IN FAVOR OF NON-SETTLING TAVERN PATRON Negligent Security – Plaintiff strikes head on pavement during physical altercation in parking lot after plaintiff and defendant ejected from tavern following beginning of fight – Negligent security by tavern which settles prior to trial for $________ – TBI – Seiure disorder – High/low agreement.

Middlesex County, NJ

This action involved a plaintiff bar patron who contended that after he became embroiled in a fight with the co-defendant patron and very shortly after the co-defendant was ejected, he was also ejected by the bar. The plaintiff contended that the co-defendant waited for him outside and continued the fight. The plaintiff fell backwards and struck his head, suffering a severe closed head injury and cognitive deficits.

The plaintiff contended that the tavern provided inadequate security and should have called the police rather than ejecting the patrons. The plaintiff, who arrived intoxicated, also contended that the tavern should be liable for serving him in a visibly intoxicated state. The tavern settled prior to trial for $________.

The defendant patron contended that the plaintiff started the fight in the parking lot, swung at him several times and that this defendant struck the plaintiff once in self-defense, resulting in his falling and striking his head. The defendant’s former girlfriend who was present supported this version.

The plaintiff had suffered a prior head trauma and some frontal lobe damage. The plaintiff contended that the subject incident caused severe additional cognitive deficits that he had great difficulties with everyday functioning and that the trauma caused a seizure disorder that was not previously present. The evidence disclosed that the condition was not immediately diagnosed and that the plaintiff, who returned home that night, was found in his apartment two days later in a severely disoriented state. He was hospitalized for several weeks and then spent several months in a rehabilitation hospital.The jury found for the defendant patron. The plaintiff and this defendant had entered into a $________/$________ high low agreement and the patron’s carrier settled for $________, yielding a total recovery of $________ including the amount recovered from the bar in the pre-trial settlement.