Skip to main content

Recent Case Developments: Dave & Buster’s Held Not Liable For Stabbing of Customer


When you operate a restaurant or a bar, etc., sometimes customers get attacked by other customers/patrons--for whatever reason. So when can the restaurant be held liable in situations like that?

In what is a horrible story, in 2010, an 8-year-old boy was at a Dave & Buster’s with his family at The Source Mall in Westbury. The boy was playing a game when he was suddenly attacked and stabbed 5 times in the back by a 23-year-old man who testified in the case that he went there to stab someone. 

[The man plead guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 14 years in prison.]

The boy (through his parents) sued the attacker (who has no money, I assume), Dave & Buster’s, and the Mall. The boy alleged Dave & Buster’s failed to provide adequate security, which would have prevented the attack.

Dave & Buster’s got the case dismissed against them at the trial court level, and the boy appealed. In a recent decision, the Second Department affirmed that Dave & Buster's was not liable for the attack.

The reason? Restaurants, bars, etc. are only held liable for such attacks if they were on sufficient “notice” of suspicious behavior/circumstances leading up to the attack--that is, if such an attack was "foreseeable". The law doesn’t hold them liable for sudden, unforeseen events.

The court said:
[Dave & Buster’s] had a duty to take minimal security precautions to protect members of the public from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts by third parties … Here, [Dave & Buster’s] established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the criminal assault of the plaintiff was not foreseeable.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Germanwings Tragedy and Claims for Negligent Retention

There has been a lot of news about the terrible crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, which resulted in the death of 150 people when the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, (apparently) intentionally crashed the plane into the French Alps. Reports are that Lubitz had suicidal tendencies and had been declared medically unfit to fly . What may soon follow are lawsuits against Germanwings and Lufthansa (which owns Germanwings) for claims similar to what New York calls "negligent retention": A claim for negligent supervision or retention arises when an employer places an employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which the injured party most probably would have been spared had the employer taken reasonable care in supervising or retaining the employee. Vione v. Tewell,  12 Mic.3d 973, 979, 820 N.Y.S.2d 682 (Sup.Ct., New York County, 2006). Under New York law, a claim for negligent hiring, supervision or retention, "in addition to the standard elements of negligence,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Fraud: Dog "Rescue" Operation Shut Down and Ordered to Pay Restitution

News 12 recently had a story  about a Calverton dog "rescue" operation that was shut down and ordered to repay $24,000 in restitution for "selling" sick dogs. This was a type of fraud on consumers. The allegations  were that the two women who operated Precious Pups Rescue "pulled"/obtained dogs that had health issues from in-state and out-of-state shelters, then sold the dogs to consumers by way of "adoption fees" or "donations" of $200 to $600 per dog. The owners of Precious Pups Rescue told consumers that the dogs were healthy  and had been checked out by a vet when that was not true. The new owners were then faced with thousands of dollars in vet bills: Zambito and Torrillo-Hooghkirk sold consumers dogs that they claimed were healthy, vaccinated, spayed or neutered, and evaluated by a veterinarian, when in fact, they were not. In fact, the dogs had visible signs of illness, such as coughing, scratching, matting and sores. After...
Post a Comment
Read more