the court will consider several interrelated factors, including the risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury weighed against the social utility of the actor's conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing the burden on the defendant.'" This case does not announce a "general rule" of a duty, but "on these facts" the defendant had a duty. That duty requires the premises owner to "'either adequately warn of the dangerous condition or make the condition reasonably safe.'" Here, there was evidence of the breach of the duty by not contacting security, continuing to serve drinks, and inadequate training. That the plaintiff was found to be contributory negligent did not eliminate the defendant's duty. "[W]e have expressly abolished a 'no-duty' doctrine previously applicable to open and obvious dangers known to the invitee," as does the comparative negligence statute. Moreover, in "some circumstances, no warning can suffice. . . ."
Accordingly, while the Supreme Court ordinarily will not affirm a judgment against a premises owner in favor of person injured by criminal misconduct on the property, "on this record this sequence of conduct on this night in this bar could foretell this brawl."

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Awards & Recognition

  • 2016-2017 Equal Access to Justice Champion

    The Equal Access to Justice Champions Program was started by the Houston Bar Association in 2006, to help ensure placement of Houston Volunteer Lawyers cases with pro bono volunteers. Originally, firms were tiered according to size, and firms within each tier committed to accept a certain number of pro bono cases from HVL each year for five years.

  • The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers

    The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 is an invitation-only organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from each state or region who meet stringent qualifications as civil plaintiff and/or criminal defense trial lawyers. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase objective and uniformly applied process which includes peer nominations combined with third-party research.

  • Million Dollar Advocates Forum

    Established in 1993, the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (which includes the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum) is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. There are over 4000 members throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members.

  • Recognized by Best Lawyers America | Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz | 2017

    Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

  • Lead Counsel Rated

    In order to earn the Lead Counsel Rating, an attorney must not only demonstrate significant legal experience, but must also receive multiple peer recommendations advocating his or her ability. This is a key component in the screening process.

  • Texas Super Lawyers | Texas Monthly

    Each year, Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers in Texas via a patented multiphase selection process involving peer nomination, independent research and peer evaluation. The Texas lawyers who receive the highest point totals during this selection process are further recognized in Texas Super Lawyers Top Lists.

Get Your Free Case Review 713.587.9668

Let Us Help You Today! Request a Free Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Personal Injury Large Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs', taking a lead role in the plaintiffs' steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Plant Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs' steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Personal Injury Work Site Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm's client.

  • $12 Million Auto Accident 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $30 Million Personal Injury Burn Victims

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $30 million.

Our Record Of Success.

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

More Success Stories