. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 182319

$________ GROSS INCLUDING $________ PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARD Negligent security - Plaintiff patron is attacked in the parking lot by a fellow patron - Fractured nose, deviated septum - Right eye hemorrhage.

Fairfield County, CT

In this premises liability matter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant restaurant and the owners of the property failed to keep the premises safe and provide proper security which resulted in the plaintiff being attacked by a fellow patron in the parking lot as she was leaving the defendant’s establishment. The plaintiff suffered a broken nose, deviated septum and hemorrhage to her right eye as a result of the attack. The defendants denied the allegations, disputed liability and disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s damages.

The female plaintiff was a patron at the defendant restaurant and pub which was owned by one of the defendants. The plaintiff believed that another patron was bullying her and so informed the bar’s bouncer. The other patron and another individual followed the plaintiff when she left the bar at approximately 1:30 a.m. on October 8, ________. As the plaintiff was in the parking lot and was having an argument with the other patron, the third patron came up and punched her in the face.

As a result of the physical attack on the plaintiff, the plaintiff suffered a fractured nose, a deviated septum and a hemorrhage to her right eye. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant restaurant and its owner, as well as the restaurant manager and the owners of the property on which the restaurant was located. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to provide adequate security at the premises, failed to have control over the premises including the parking lot where the plaintiff was attacked and failed to ensure the safety of the restaurant’s patrons.

The defendants denied the allegations. The property owners filed a cross claim against the restaurant owner defendants seeking indemnification under the terms of the lease agreement. The defendants denied liability and disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and alleged damages.

The plaintiff also filed a separate suit against the head of the security at the restaurant who had attempted to break up and prevent any attack, but was unsuccessful. The action against the bouncer was consolidated into this litigation although the bouncer defaulted.

The matter proceeded to trial. The jury determined that the owners of the restaurant were 60% liable and the defendant bouncer was 40% liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The jury awarded the plaintiff the total sum of $________, which consisted of $________ in economic damages, $________ in non-economic damages and $________ in punitive damages as to the defendant bouncer.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.