In this day and age, it is not unusual to hear about lawsuits where the victim of a crime attempts to sue someone other than the criminal to be compensated for an injury. A classic example is the drunken brawl, in a tavern or other establishment. Usually there is no point in suing the assailant, who probably has no money to pay a judgment, and no insurance at least if it is clear that there was an intentional assault and injury. The rules in Maryland that govern such situations were discussed in a recent opinion from Maryland’s intermediate appellate court in Veytsman v. New York Palace.
The opinion indicates that Mr. and Mrs. Veytsman were invited by the manager of the New York Palace restaurant to come with another couple for dinner. That evening the restaurant was also hosting a wedding reception for between 40 and 60 guests. By the time the Veystmans and their friends arrived there were only a few patrons there, other than the wedding guests. The reception was still in high gear, with a lot of alcohol being consumed.
By between 1 and 2:00 a.m., the reception was ending and the wedding guests began boarding a charter bus. The Veystmans also were ready to leave, when their female friend became involved in an altercation with another woman from the wedding party in the restroom. The owner of the restaurant came over, order was restored, and the Veystmans assured the owner everything was under control. A few minutes later a number of people reentered the restaurant and a general brawl ensued, in the course of which Mr. Veystman attempted to defend his wife and was seriously beaten.
The restaurant did not provide security for wedding receptions of this type. The evidence showed that there had never been a fight in the restaurant before, and the only previous altercation had been between spouses in the parking lot. The Veystmans sued the restaurant, claiming it was responsible for not protecting the plaintiffs. At the end of the trial, the judge ruled as a matter of law that the plaintiffs had not proven any duty on the part of the restaurant to protect its patrons from this assault, and the appellate court agreed.
The Court noted that Maryland is one of the few states that does not allow a claim for damages against the owner of a tavern for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons, either to themselves or third parties. In such cases it is up to the court to decide if there is a duty owed by the person sued, that is, an obligation to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another. Generally, a premises owner has no duty to control the conduct of a third person toward the plaintiff, absent some special relationship like a city ordinance or a contract to provide security. There is no duty to provide security in this situation, the court held.
The Court distinguished cases where some act of the owner contributed to the criminal act, like failing to lock a door, failing to address the conduct of a known troublemaker, or failing to act with knowledge of the series of events that made imminent harm foreseeable. Such situations are addressed on a case by case basis by the courts, and there certainly are cases where taverns with a history of trouble and provide ineffective security may be found liable. This case illustrates, however, that just because someone is injured in a brawl does not mean there will necessarily be someone to sue and recover from.