ARTICLE ID 21154
$________ Allegations of inadequate security at night club - Altercation causes plaintiff to sustain multiple fractures to face, jaw, sinus and orbital rim - Open reduction and fixation of sinuses and orbital rim required - Permanent injuries alleged.
Middlesex County
The plaintiff contended that he was attacked by four patrons at
the Hunka Bunka Ballroom, in Sayreville, which is owned and
operated by the defendant Omnium Corporation. The plaintiff
asserted that the attack occurred as a result of the defendants
failure to provide the plaintiff with adequate security by
failing to follow its own security guidelines and by failing to
follow acceptable security procedures for a night club which
could hold ________ patrons. As a result of the attack plaintiff
suffered multiple fractures to the face, jaw, orbital rim and
sinuses. The plaintiffs sinus injury required open reduction
with internal fixation. The plaintiff alleged permanent injuries,
including loss of sense of smell and taste, constant headaches
and short-term memory loss. The defendant disputed the fact that
its security was inadequate and argued that since the plaintiff
had taken a job as a sixth-grade teacher, he had recovered from
his injuries.
The plaintiff, who was 28 at the time of the incident on April
23, ________, was a patron of the defendants night club, the Hunka
Bunka Ballroom. The plaintiff alleged that he had just left the
mens room at approximately 1:00 A.M. when he was attacked by
four men who apparently fled and were never identified. The
evidence indicated that the Hunka Bunka was a night club which
catered to a young crowd and had the capacity for ________ patrons.
The evidence also indicated that the Hunka Bunka had in place
guidelines for dealing with patrons who became involved in an
altercation. The guidelines required that the persons be removed
from the premises. The evidence further indicated, however, that
the defendant did not provide any training to their security
personnel. Finally, the plaintiff obtained records from the
Sayreville Police Department which revealed that in the year
prior to the incident, the Sayreville police department had been
called to the Hunka Bunka 40 times for various reasons, including
fights and drug use.
At trial, the plaintiff would have offered the testimony of a
witness who would have stated that earlier in the evening he had
seen the same four men beat up another man. A bouncer, who
approached the persons involved in the altercation, did not
remove the patrons from the defendants premises as the
defendants guidelines required. This evidence would have been
introduced to support plaintiffs theory that the defendant
failed to follow its own guidelines and failed to properly train
its security personnel.
In addition, the plaintiff obtained the opinion of a premises
liability expert who would have testified at trial that given the
heavy use of alcohol by a large group of young persons within the
confines of the defendants night club, plaintiffs injuries were
foreseeable. In addition, the expert argued that plaintiffs
injuries could have been prevented if the defendant had more
bouncers on its staff and had provided his staff with training to
recognize explosive situations and as to when to remove patrons
from the premises.
The defendant s principle contention was that the 20 bouncers
that were on duty were sufficient to ensure the safety of the
patrons even when the nightclub was filled to its ________-person
capacity. Apparently, however, the defendant could not adequately
rebut the plaintiffs contention regarding negligence and did not
offer an expert report to support its position or to contradict
the plaintiffs experts opinion. However, at trial, it is likely
that defendant would have argued that plaintiff was
contributorily negligent and would have introduced evidence that
plaintiff was intoxicated. In addition, the defendant would have
introduced testimony of a witness who stated that the plaintiff
and the four assailants had been talking for some 30 minutes
prior to the fight and that the conversation did not appear to be
heated.
Regarding the damages issue, while defendant argued that the
plaintiffs employment as a teacher was evidence that he hadnt
suffered permanent injuries, the defendant did not obtain an
independent medical exam or offer an expert regarding the
plaintiffs injuries.
The parties reached a settlement one day before trial.
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:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- 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.